I have the same answer for most problems in the Fediverse.
If we ever have free elections in the future, whoever the next president is should order that Donald John Trump be officially and irrevocably renamed to Orange Adolph Hitler, and all of Trump’s properties be seized, demolished, and rebuilt into affordable housing.
My first thought was wondering why The Onion chose Super Intelligence instead of the more believable American Intelligence, which keeps the AI abbreviation. I really just thought this was going to be some worse Onion knockoff website.
Too Stupid to be The Onion
Fuck, I’m surprised he didn’t rename it to Gulf of Intelligence.
I mean, you are describing modern copyright.
But copyright is an example of something where the US Constitution, at least, explicitly says its purpose is to “promote” something:
[the United States Congress shall have power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
I like how straightforward the Copyright Clause is. It even gives a testable standard. The length of “exclusive Right” for IP should be the “limited” length of time that “promote[s] the Progress of Science and useful Arts.”
So, the plain reading here is that IP laws need to give exclusivity long enough to encourage creation, by making authors and inventors think it is worth the time and money investment, but not so long that they discourage creation, for example, where a person doesn’t create something because they are afraid of violating IP laws.
Originally, in the US, copyright lasted 14 years, with an option for renewing for 14 more years, and this is one example where I think they got it about right.
Wonderful, thanks for looking that up.
I remember learning about that bug years after the OS came out, and not being too surprised that it was never fixed.
Windows 95 crashed so often that you’d basically have to specifically do nothing with the machine to ever get that crash. And even then, you’d just assume that it was crashing like Windows 95 always did anyway.
So you’d be unlikely to see or recognize that bug unless you were specifically testing for uptime issues.
Also note that government NEEDS stability, which Linux very much wasn’t until recently (and arguably still isnt); this is why Windows has starting becoming a liability.
I was using Linux in the late 90s when my Linux machine would run for months, only being rebooted when I decided to do a kernel upgrade, and meanwhile everybody was running Windows 95, one of the least stable OSes that I’ve ever used. It literally had a counter baked into the OS that caused a crash if you ran it for a certain amount of days, I think 30. If stability was so important, they’d have switched to Linux back then.
Even in the late 90s, the UI was decent enough as long as you had a decent administrator. I don’t think casual users could be expected to set up Linux back then, but that’s not a government type of use case.
Why not Windows 11? Because China, like many other non-US governments, no longer trusts American companies with their software and services. This approach is all about digital sovereignty.
I never understood why any country would allow their government computers to run proprietary software from a foreign (to them) company.
I’m sure that China had access to a lot of Windows source code as part of their previous agreement, but it’s far too big a risk, really, for any country, even the United States, to run Windows.
As far as I’m concerned, China is decades late in making this decision, and it’s still ahead of a lot of (most?) governments.
It’s possible to do a good job even at the parts of the job you don’t like as much.
That’s interesting, and I think those results show that those in the study were not following good practices in the first place. Particularly how they said the quality went down.
The quality obviously doesn’t have to go down, and I mean from the first person in the chain. They don’t have to send out code reviews with more bugs in them than human generated code. They just need to thoroughly review and understand the code that is generated. The experiment I’d like to see is where they ensure that the quality doesn’t go down, and compare those development times.
I think you’re asking the right questions, and I think that, since this is a factual question, it is best solved by experiment.
Like, even if I think it’s faster, that might actually just be a quirk related to its novelty. Maybe it simply seems faster, or maybe it is faster, but only because it’s somewhat fun that it’s different, and eventually it would come back down to the speed of manual coding.
A carefully controlled experiment with many participants is certainly the best for figuring this out.
If you really want me to guess why it might be faster, I think it’s the fact that you save time reading code and reading documentation, which takes quite a bit of time while coding. AI is able to recall this sort of data with incredible speed, at the cost of some weird hallucinations and other mistakes. It’s just a guess, though.
“I’ve never had quality issues like this before in my career.”
That seems unlikely because it’s his carelessness that let these hard-to-spot bugs through.
Basically, if you want to get anywhere with AI coding, you have commit to extremely high standards. You have to insist on the cleanest code possible, that makes bugs easier to spot. You have to completely understand every line of code that you generate. You have to insist on every line of code fully tested. You have to become an elite code reviewer, not only able to critically review other people’s code, but who reviews your own code without bias, and always reviews it before sending it to others.
Interestingly, these are the same things that define a good programmer who doesn’t use AI. And all of that stuff takes a lot of time.
So, that’s the issue with AI, at least today’s generation of AI. You can use it reliably if you’re already a great programmer, and it’s bound to save you some time, but not as much time as others save who are skipping a bunch of steps. If you’re not a great programmer, you need to learn to become one to use AI well. Otherwise, it just exposes how shit you are in a way that didn’t happen before when you tried to stay in your lane and write software yourself. At least when people write it themselves, they are more likely to understand what their code is doing.
Circumcision offers no actual benefit, yet carries the risk of life changing consequences. It’s genital mutilation.
And even if they didn’t see it as mutilation, what kind of an idiot decides that the first thing they need to give their baby is elective cosmetic surgery?
True. The Republican incumbent that he’s running against, Tim Burchett, promised to legislate against Flock cameras. While that’s nice, I no longer trust the promises of any Republican.
As far as I’m concerned, we need to replace all Republican politicians. If their opponent is a Democrat, we need to be a little careful not to elect a wolf in sheep’s clothing. But if they’re independents like the guy we’re talking about, I think just about anybody would do. Like an animal or an inanimate object would even be infinitely preferable to a Republican.
It was a lemmy.ml community. I could only see anything because I specifically looked up the user who posted it.
You can try it yourself. If you don’t like the way Lemmy acts, then try making an account on a Piefed instance and see how it’s different. I had heard Piefed was better, so I tried out an account, and decided I liked it better.
When you mentioned this behavior, I actually expected that Piefed would probably handle it in a way that I’d prefer.
And besides, the original Lemmy devs are the ones who run lemmy.ml.
I am sure it depends on what interface you’re using for the content. Like, what app or web UI, and even what are the settings for that UI. For example, I use Voyager on mobile, and there was one build where I blocked a person and could still see and reply to all of their comments. Obviously that was a bug, but it shows that blocking behavior depends on the UI.
At any rate, I double-checked. I used a private window and went to lemmy.ml to find a post there where the OP for that post had also commented, and when I went to that post through piefed’s interface, I was still able to see the post, but it had a message at the top about me blocking the instance, but I was not able to see the comment from the OP under their own post. (Edit: But I could see the other comments, even the one that the OP had responded to.)
So, I can say that, from what I can see, at least in that situation, piefed.social was blocking comments from a person who I didn’t specifically block as an individual, but was a member of an instance that I had blocked.
we’re all blocking instances and users we don’t like
People commonly think that everybody else sort of thinks and acts the same way that they do. Sometimes it’s that way, but a lot of the time it isn’t. I didn’t block a single instance until I think last week. (It was lemmy.ml, not too coincidentally.) That includes my six months on piefed, as well as the several years before that on lemmy.world. I had considered blocking them in the past, but it was only recently that several accounts from there started behaving super-aggressively to me.
I’m just reluctant to block entire instances because I feel like I’ll miss out on something. But at this point, I think if you’re still on lemmy.ml, then you’re probably not somebody who I want to interact with. But that’s because it’s just famous for being tankies.
Wikipedia itself is still one of the best resources on the internet, and they actually make it pretty easy to back up their data, which is why there are so many clones out there.
If Wikimedia foundation died, somebody else would take over, and hopefully the quality wouldn’t decline too much.
Besides, we have seen it work recently. A bunch of local stations took Kimmel off the air, pressuring Disney to cancel his show. So Disney was about to cancel Kimmel, and instead everybody canceled their Hulu/Disney+ memberships, and a couple of days later, Kimmel was back.
I get what you’re saying, but it’s still harder to live in space or on Mars than to try to fix Earth. What I’m saying is that SpaceX would have to be run by a complete idiot for them to think they have an incentive to ruin the planet… Wait… It is run by a complete idiot.
Companies have always pressured software teams to ship products as fast as possible.
What’s new is the part where all of the worst coders can shit out code a lot faster and pretend like they’re doing a good job. It used to take them a while to write garbage that they didn’t understand or review themselves, but now they can do it so quickly that it makes the actual good coders look like they’re taking a long time.
This is why you absolutely have to have documented coding and review standards. The idea that you’d ship any code that has never been reviewed by a human is horrifying.
The idea that you’d work 12 hour days is so stupid to start with. I’ve seen people consistently work that long and… surprise, they don’t actually work that long. They work about the same as anybody else and goof off the rest of the time. I doubt you can even just press enter for that long. People just don’t work that way.