|
That was a lot quicker than I thought it would be.
|
|
|
|
|
It's because AI speeds things up, don'tcha know?
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
I’m begging you for the benefit of everyone, don’t be STUPID.
|
|
|
|
|
Because everyone has a box of mystery computer bits they simply can't part with Because you never know when you might need that part again
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Because you never know when you might need that part again
I still have some disquettes waiting for just in case  
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Our basic assumptions about photos capturing reality are about to go up in smoke. Reality is overrated
|
|
|
|
|
So it is "AI"
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: We are f**ked.
A conclusion I can't argue with.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Our basic assumptions about images capturing reality are about to go up in smoke.
Photos are still photos. Let's be precise, even though click-bait rules argue otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
Our basic assumptions about photos capturing reality have always been wrong. A good photographer has always been able to capture the micro-reality they want you to see, even if it's not reality.
|
|
|
|
|
Aligning it with the business strategy and demonstrating its direct impact is the key! Ask, "Pretty please, with sugar on top"
|
|
|
|
|
Unless you have not been paying attention to Microsoft for the past 18 months, you know that the company has put in a ton of resources to develop its generative AI-based services. You can't spell 'paid' without 'AI'
|
|
|
|
|
Gotta do something with all the money they saved getting rid of testers.
|
|
|
|
|
Considering the historical distinction between coder and programmer. How about 'code monkey'?
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: How about 'code monkey'?
if you pay peanuts...
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Nah, that would be the code elephant. The code monkey gets paid in bananas.
|
|
|
|
|
code elephant? Or the ![Elephant | [mastadon]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/elephant.gif) coder?
Not exactly the same  
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
In Visual Studio 2022 v17.11, you’ll discover several new features that address specific issues developers have reported. "Yes, sir, yes, sir, three bags full"
|
|
|
|
|
Partially automated driving systems scored particularly poorly. But the cup holders (ALL THE CUP HOLDERS!) are necessary
Today in "No sh**, Sherlock"
|
|
|
|
|
I was on a plane next to an auto qc/electronics (?) specialist once. He told me there are over something like 65 distinct processor units in a car - probably a lot more now with the in-vehicle entertainment systems in place. Effin crazy! A single window does not need its own dedicated processor.* I believe he said they all communicated with each other as well.
* - There is a case to be made for a simple processor controlling some windows, as modern cars have to slightly lower the windows when doors open if there is no top windowframe, which many cars now use. But 1 for each? And intercommunication? No.
He also said he was aware of a big name (Ford?) once ostracizing an engineer because they designed something like the the handle too well, so it would never break. They modified the design to one less rugged.
|
|
|
|
|
A lot of this in-car tech is spyware.
|
|
|
|
|
The Settings app has taken over, but Control Panels aren't going anywhere yet. The cancellation has been cancelled (for now)
|
|
|
|
|
I suppose they have seen how many things would get broken... and someone had a lucid moment and recommended to stop?
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Couldn't be - they've pretty much proven there are no lucid people there. 
|
|
|
|
|
That's why it was not an affirmation but a question 
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.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
