From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Observe the following discussion thread. Someone posted an
announcement about reworking the Asterisk test suite with the help of
AI; the first response is mine.

Then, a few hours later, the second response appeared.

<https://community.asterisk.org/t/need-help-testing-testsuite-untwisted/113807>

Thoughts?

By the way, that second respondentrCOs posting history is hidden for
some reason, while mine is not.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 06:45:38 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

Observe the following discussion thread. Someone posted an announcement
about reworking the Asterisk test suite with the help of AI; the first response is mine.

Then, a few hours later, the second response appeared.

<https://community.asterisk.org/t/need-help-testing-testsuite-untwisted/

113807>

Thoughts?

By the way, that second respondentrCOs posting history is hidden for some reason, while mine is not.

Thats odd, I only see your response. Not this mythical 2nd one you speak
of?
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> wrote:

On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 06:45:38 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

Observe the following discussion thread. Someone posted an
announcement about reworking the Asterisk test suite with the help
of AI; the first response is mine.

Then, a few hours later, the second response appeared.

<https://community.asterisk.org/t/need-help-testing-testsuite-untwisted/

113807>

Thoughts?

By the way, that second respondentrCOs posting history is hidden for
some reason, while mine is not.

Thats odd, I only see your response. Not this mythical 2nd one you
speak of?

Lawrence is usually trolling, so lack of a mythical 2nd response would
be very much in keeping with his normal trolling.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 20:53:19 -0000 (UTC), Jeffrey Bagely wrote:

By the way, that second respondentrCOs posting history is hidden for
some reason, while mine is not.

Thats odd, I only see your response. Not this mythical 2nd one you
speak of?

Not only has the posting disappeared, but their user page <https://community.asterisk.org/u/arz-host> has gone as well.

Looks like some moderator has taken action. Good riddance, anyway. ;)
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 21:38:03 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:

Lawrence is usually trolling, so lack of a mythical 2nd response would
be very much in keeping with his normal trolling.

appreciate the warning lol
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On 2026-08-06, Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> wrote:

On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 06:45:38 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D???Oliveiro wrote:

Observe the following discussion thread. Someone posted an announcement
about reworking the Asterisk test suite with the help of AI; the first
response is mine.

Then, a few hours later, the second response appeared.

<https://community.asterisk.org/t/need-help-testing-testsuite-untwisted/

113807>

Thoughts?

By the way, that second respondent???s posting history is hidden for some
reason, while mine is not.

Thats odd, I only see your response. Not this mythical 2nd one you speak
of?

I saw the response - it was not mythical. It certainly looked weird, and plagarising.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 16:34:07 -0000 (UTC), Jim Jackson wrote:

I saw the response - it was not mythical. It certainly looked weird,
and plagarising.

HererCOs a copy from my email notification:

I had a quick look through this commit and noticed a couple of
small things that might be worth considering.First, there are a
few `asyncio.ensure_future()` calls where the returned task isnrCOt
stored anywhere.From the docs, it looks like keeping a reference
to the task is recommended so it doesnrCOt get garbage-collected
while still running. `asyncio.create_task()`might be a better fit
here, or a `TaskGroup` could help manage the references
automatically.

Also noticed `_connect_async()` could be written a little more
cleanly by using an `else` block after the exception handling.
That keeps the successful connection path separate from the retry
case and makes the flow a bit easier to follow.

One other minor thing: explicitly inheriting from `object` isnrCOt
needed in Python 3 anymore. It doesnrCOt hurt, but it can be removed
for simplicity.

This appeared a few hours after my own posting <https://community.asterisk.org/t/need-help-testing-testsuite-untwisted/113807/2>.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On 2026-08-07, Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 16:34:07 -0000 (UTC), Jim Jackson wrote:

I saw the response - it was not mythical. It certainly looked weird,
and plagarising.

Here???s a copy from my email notification:

I had a quick look through this commit and noticed a couple of
small things that might be worth considering.First, there are a
few `asyncio.ensure_future()` calls where the returned task isn???t
stored anywhere.From the docs, it looks like keeping a reference
to the task is recommended so it doesn???t get garbage-collected
while still running. `asyncio.create_task()`might be a better fit
here, or a `TaskGroup` could help manage the references
automatically.

Also noticed `_connect_async()` could be written a little more
cleanly by using an `else` block after the exception handling.
That keeps the successful connection path separate from the retry
case and makes the flow a bit easier to follow.

One other minor thing: explicitly inheriting from `object` isn???t
needed in Python 3 anymore. It doesn???t hurt, but it can be removed
for simplicity.

This appeared a few hours after my own posting
<https://community.asterisk.org/t/need-help-testing-testsuite-untwisted/113807/2>.

I fear that such things are going to become a lot more commonplace. Just
look at the web-scraping and "fake" (parasitic?) websites that existed
before this surge in AI stuff. It can only get worse.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Sat, 8 Aug 2026 07:18:16 -0000 (UTC), Jim Jackson wrote:

I fear that such things are going to become a lot more commonplace.
Just look at the web-scraping and "fake" (parasitic?) websites that
existed before this surge in AI stuff. It can only get worse.

Scraping public forums for info is one thing. Then posting stuff back
to the same forum as though you came up with it -- and in a
mish-mashed form, lacking important details from the original -- that
I would say is a step too far.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On 2026-08-08, Jim Jackson wrote:

On 2026-08-07, Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 16:34:07 -0000 (UTC), Jim Jackson wrote:

I saw the response - it was not mythical. It certainly looked weird,
and plagarising.

Here???s a copy from my email notification:

I had a quick look through this commit and noticed a couple of
small things that might be worth considering.First, there are a
few `asyncio.ensure_future()` calls where the returned task isn???t
stored anywhere.From the docs, it looks like keeping a reference
to the task is recommended so it doesn???t get garbage-collected
while still running. `asyncio.create_task()`might be a better fit
here, or a `TaskGroup` could help manage the references
automatically.

Also noticed `_connect_async()` could be written a little more
cleanly by using an `else` block after the exception handling.
That keeps the successful connection path separate from the retry
case and makes the flow a bit easier to follow.

One other minor thing: explicitly inheriting from `object` isn???t
needed in Python 3 anymore. It doesn???t hurt, but it can be removed
for simplicity.

This appeared a few hours after my own posting >><https://community.asterisk.org/t/need-help-testing-testsuite-untwisted/113807/2>.

I fear that such things are going to become a lot more commonplace. Just look at the web-scraping and "fake" (parasitic?) websites that existed before this surge in AI stuff. It can only get worse.

They still do exist and rank on top of Google searches, don't they? That
was one of the two outcomes of Google priorizing "Chrome on
Android-friendly" websites in the results... (the other was loss of
content and information, as several entities just revamped their sites
to appeal to Googlebot, dropping e.g. drivers and manuals in the
process)
--
Nuno Silva
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2