QuiDortDine

Welcome to the future! Do you feel disrupted yet?

I think it's glass actually? Or something like glass.

I can't believe all these qualia questions have not evolved in centuries (or at least, the common discourse arond them hasn't). We all have similar rods and cones in our eyes. We have common kinds of color blindness. What other reasonable conclusion is there but that my red is your red? All the machinery is similar enough.

I suppose it's because people associate so much of who they are to the subjectivity of their experience. If I'm not the only one to see and taste the world as I do, am I even special? (The answer is no, and that there are more important things in life than being special.)

I see that you're not alone in your position clearly, but still, this is such a strange take to me. Do people not seriously not see, nay, instinctively understand the ontological difference between the difference between using code someone no longer understands and deploying code no one ever understood?

I'm not saying the code should be up to any specific standards, just that someone should know what's going on.

They're trying to build a moat by leaving out features that rely on other services. I wonder how that will work out for them.

Wow that Brazilian institute... surely they knew?

Did this person just... solve bot abuse? That should be the title of the post. I for sure want to use their solution for my own homeserver.

"Conspiracy"? There's only one dominant player, you don't need a conspiracy for that. Just Google abusing its massive power.

Stick your passwords in the cloud, they said, nothing could go wrong they said.

Not well, at least for ChatGPT. It can't follow my custom instructions which can be summed up as "follow PEP-8 and don't leave trailing whitespace".

The shoe comparison is ridiculous. For let's say 99% of people, shoe requirements are the same (in function), with almost all variations being purely esthetic. There are, let's say, 10 kinds of shoes, or perhaps 100. Make it a thousand, for argument's sake.

Meanwhile, every single business has different workflows and therefore different needs. The most common ones (browsers, etc.) are answered by traditional software. If you can write in detail the business needs as pertaining to workflows - business rules, let's call them - you've effectively made the software already. The only difference being that telling ChatGPT to do something in English and telling the computer to do it in code is that one is non-deterministic.

Software is, primarily, a means to process information, which is to say reality (in a business setting). An AI that can replace software developers can, in effect, replace every job that happens on a computer, in every company on Earth. Apart from Jevon's paradox (which is much more applicable to software than shoes), this shift would be so gargantuan that it's barely worth thinking about, in the same way that it's not worth thinking about a supervolcanic eruption: the consequences would be earth-shattering, and finding employment would be the least of your worries.

But who will they blame when the solution inevitably fails to live up to the inherently contradictory demands of the different stakeholders?

> Software development has always been a career where you are either learning new things or stagnating. AI doesn’t change the need to keep learning and evolving.

Keep in mind, there are still COBOL developers. If you want to stagnate, there's a market for that.

"Solved" in the sense that Twitch gets 50% of the payment. This is an outrageous cut.

You just described vendor lock-in. It's never fun, but it's usually a known factor for any competent decision-makers. Sometimes "good for now" is good enough...

I have no doubt React is easy if you've been there from the beginning. But if you learned it last year like me, you got to find out the hard way that things are done slightly differently in each version, introducing breaking changes which invalidate the vast majority of the documentation you can find (which you need because the official docs is absolute crap for beginners, as it assumes you already know React's paradigms).

WOW this is a long article! Still waiting for the substance though...

The only point I can agree with is that React is stupidly hard to learn. It feels like a tool made for aliens, though once you master it, it can be pretty efficient.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the JS-free web isn't coming back. And if you're using modern JS, you might as well use React (or a similar tool). The user won't be able to tell the difference.

Means "fart" for the curious.

Yep. I'm one of 2 Devops at an R&D company with about 100 employees. They need these services for development, if an important service goes down you can multiply that downtime by 100, turning hours into man-days and days into man-months. K8 is simply the easiest way to reduce the risk of having to plead for your job.

I guess most businesses are smaller than this, but at what size do you start to need reliability for your internal services?

You know when your employee quits how you have to block all their accounts? Now imagine they have access to the server room!

As an early teen I didn't understand enough to be impressed, but I was certainly fascinated for a good few weeks.

The fact that making this distinction is impossible is reason enough to stop.

Unreviewed studies say yes

Oh wow I actually misread the comment, thought it was 6d20. Ok scratch everything!

Yes, it's technically correct, but you said a larger dice, which a d12 is not :)

I would be curious to know if the larger dice version is impossible, but then I would also expect it to tell me.

Only if psychology is applied physics!

Coming from a psychology major myself, scientific studies should never be cited before being reproduced, especially not psychology studies.

It is for sure just a funny hobby project, but your statement had me intrigued:

> Suppose in D&D I am told to roll 20 d6, but instead of rolling that many dice I want to roll just two (larger) dice and add a constant. Which standard D&D dice might give the closest variance and what is the constant?

Interestingly, ChatGPT 4o tells me to use 2d19 + 51, even after correcting it and asking for larger dice. Impressive math for sure but not worth much if it doesn't respect constraints. I guess I could try again until it stumbles upon the right answer, but it's all to say it's not quite there yet.

Even just the content needs a deciding mind to prioritize. If lesson plans were enough, education would happen through VHS tapes.

I saw a video on this, honestly just seems like it'd work. And if it doesn't, well, the bottom of the literal sea seems like a good place to put stuff to avoid people stumbling upon it.