One of the hinges on our front screen door was coming off, the screws were coming loose from the wooden door jam. So I screwed it back on.
My wife and son then told me I "broke" the front door. I was confused, I thought I had fixed it
Turns out, with the door coming off the hinges, it wasn't closing properly, which meant it was ajar most of the time, so our dog could push it open with her body.
Now I'd fixed it, it closed properly all the time, so our dog started whining for someone to open the front screen door for her
So I loosened the screws, and hence "fixed" it by breaking it again
Anything running on COBOL to day is a large enterprise system. You'll have reports running in other systems in subsidiary companies that rely on bugs in the upstream cobol code.
Yeah. Bug-for-bug migration is a real thing in large code-bases in the industry. You want to replicate all behavior of the code regardless whether the behavior is a feature or a bug.
Plus most people that use Dvorak probably don't give a shit at this point because they've been touch typing on qwerty or blank keyboards for their whole life. I'm not sure it'd even be a selling point for me.
You can't use the words "reasonable debate" in your post after you've immediately jumped straight to some mythical worst case scenario of a 5 year old being given a device with no supervision and somehow managing to immediately find their way to some sort of super duper snuff porn that will scar them for life.
I agree going to the worst-case is a weak technique, and this is what the OP does:
> "Age verification" means that everyone who does anything online will have to submit to fine-grained tracking and recording of all their online activities.
> It's pretty clear by now that coding productivity increases by 10-15% with AI.
Completely offtopic for this thread but I can't be the only one that would find this hilarious if it wasn't being said in earnest in every thread.
The only thing that is clear is that measuring programming is just as impossible as it has always been. In all my years of projects they've either been resounding successes or gone down in flames. The difference between good and bad is a difference in kind. Most of the bad ones didn't even know what the hell they were building and built the wrong thing.
Like, the entire idea that some omniscient manager is looking at a thousand timelines and pondering over whether to pick the $11.5M successful one or the $9.5M successful one is literally laughable. Half of them are going to make the Hindenburg look like a bit of a whoopsie and the other half you would lock in sight unseen without a second thought.
Destroying freedom isn't a fucking compromise. If algorithmic feeds are as bad as say, heroin, then the correct response is to regulate or ban them. You're arguing for the Internet version of legalising heroin and installing a physical surveillance state to target the addicts, it's absolute fucking insanity.
We... are... talking about regulating and banning them. That is what is being done. Talking about regulating and banning them. Not
> Internet version of legalising heroin and installing a physical surveillance state to target the addicts
Whatever this is. We would be in agreement that would be bad. The debate is over whether this is that, rather than whether that is bad. Misunderstanding that makes all the discussion pointless.
Once those all decisively fail then we can perhaps talk about "welcoming of the internet police state and voicing support for removal of the free internet".
We're not supposed to be crude on HN but that's some real Dilbert level stuff right there. Like spit out my coffee laughing, cringing. It's too bad the Dilbert guy seemed to have lost his mind in meta level cynicism (and maybe his legacy as well) and also passed away, because we kind of need him now. Dilbert is almost made more for the AI age than the computing age.
You can't have freedom if a few people have a microphone that reaches hundreds of millions of people have zero responsibilities for how they use that microphone.
If you actually haven't used social media recently then I get why you'd be confused, because back in the day Facebook had a chronological timeline of people you specifically added in. The way a modern social media recommender algorithms work is completely different. If you, for example, say "I want to hear everything that Bob has to say" by "subscribing" to Bob or whatever, you "might" see when Bob says something, or instead you "might" see Mary's post from the other side of the world that has some strangely aggressive opinions about someone the billionaire platform owner happens to hate.
Social media companies have decided by buddying up to the US administration that they get to decide what everyone around you sees or hears. If a couple of billionaires decide that they don't like phyzix5761 you might just get lynched by an angry mob. That's not gonna do much for your freedom, in-fact it's kind of the opposite.
I can't really tell how you'd even use this. Is it supposed to be some sort of micro-optimisation thing to do with how HTML is parsed (now you can download chunks out of order, presumably with some performance gains since it's browser native?).
When I saw the title I was hoping it was going to be a very simple React-like API for constantly updating parts of the DOM with maximum performance since the browser devs are now involved. It doesn't look like that's what this is at all. And all these years later I'm still wondering why browsers aren't implementing an API like that when it's been obvious for over a decade now that real-time DOM updates are a vital browser feature that needs to be performant, and that developers vastly prefer a declarative model to a procedural one. Why after 15-16 years are we still building 100 versions of the same abstraction in user-land to turn Element.append into "refresh these elements when this data changes"?
Well, if it's any indication, my sister, who is very much not a tech person, randomly asked me to help her install Linux Mint a month ago, and has been using it successfully since without needing to ask for help once (at least not from me, I suspect ChatGPT is getting a workout).
That felt like an indicator to me. I only switched to Linux a year or two ago and haven't mentioned it to her once, so she got the idea from somewhere else, and had enough impetus from whatever she disliked about Windows to actually go through with the change. If I was in marketing at Microsoft I'd be shitting myself over that, assuming Windows even still fits into their long term plans somehow. It's one thing for 100,000 techies to preach Linux across the web, but if random normies start using it without fanfare, that's real change.
There's a tipping point and we may be getting close. A few of my friends' kids & nephews have recently switched. Now that Valve seems to have solved the gaming compatibility issue, what Windows only software is left for teenagers to use that OS?
Also, regardless of what you think of LLMs, it makes tech support for Linux a whole lot more accessible to the average person. There is going to be less of an expectation now that you need to have a Linux guru on speed dial for the occasional weird edge case situation.
It's been legal in Australia since 2018 and frustratingly nobody seems to give a shit except for yanks trying to point out any government's injustices other than their own.
