Yeah, for folks with previous programming experience, I generally recommend the Rust CLI book, particularly the first chapter

It makes you build a small, usable program and shows you concrete ways to handle some intermediate topics, like error handling, unit tests, bundling etc…

Yeah, they have to fight it tooth and nail, because it threatens how they want to do business on a conceptual level. But I also cannot see how they would argue this case.

If another webpage said those publishers are a right cunt (written by AI), that would be defamation for sure. So far, Google was allowed to say those publishers are a right cunt, because they were quoting another webpage.
If they’re not doing that anymore, if they’re not even paraphrasing what another webpage said, but just making own claims, then that’s their own responsibility.

In theory, I could imagine a ruling that says that paraphrasing doesn’t have to be accurate at all times, but in practice, this would be absolute bedlam. Any webpage could publish the wildest misinformation and just say that, oops, they were paraphrasing.
So, even if they can get such ruling through, there would need to be law changes sooner or later, which explicitly make it illegal again.

Oh yeah, for sure, but they do mean generative AI in this case, because it’s the hype du jour.

Of course, there’s screenshots. You just have to visit the dedicated screenshots page: https://neverball.org/screenshots

🫠

Yeah, I find it difficult, too, especially since management hasn’t caught onto this yet and still wants me to specialize.
And of course, the answer is that I should specialize in AI, because there’s currently a lot of new development happening there. But that knowledge is also getting obsolete by the minute, with ever more tools coming out and then again other tools that operate those tools for you.

The one thing I hold onto, is that no matter how the situation evolves, the basic job requirements for software engineering, i.e. being smart and being able to learn quickly, will always be an advantage.
I don’t think it’s possible to hold onto the confort zone from before, even if the industry implodes from the AI costs becoming transparent. But yeah, I do think we’ll land on our feet in one way or another.

Gradle uses Groovy or Kotlin for its DSL, though…

One reason why the LLM playing field is kind of levelled and “being first” isn’t all too meaningful, is that the research was already out there for quite some time before the hype started.

The hype got kicked off, when these large corporations figured out that pouring lots of money into this approach does something. Well, and when there were lots of cheap GPUs on the market from cryptocurrencies imploding.

But as soon as the hype was there, getting investors to give you lots of money and getting GPUs, that’s something virtually any company could do.

Having said all that, the other points still stand and they probably could’ve held their position without even being the best platform. Nevermind especially that Microsoft is most certainly getting lots and lots of investment money for LLMs, too.

Did not expect that kind of law change from such an aggressively Conservative government. I guess, there is ample reason to put the NIMBYs into overdrive, though…

Don’t think, Grok was a thing yet back then…

I do feel like AI art has entered the boomer stage of the hype cycle, as in Trump et al use it prominently, so the kids start to think, it’s

.

But I also feel like the blog post conflates two aspects. It’s not just about AI art, it’s also about every goddamn brainfart being turned into AI art.
No one needs to see a t-rex giving a thumbs-up or similar.

That’s what people are tired of, for sure. In the before times, the person would’ve chuckled at the thought and then forgotten about it. It took long enough to create an image of it, that they had time to realize that no one cares.
That barrier is now removed, so you definitely see posts online with just the dumbest brainfart turned into pixels.

I had to start reading that three times over, because I saw they mentioned “Canadian” and just assumed the angle brackets are a joke in reference to the Canadians in South Park:

“I rewrote Kafka in COBOL”

Oh man, it’s late here and I thought to myself “How would you rewrite a Kafka novel in COBOL?”… 🥴

(In case, anyone actually isn’t aware, they’re talking of Apache Kafka.)

In general, though, yeah, I also find it cumbersome how much noise these toy projects add. Actually usable software involves so much more than just dumping some code into a repo.

Nevermind that even just useful software requires you to not rewrite existing software in a worse way. You need to actually come up with something novel, which requires tons of design decisions.

Letting the LLM auto-complete those is a lot harder, because 1) you need to actually describe design goals rather than just telling it “do it like Kafka”.
And 2) because those design goals will be wrong every so often, and/or the detail decisions that you outsourced to the LLM. And then you still need to painstakingly find out what those detail decisions were, so that you can correct the decision.

Did you maybe accidentally turn on the “drunk” mode at the top?

A bucket of bytes. 🙃

deleted by creator

I imagine, this is more about software devs than sysadmins. Sure, you’ll hire a couple more sysadmins to help with the massive user growth during the pandemic. But especially combined with loans basically being made free in the same time, it’s suddenly worth hiring a bunch of devs to build the Next Big Thing™.

Once those loans start costing again and the user numbers fall off, you quickly have lots of devs that you can’t find tasks for, that are worth doing.

Also worth mentioning that universities generally see themselves as research facilities first and foremost. They teach students, because they want to get the next generation of researchers.

Sure, they’ll also do job training to some degree, because it’s a good argument to get more funding, but yeah, just not their primary goal.

Well, Bethesda isn’t actually involved in that, so it’ll be of much higher quality either way…

You’re right that there is a risk, that rebasing introduces compile errors or even subtle breakages. The thing is, version control works best, if you keep the number of different versions to a minimum. That means merging back as soon as possible. And rebases simultaneously help with that, but also definitely work best when doing that.

There may be reasons why you cannot merge back quickly, typically organizational reasons why your devs can’t establish close-knit communication to avoid conflicts that way, or just not enough automation in testing. In that case, merges may be the right choice.
But I will always encourage folks to merge back as soon as possible, and if you can bring down the lifetime of feature branches (or ideally eliminate them entirely), then rebases are unlikely to introduces unintended changes and speed you up quite a bit.

I don’t work with merges, so maybe I’m way off base, but I thought they meant, they’re working on another branch or fork, then merging the base branch into theirs every so often to get the newest changes, and then that creates multiple merge commits, which they can’t squash at the end…?

I’m not sure, about that last part, but the rest, I’ve definitely seen with contributors that didn’t know to work with rebases (and unfortunately we’re on GitHub, which only half-assedly supports working with rebases by default).