André Polykanine

I am reading a horror story in Braille.
Someone is gonna die, I can feel it.

Le Conseil constitutionnel censure l'interdiction des réseaux sociaux aux moins de 15 ans - https://www.france24.com/fr/france/20260814-le-conseil-constitutionnel-censure-l-interdiction-des-r%C3%A9seaux-sociaux-aux-moins-de-15-ans

> Le Conseil constitutionnel a censuré vendredi l'interdiction des réseaux sociaux aux moins de 15 ans, invoquant "une atteinte disproportionnée" à leur liberté d'expression. Cette mesure est notamment défendue par le président Emmanuel Macron, qui vient de charger le Premier ministre de "travailler" à la rédaction d'une nouvelle version de l'interdiction.

Tant mieux !

Had a really interesting maintainer experience today that I think perfectly captures the nuance of the current AI coding situation.
I got an AI-generated PR on Paperback from a new contributor with a very small GitHub profile. My default stance isn't anti-AI and I've even used Claude on Paperback's codebase as recently as yesterday, but open source is getting flooded with automated slop, so I left a polite comment asking for a bit of human-written justification for the feature and confirming if they had actually tested it manually, and I received a well-thought-out, genuine response. The contributor is a long-time computer scientist who doesn't know Rust, using Claude Code to build an accessibility feature to make Paperback optionally match NVDA's browse mode navigation that directly improves their daily workflow. They tested it on their end, I double-checked the diff and edge cases on mine, everything looked great, and it got merged.
To me, this hits the exact middle ground of how AI in OSS should work: A knowledgeable developer used a tool to bridge a gap and ship a genuinely valuable accessibility feature to an app they use. If I had a strict "no AI" policy, this contribution would have been shut down immediately, and both the project and the user would be worse off for it. But still, human oversight is mandatory. If maintainers just let everything slip through without pushback, repositories quickly get overrun with untested slop PRs.

I got my CPACC 5 years ago. At the time the test was through survey monkey and I did not have the same opportunities as everyone else to flag and review questions. The training course from IAAP had all kinds of issues, I had to use the Deque training materials. Once I got my certification, I found the process of putting info in to renew it each year confusing, overwhelming and inaccessible. I finally let it run out. I feel like an accessibility certification, obtaining it and keeping it should be accessible. My employer also wanted me to take the trusted tester certification, which cannot be done without sighted assistance. Overall, my feeling is that most anyone can get the paper, but when the process is not accessible, those of us who face access barriers are pushed out of holding certifications that really don’t matter since we have lived experience.