There should at least be a code of professional conduct where authors state the extent to which LLMs were used. (This would also help not wasting time by asking some “authors” about “their” paper.)
Journals themselves should make policies about the extent to which they allow the use of LLMs. In some areas it might be considered more benign than in others.
Not sure if you're just talking about past design, but currently you can use arrow keys and enter in the menubar, tapping first letter of options to hops there, and can activate menubar with a keyboard shortcut of your choosing. You can also hop directly to help, start typing and get matches to select, all without a mouse.
Yes! I did this and love it. My layouts are heavily customized so no standard painted keycaps would do me any good anyway. I use a coherent set of key colors on various layers to provide reminders of what various key clusters are about. Looks great too.
You’re a ”developer“, i guess, but not a coder (anymore), which is what your interlocutors are probably asking about. You’ve migrated to a middle manager job, not something they probably can just start doing competently. Essentially you’re agreeing with their initial sentiment, that coders will be made irrelevant.
This brings up an often overlooked aspect of the role of laws in society, that it it’s important that there exist an ability to break laws. It’s critically important to the growth and flexibility of a society that laws are never perfectly enforced, that there remain ways to evade persecution. It is healthy. Faced with this situation, societies have to think further about what might have been missed in existing law that would cause ongoing skirting of the law and find better ways to structure its mutual responsibilities that we each impose on each other, often unjustly. It would be a terrible thing if the snapshot of laws at any given moment in time was allowed to be perfectly enforced. Laws are not moral documents. Their creation is fraught with unjust power grabs and non-universal moral codes. They are also created knowing that they will not be perfectly enforced and are given exaggerated cruelty when enforced to discourage others. Perfect enforcement would require a full rewrite of all laws.
Pardons should be changed to be subject to congressional approval (and rate limited). It’s clearly been demonstrated that the temptation to abuse it is too great.
As a young engineer, I was once visited at my work desk by my CEO and the HR team because of all the Dilberts I had up on my cubicle wall. They felt they were harming morale. The engineers around me loved them, but they made fun of management, the real issue. I was surprised it merited the attention. I won a short battle over the issue and was allowed to keep them up. I still have a photo of that cubicle with them up.
Once, before the web existed, I emailed Scott and joked that perhaps he was someone at my company, looking over my shoulder. The comics were often absurd but also so accurate. He replied something friendly, I forget what.
Full agree. The TouchBar was a genuine innovation that gave new ways to interact with data and context. But without the function keys (and the real ESC) there were frequent accidental touches on the bar and a real tactile loss for existing function key intuitions. And now an extremely rare, genuine, programmable HCI innovation is scuttled because of an unthought-thru roll out. A missed opportunity. (I keep my 2019 MBP with the good keyboard largely for this, but ultimately the laptop was ruined by the super hot Intel cpu, which also makes the touch bar uncomfortable to use at times.)
I didn’t notice that it hasn’t been updated since ‘21 (TM2), but I still use it every day. Just a reliable, minimal, fully native (no electron, etc) editor that is flexible enough to keep adding new bundles to. I’m sad it’s not in development, but happy it’s an oasis from AI coding.
One can make Spaces deterministic by turning off Automatically rearrange Spaces. Add keyboard shortcuts for quick access to each. On multi-display setups, you can have the whole group of displays work in lock-step on a project by turning off Displays have separate Spaces. These are the first two things I uncheck on a new system. Each Space can be dedicated to different projects using any number of apps instead of trying to correlate Spaces with specific apps. (Sadly, you can only have up to 16 Spaces.)
Side plug, I have a utility that lets you associate names with each Space: https://github.com/hyperjeff/NameSpace (Apple should’ve made naming Spaces standard, but no.)
Bikes and scooters aren’t legal on sidewalks in Chicago, and these little robots are just clogging up what little pedestrian space still exists. Totally apart from the questionable ethics of gratuitously using tech for tasks that could be a job for someone.
Back when I used to meditate regularly, I would find that an extra meditation in the middle of a sleepless night would go a long way toward pushing off the need for sleep. Generally, meditating always left me in a slightly heightened awake state. Perhaps the help with brain fluid regulation is a core reason for both effects. (I should go back to meditating again.)
At a minimum, an education should leave you with an ability regardless of the tools at your disposal. There may come a time when whatever tool you have grown accustomed to will not be available. (If a war breaks out, for example, don’t count on any of your electronic devices to work.) By all means learn to use tools effectively, but that’s not enough.
I can’t speak to the errors you’re seeing, only that my experience is different. I’ve written well over a hundred CLI apps on macOS, of all sizes. I consider it a very good language for it too (also for scripting). A nice thing is that you can leverage the whole of AppKit/Foundation/Carbon/etc in CLI apps allowing for uniquely powerful tooling & integration.
I watched that series multiple times when i was in high school and early college. Really inspiring and the visualizations still live in my head. Unusually good production for an educational show. Set a new standard.
Ambition, with respect to wealth, can be a double-edged sword. One can imagine being both ambitious and allowing everyone to share in the benefits, and the act of participating in some advance as its own reward. Those that do gain some advantage often are hiding the tremendous work of others, gaining a grotesque share of the fortune for their being in the right place and time. To paraphrase a scene from Life of Brian, it is the (so-called) ambitious, often, who are the problem.