Zig values contributors over their contributions.

In contributor poker, you bet on the contributor, not on the contents of their first PR.

LLM assistance breaks that completely. It doesn't matter if the LLM helps you submit a 'perfect' PR to Zig - the time the Zig team spends reviewing your work does nothing to help them add new, confident, trustworthy contributors to their overall project.

We don’t do this just because it’s the 'right' thing to do, but also because it’s the smart thing to do.

There are now about 22,000 contributorsto the site, which charges between $1 and $5 per basic image

I don't believe the sprockets and sprockets-rails maintainers (actually it's up to the Rails maintainers, see rails/rails#28430) currently consider it broken. (I am not a committer/maintainer on any of those projects). So there is no point in "waiting for someone else to fix" it; that is not going to happen (unless you can change their minds). You just need to figure out the right way to use sprockets 4 with rails as it is.

Thanks for the PR @RedHatter. I think it's important to be able to specify which warnings are being disabled, and I'm nervous about the use of the code frame for this sort of thing (feels brittle), so I've opened a new PR, #3351. Will close this in favour of that

you took 4 hours to respond, so I implemented it myself

***By which I mean, it’s even in Wikipedia

Actually, I didn’t need Holmesian deductions to conclude that Aad et al. aren’t using a conventional definition of authorship. It’s widely known*** that at least two groups in experimental particle physics operate under the policy that every scientist or engineer working on a particular detector is an author on every paper arising from that detector’s data. (Two such detectors at the Large Hadron Collider were used in the Aad et al paper, so the author list is the union of the “ATLAS collaboration” and the “CMS collaboration”.) The result of this authorship policy, of course, is lots of “authorships” for everyone: for the easily searchable George Aad, for instance, over 400 since 2008.

Inthebiomedicalresearchcommunity,multipleauthorshiphasincreasedtosuchanextentthatthetrustworthinessofthescientificcom-municationsystemhasbeencalledintoquestion.Doc-umentedabuses,suchashonorificauthorship,havese-riousimplicationsintermsoftheacknowledgmentofauthority,allocationofcredit,andassigningofaccount-ability.Withinthebiomedicalworldithasbeenproposedthatauthorsbereplacedbylistsofcontributors(theradicalmodel),whosespecificinputstoagivenstudywouldberecordedunambiguously.Thewiderimplica-tionsofthe‘hyperauthorship’phenomenonforscholarlypublicationareconsidered.