|
Burn him! BURN HIM! 
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
I'm on fire, man!
π₯π₯π₯π₯
ππππ
|
|
|
|
|
I was thinking more along the lines of silk purses and sow's ears.
Iβve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
Iβm begging you for the benefit of everyone, donβt be STUPID.
|
|
|
|
|
Meh. It looks like although they've billed it as being for 32-bit MCUs they're focused on RPi Pico devices. I don't even like those, to be honest.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you - posted that almost entirely with you in mind. I wanted to see what you'd think of it. So, moving on 
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
I'm glad you posted it. Even though the Picos aren't my cup of tea I like to keep abreast of the goings on of the field, and I rely in part on Code Project for that (not heavily, as there isn't a lot of embedded here, but I do check daily)
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
SafeBreach security researcher Alon Leviev revealed at Black Hat 2024 that two zero-days could be exploited in downgrade attacks to "unpatch" fully updated Windows 10, Windows 11, and Windows Server systems and reintroduce old vulnerabilities. Windows Unupdate
Thanks, security "researchers" :angry:
"Microsoft said today that it's still working on a fix for the Windows Update Stack Elevation of Privilege (CVE-2024-38202) and Windows Secure Kernel Mode Elevation of Privilege (CVE-2024-21302) vulnerabilities used by Leviev to elevate privileges, create malicious updates, and reintroduce security flaws by replacing Windows system files with older versions." <-- coming soon in a Windows unupdate near you.
|
|
|
|
|
"Journey to the Center of the Doh!" - Jules Verne-Simpson
|
|
|
|
|
Like Starlink, China's Qianfan satellites have an easy-to-pack flat-panel design. We're about to have satellites on our satellites
More bad news for optical telescopes...
|
|
|
|
|
We are going to need a bigger Mega Maid[^] if we want to get rid of the space crap...  
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Terawatt lasers with a large enough aperture would also do the job, by vaporizing the satellites. This would have the advantage of keeping the power plant where it's easily serviceable.
(As the satellites are vaporized, we won't get a Kessler syndrome)
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
And their rockets look a lot like Falcon 9 as well.
|
|
|
|
|
What a remarkable coincidence! 
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Users just want stuff that works. How hard can it be? "Fast, good or cheap β pick two"
Shocking data: "Ali points to research (commissioned by himself) that shows British adults would much rather software worked properly than was chock full of new features."
---
"Testing is kind of one of those tools that are there, but in order for testing to actually be able to work at all you need to know what you're testing. So you need good requirements to outline the non-functional requirements that are there." <-- can I get an 'amen'?
|
|
|
|
|
Article wrote: Users just want stuff that works. How hard can it be?
Devs just want clear and binding requirements, how hard can it be?
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
We've tried agile, DevSecOps, and low-code β now what? The dev is falling! The dev is falling!
|
|
|
|
|
Article wrote: We've tried agile, DevSecOps, and low-code...
No, I didn't. I already knew that most of it was being used wrong.
Kent Sharkey wrote: now what?
Activating common sense could be a good start.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
It's the end of software development as we know it, and I feel fine.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Even in the IT industry of tomorrow, human creativity and domain expertise will still be required, as AI-generated code needs human overseers to ensure correctness. How to think seems like a good start?
|
|
|
|
|
I'm afraid most academic institutions shy away from teaching critical thinking, because if they did, it would enable the students to see through their B.S..
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
An important aspect to getting the code right is getting the spec right. If AI/LLMs become good enough to generate code for large systems, the problem simply shifts from writing correct code in a computer language to writing a correct spec in a natural language. In that case, programmers should be taught how to spot ambiguous or incomplete specs and fix them.
|
|
|
|
|
A trio of ethicists at the University of Oxford's Oxford Internet Institute has published a paper in the journal Royal Society Open Science questioning whether the makers of LLMs have legal obligations regarding the accuracy of the answers they give to user queries. People don't listen to ethicists, so why should AI?
|
|
|
|
|
Article wrote: whether the makers of LLMs have legal obligations regarding the accuracy of the answers they give to user queries.
Yes, please.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
But they have no problem with LLM makers sucking up shitloads of copyrighted content without consent? Then they are not ethicists. They are pundits.
Quote: The researchers also suggest that LLMs used in high-risk areas such as health care should only be trained on truly useful data, such as academic journals
Ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha! Ha ha ha!
|
|
|
|
|
I think the responsibility should lie with the person using the AI information. If they rely on it improperly to make an important move, then it is they who should pay the price, not the providers of the AI.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
