I’m with you, stuck at a billion dollar software company with an AI fetish. It’s a great search tool, can write some decent unit tests. But God help you if you let it write production code, for any of the “you won’t find this on stackexchange” stuff we all work on.
Traffic shapers can prioritize connections or streams differently, even if they can’t see inside them. Higher priority for quick connections, like interactive web page views, diminished priority for “oops that’s actually a bulk download it seems”.
This, 100%. Use whatever language you’re fast and fluent with. If you don’t have any of those yet, C is a good choice. Get books and tutorials from the 90s or 2000s and OpenGL is a great place to start.
The most limited resource that you have to manage would be your own energy and passion. Don’t go out and seek that dopamine hit of validation from others until you’ve built something. “I want to build something” is OK, but “I’ve started building something, it runs somewhat, here’s a repo, I’m stuck, HAAAALP!” is way more compelling.
Devs make mistakes. We want to put up guardrails so mistakes don’t hurt us so much.
Please don’t deliberately line the guardrails with barbed wire.
N=16 developers
I feel like there should be a third box with Wall Street raider types, for scrapers that use Selenium browser automation.
I don’t think it’s entirely unblockable - adsense seems to know to only serve unmonetized PSA ads - but I think it’s very difficult to discriminate between “this is a real browser controlled by an end user” and “this is a real browser being controlled by automated test software”.
Wait… I just had an idea.
Make a tarpit out of subtly-reprocessed copies of classified material from Wikileaks. (And don’t host it in the US.)
This.
My units and integration tests are for the things I thought of, and more importantly, don’t want to accidentally break in the future. I will be monumentally stupid a year from now and try to destroy something because I forgot it existed.
Testers get in there and play, be creative, be evil, and they discuss what they find. Is this a problem? Do we want to get out in front of it before the customer finds it? They aren’t the red team, they aren’t the enemy. We sharpen each other. And we need each other.
Love this, 100% accurate. QA people are amazing, protect us from ourselves in so many ways we didn’t even think of.
Can you still just print and mail a 1040?
2024 was my first year married, and my wife tells me I will be filing this year.
In the US? You have to pay taxes. Don’t need to file. See Substitute For Return (SFR). I’ve done this ever since the Bush administration.
Intuit are quick to point out the massive deductions you’re missing out on. Until you pay for their services, and those theoretical deductions evaporate.
deleted by creator
I hope they explain further. Honestly I don’t think the “oh crap I need to know if it’s good or bad right now!” camp is really going to care, but it still feels a little uncomfortable. (As opposed to the “this could be either way, I don’t have enough evidence to decide right now, and I’m ok with holding that uncertainty in my brain until new evidence moves my needle” camp)
Are forked builds possible with third party service references neutered?
Don’t worry, you aren’t missing much. That paragraph was kind of goofy anyway.
Think of a Seedbox as a cloud service provider with convenience features focused on enabling piracy, by keeping the hardware in a jurisdiction that doesn’t care what you pirate and giving you one-click easy installation methods for apps that make piracy simple. But without going so far as “Thank you for your payment, download these specific media files here.”
You debatably have to be a techie. But by techie standards it’s very easy to use.
If you really hate piracy, I suppose you could pay for one for a month, get the identity of who you paid, and use one of the apps to host a shell script that listens on one of the few public ports you have access to, that answers every incoming connection with “this is a seed box operated by ABC, with cards payments accepted by LMNOP Inc in Athens, Greece.”
But the most common usage is running packaged software they let you run (like BT clients you can remote-control, sickchill, radarr, sonarr, Plex, etc.) or remote desktops or shells. Usually implemented as docker containers.
I’m surprised I’m the first comment saying this, but all I see is a user who needs help expressing their needs but who is not getting that help. Sure they don’t have our experience with decomposing problems and anticipating technical issues, but that’s normal and expected.
Agreed, one of those “technically correct but deliberately missing the point” statements. Not sure why you’re so heavily downvoted so I want to explain why I support your statement.
The original statement doesn’t suggest they fail to understand words are constructed for sharing meaning, it asserts that the statements don’t communicate anything useful because the speaker made them up.
The statement is wrong, it needs a response, but “all words are made up” is not a useful response. It’s technically correct but fails to meet the speaker halfway by understanding their position and building towards it. See also: “all lives matter.” Technically correct but not useful, and deliberately avoids trying to understand the speaker’s position.
I couldn’t find the clip, but first thing that came to mind was the StarTalk Live with Buzz Aldrin and John Hodgman.
Hodgman: “maybe they’ll find H 2 2 2 2 O!”
Edit: crap, I have to call myself out. I failed to read completely, thought the screenshotted poster accidentally changed one part of the comparison, instead of deliberately changing both parts. If the original was molecules in a cubic inch of water vs stars in the observable universe, I read this post as atoms in a molecule vs stars in the observable universe.
Apologies, I discovered I was a fool and was excited to share my discovery.
I think image generators in general work by iteratively changing random noise and checking it with a classifier, until the resulting image has a stronger and stronger finding of “cat” or “best quality” or “realistic”.
If this classifier provides fine grained descriptive attributes, that’s a nightmare. If it just detects yes or no, that’s probably fine.
There’s a lot of “And then for some reason we did this, and it was more complexity” in this paper. I think that’s missing the point of languages, as a conversion layer between machine code and weird, squishy human brains. We think better, hold abstractions in our minds better, when the language maps more closely with how we’re structuring the problem in our minds.
Not sure if you were even looking for paper reviews.