Theres a similar ad fod chatgpt that is on YouTube and it totally baffles me. It shows a guy lifting weights and then someone typing into chatgpt "can you help me get to 40kg by Xmas" and fhen he goes back to lifting weights again.
What the hell was that?! Chatgpt didnt do anything. The person that made that ad should be fired for gross incompetence
Exactly - junior engineers haven't yet developed a good taste of "how much the system should try and deal with errors" - so they always go way overboard to guess and try and fix errors way too much. I agree with you - this is a client error - 409 and make them fix the bug on their side. Clean, reliable, simple, separation of responsibility.
They are not using Docker at runtime for their services. Every company uses Docker for builds unless they have a particular cost or ethos they're avoiding and purely using Linux/podman/buildah/et al.
Thinking about it a little further, though, I believe Rancher Desktop has come a long way and may be eating market share.
There are more secure alternatives. Are you sure those you listed actually use it on the servers? I would guess that at least Spotify and Netflix uses some other container runtime than Docker on their production servers.
For a long time Docker was helpful and opened exposed ports on the firewall. So you wanted to access your redis ports locally and exposed it on the container? Now everything in there is accessible on the open internet.
I believe they've fixed it but I haven't used Docker in years so I wouldn't know.
"Manipulation" is a negative form of influence. You can influence people positivly and you can influence people negativly. It's possible to alter peoples behaviour by influencing them in a positive way (for example: Leading by example), in fact, this is the job of any good leader.
Changing peoples behaviours isn't always the negative form of manipulation.
Thats what I thought too, people in this thread are giving anecdotal evidence of "being productive in dreams" and then telltelling stories about one or a small handful of problems their mind voluntarily solved while sleeping, that's a very different thing from the eventual capitalistic dream-learning that is the inevitable ending of this research. They'll claim its a utopian dream of "only learn when you want to", and that its totally optional ... then a few renegade companies adopt it and get ahead, then more adopt it, then its mandatory and performance reviewed.
Most software doesn't really have "hard enough problems" unless you're working in deep tech. The majority of SWEs are probably working on some sort of SaaS which isn't super challenging for a model like Opus 4.7. Most of the problems I face are on the product side, which I do need to take time to think through, but it's not as challenging as debugging in the good old days.
How do you go from SaaS to “not super challenging”? The part of a SaaS product that I’m working on uses graph algorithms to work with what’s essentially an interactive form. There’s some mildly university-level computer science stuff and it’s mixed with enough domain expertise that Opus 4.7 is still unable to make even small changes without breaking everything or going against the architecture.
Then get a better, more challenging job. Its your responsibility to make sure you stay sharp and keep growing, by pushing at the edge of capability and stretching yourself.
At the gym, the bodybuilder increases the mass of the weights until a workout generates the correct amount of stress, because thats how they get to the next step.
Or dont, stay where you are and atrophy, whatever :))
Yeah i really valued learning to code when I didn't have the internet available, if taught me patience and deep thinking, problem decomposition and organic (brain) execution
That is great for core principles. But languages and development environments have since assumed everyone has access to then internet. Meaning more "stuff" is the solution to problems (massive standard libraries or community created ones) rather that elegent language solutions.
The internet enabled all the complexity we have today. LLMs will have a similar effect, but instead of engineers actually having to understand the system (even in it's complexity) they will just be querying the oracle to build things or solve problems.
When the oracle can't help (or maybe refuses to) is when it gets interesting.
Similar to me, I learnt some html tags through a book which was sold at newsstand, once I was at my cousin's house using her computer without internet access, then I wrote a simple html page with the Win 95 cloud wallpaper as background image. My cousin was terrified how I did that!
I feel bad for both sides in this. Google can be put under so much pressure by the government, they are basically forced to do what they says; yes they can fight it, but if the government wants something badly, they will get it, they have powers (especially under the very broad definition of 'national security') to just get automatic compliance, using the same powers they can silence the companies from publishing anything about it too.
I of course feel bad for the student here too, he should not be targeted for exercising his rights to peaceful protest.
But Google is not the enemy here, I would bet good money their hand is forced to comply and their mouth is silenced. The enermy here is the overreaching government and ICE
I do not feel bad for Google here and they are at fault. If they are in a tight bind now it is only because they have eroded the privacy safety buffer so thin over the past few decades that they are finally having a hard time walking the line. If they had been fighting for strong, clear, boundaries then this wouldn't be an issue. Instead they have pushed automatic TOS changes that let them do what they want when they want and ignoring privacy settings and selling info to anyone with no consequences. Yes, they are likely in a 'tight bind' right now but it is one that they set up for themselves.
I feel bad for both sides in this. Google can be put under so much pressure by the government, they are basically forced to do what they says; yes they can fight it, but if the government wants something badly, they will get it, they have powers
Or they could implement end-to-end encryption for many of their products and they wouldn't be able to give the government the data, even if they wanted to. But that would hamper them to analyze data for ad targeting.
Google's sin here is not in obeying a warrant, it's by pressuring a strategy of extreme concentration of power and intermediation. Google wants to know who you talk to, where you are, where you work, how much money you make, what kind of jobs you are interested in, whether or not you've searched for recipes to make controlled substances, etc. etc. We can be happy that they failed, or at least are only weakly succeeding. They almost completely dominate email services, which were supposed to be distributed and run by whomever. This is hugely anticompetitive practice, right in the middle of our relatively new ubiquitous information infrastructure. One side effect of this is that they are one-stop shop for governments to get extremely detailed profiles of..to be honest, almost of all of us. But that's just one of the unfortunate side effects.
How does one feel bad for a corporation, especially of this size? Double so for one that quite literally removed "Don't be Evil" as its motto and from its code of conduct.
The corporation has no feelings and I don't imagine the board members or shareholders are feeling bad about this.
I don't! For one thing, Google is not a person and has no feelings. Individuals within Google decided to comply. And none of those individuals would face any significant consequences for not complying. The US government, even now, has an extremely good track record of treating companies separate from their employees.
The US is not in a full blown authoritarian regime. Big companies aren't failing to resist because they fear dire consequences. They're doing it because they don't care. If they think caving to the administration will result in $1 in additional profit compared to fighting it, that's what they'll do.
Big corporations are paperclip maximizers but for money. Treat them like you'd treat an AI that's single-mindedly focused on making number go up.
> Google can be put under so much pressure by the government, they are basically forced to do what they says
This is true, but only because Google is a horrific monopoly and is allowed to continue to be (and to grow) only by the grace of government. If they don't do what they're told, they won't be allowed to steal in the way that they are accustomed to doing.
I don't think that anybody who controls Google misses a moment of sleep over it, though. They're being "forced" to do it like a kid is being "forced" not to do their homework if you offer them candy. It's easy and lucrative to be passive.
Utter nonsense. All it would take is for all of these trillion dollar companies to stand up to fascism. Yes, corporations don't have a conscience, but this would be good for their bottom line. They chose not to.
What the hell was that?! Chatgpt didnt do anything. The person that made that ad should be fired for gross incompetence
reply