The real deal y0

  • 1 Post
  • 190 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 16th, 2023

help-circle





  • He isnt wrong. This comes from somebody who technically uses ai daily to help develop ( github copilot in visual studio to assist in code prediction based on the code base of the solution ), but AI is marketed even worse than blockchain back in 2017. Its everywhere, in every product, even if it doesnt have ai or has nothing to do with it. Monitor ai shit? Mouse with ai? Hell, ive seen a sketch of a fucking toaster with ‘ai’.
    There is shit like microsoft recall, apple intelligence, bing co pilot, office co pilot, …
    All of those are just… Nothing special or useful. There are also chatbots which bring nothing new to the table either.
    Everyone and everything wants to market there stuff with ai and its disgusting.
    Does that mean that current ai tech cant bring anything to the table? No, it totally can, but 90% of ai stuff out there is, just like linus says, marketing bullshit.


  • As a software developer i know what iterative development means, its in our blood and brains ( or at least it should be ). Simulations can indeed only get you so far, and i agree sometimes you have to make things and take a plunge. However, and i would like to be really wrong here so correct me if im wrong, but other companies like nasa, do not just shoot shit up in space and hope for the best. They arent allowed to do so for a reason. They test and calculate everything very rigoursly to make sure itll hold up as expected. From thruster power, resistance to continues extreme heat from reentry, …
    All of that they do here, on earth, before shooting anything up into space. Otherwise things like the rover on mars would have needed like 20 tries instead of 2.

    These are things that looks like spacex is just throwing out the window.
    To take it back to software development, they are doing an iterative development ( which is very good for what they are doing! ) but their testing before production/release of software is so basic theyll just see how it responds out there. Thats a huge nono to me if youre going to end up crashing all those rockets in the sea killing a shit ton of nature in the process. Sometimes the means dont justify the costs to me, and this is one of them. Yes, the booster catching was nice to see ( eventhough it nearly ended badly ) and its idea is very good and needed, but the way to get there is…messy.


  • Specially this. How space x handles failures is a very hard nono in my book. “But we test in the field” is what space x says, and as a software developer its like saying “we test in production”.
    Yes youll get something use able faster, but its way way more costly in the long run and is nasty in between.
    My arse they cant test this stuff on earth. We have simulations, models, calculations, test, everything. Yes, things can and will sometimes still fail when going in production ( in flight ) but you want to lower the risk of it failing cause its costly as fuck.

    They dont seem to care though.

    Also, im not saying what they are building towards is bad, it really really isnt, but their methods is… Bad








  • Not saying youre wrong, but you took the wrong project as an example hehe.
    Visual code is not open source. Its core is, but visual code isnt. The difference is what visual code ships with, on top of its core.
    Its like saying chrome == chromium ( it isnt ).

    Visual code comes with a lot of features, addins and other stuff that isnt in the core.
    .net debugger for example, is not found in vscodium ( build of the vscode core ). And there is more stuff i cant think of now but have come across. Source: been using vscodium for a few months instead of vscode



  • Thats just dual booting. That wont work with the law if the contract says anything created using company hardware is theirs.
    And yes, some companies need to give you a green light to work on projects in your free time, because they might have a team doing similar things somewhere, it might compete in something they would like to do in the future or like you said, might use company know how which is a huge nono. Its bs imo, but those clauses and rules are found in some employment agreements.
    Remember, always read your employment agreements!



  • And not every team is allowed to do that.
    Also, youre telling somebody who has worked with big companies not allowing it in their employer contract that he is lying? Riiiight…
    A lot of google devs also are not allowed to do any linux work outside of work without explicit permissions because of all the internal docs, teams and other work being done on linux from within google. Development rights is an absolute mess, legally.
    I usually dont care and do what is right, despite what my emploter contract says, but i have gotten in trouble for it


  • I agree they should have sent a patch to the grub source, but keep in mind big software companies like microsoft, Verizon, … do not normally allow their product teams to send a patch or PR to open source projects. This is because in their contract it states that all code written on and during company times is owned by the company. This means that it is impossible for them to make a patch or PR because it would conflict with the projects licence and fact its open source.
    This changes when the team explicitly works on the foss product/project like the ms wsl team or the team working on linux supporting azure hardware, but that is an exception. I do not believe the microsoft kernel/bootloader team is allowed to send patches to grub.

    Its a terrible thing, and it shouldnt be, but thats the fact of the world atm.