That was an interesting read.

Encyclopedia Brittanica wasn’t designed to be addicting and offer misinformation for one.

Huh? It seems to me these are all books about technical skills.

They can’t close the source code as long as they use the Linux kernel, right? Besides, Android is popular among other companies because they can customize part of it as they see fit.

This change isn’t really that drastic, because Android never really followed the open source way of doing things. The article even explains that this won’t change much even for ROM developers, since they’re not creating releases based on “work in progress” branches.

Really the only difference is that Google will spare the work of merging two separate branches often and solving conflicts that might as well be turning into a nightmare as the code base has grown.

This is a troll’s or a teenager’s line of thinking.

Kinda reminded me back in college I had a friend who I’d describe as a genius in computer science and programming. I was always so jealous how he was so knowledgeable about everything teachers talked about to the point of correcting them sometimes (and hurting the ego of some of them, which isn’t very smart).

He was like a C++ nuts to the point of having some of his code on the Boost library (which was impressive for a 20yo), but when Rust started getting popular back then, he really got into it and quickly became an “evangelist”. For some years, everything was about Rust, if you stopped to talk to him.

I met him year later and asked if he was still working with Rust, and he said after using it for enough different use-cases, he actually started to dislike it and pointed out a lot of problems and flaws that I wouldn’t possibly remember. I think he also said the community was very toxic and was taking the language to a direction he didn’t like. I suspect nowadays he is just another fella using Lua and C++ for his personal projects.

Even if it was, there’s no way to know, people can just lie. It’s not like it will be obvious, some people might have a feeling it is (based on their experience playing with LLMs) but won’t be able to point exactly why.

Besides what other people said, one example is classes being closed by default (you need to explicitly set a keyword to make them open to extension). That was done to prevent inheriting from classes that weren’t designed to be inherited, and forcing you to use composition instead.

…so might as well say that “agent” is simply the next buzzword, since people aren’t so excited with the concept of artificial intelligence any more

This is exactly the reason for the emphasis on it.

The reality is that the LLMs are impressive and nice to play with. But investors want to know where the big money will come from, and for companies, LLMs aren’t that useful in their current state, I think one of the biggest use for them is extracting information from documents with lots of text.

So “agents” are supposed to be LLMs executing actions instead of just outputting text (such as calling APIs). Which doesn’t seem like the best idea considering they’re not great at all at making decisions—despite these companies try to paint them as capable of such.

If they actually wanted quality documents for people to use, they would be advocating for Standard Ebooks or something.

Or… you know… have PDFs that aren’t pictures of handwritten text?

Yeah, none of that would be a problem if the car isn’t connected to anything (WiFi, Bluetooth etc.)

Imagine when the author hears about the “Create an app in 20 minutes with AI” tools.

This is why technically software is a liability. The less code you need, the better, since every line of code is a potential vulnerability and something to maintain, update, etc.

But is it that different than the podcasts voices Google already generate with NotebookLM since a while ago?

Only chatGPT has these kinds of comments as if you’re seeing code for the first time. 😆

I’m not against adding comments where is needed: in the company I work for (a big bank) my team takes care of a few modules and we added comments on one class that is responsible to make some very custom UI component with lots of calculations and low level manipulations. It’s basically a team of seniors and no one was against that monster having comments to explain what it was doing in case we had to go back and change something.

For 99% of the code you just need to have good names though.

Just a reminder that reencoding already compressed videos is a recipe for destroying the quality, unless you’re using a very high bitrate, which quite often gets you the same size as the input video.

I think the consensus is that if your video isn’t 4k or higher, there isn’t much gain in using HEVC if it is already H.264.

So if you want to store them long term, reencoding them now means that if you decide to do it again later (for whatever reason) you’ll have too many artifacts accumulated.

Yeah, a video is a video.

And I already have the next bubble ready: https://youtu.be/wSHmygPQukQ

deleted by creator

It could serve both as an explanation of concepts and references to the sources, just like Wikipedia. Ex: it could have pages about Kindle, about Chrome etc. detailing the privacy problems, the timeline of news about them and so on…

Sure it would be a lot of work to have a lot of information, but if it’s something other people can help contribute it could actually grow as a knowledge repository on this subject.

This has quite a lot of links already. I feel like it would be very useful to make some sort of “Wiki” about this.