[flagged]

I do, and I deal with it all the time.

Sometimes I get code handed to review that has to same variables set multiple times, additional classes/methods/functions added that aren't used, and when questioned I get a shrug as a response.

Slop.

Sometimes they review it and tidy before handing it over. Much like although we have printing presses, hopefully someone reviews it to make sure that they actually printed square on the page.

Not slop.

The problem is that we have lazy people and mandatory LLM usage has forced us to confront these people that don't even proof what they write. Before they would just hide in the background and not do anything.

Literal slop.

▲

foo12bar 17 hours ago | parent [-]

No, this isn't what I mean. What does the word "literal" mean to you?

Because to me it means the opposite of figurative.

Ex., if I say "It literally costs an arm and a leg", that means I'm really paying in body parts.

Or if I say "Your book bag literally weighs a ton", it means I'm saying it's actually 2000 lbs. and would take heavy machinery to lift it.

Or in this case, you are saying the "slop" program or code somehow actually transformed into some mystery food melted into a gelatinous dish when you add "literal" to it.

	▲	debugnik 15 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Welcome to hyperbole.
	▲	otabdeveloper4 11 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slop > broadly : a product of little or no value : rubbish