Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 188
- 1
What is this place?
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
If in doubt, please post it!
Rules
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule

Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
That is pretty funny that they changed the official documentation to just say to use an agent.
Like, I can sort of see the idea: upgrading from .NET Framework always had too many edge cases for the dummy automated tools to ever really work fully correctly. There was always cleanup to do afterwards, so wouldn't it be nice to have an agent do that whole process instead? But if the recommended agent isn't actually smart enough to do it, then that's just giving up on maintaining any actual solution.
I'd agree with the other comment though that a normal non-agentic LLM could probably do the task way better. If your projects really are small, you could probably just go one at-a-time, concatting each .csproj file with all its .cs files into one big .txt file (labeling each file within the big text blob), feed that to Gemini Pro or some equivalent smart and big-context model, and let it give you back all the changes you need. Would still be a slower process than the CLI, though it might handle some of the edge cases better (especially where there aren't directly equivalent APIs).
In any case, the good news is that once you're through the .NET upgrade, you never need to worry about .NET Framework again. Only poor, poor Microsoft still needs to worry about .NET Framework. I kind of feel bad for them, except that it's also kind of their fault what with the bad communication that so many organizations are still on it.
More options
Context Copy link