I understand there is a position of "we've always done it this way, so we keep doing it this way"
And.
"we need to move with the times and use new tech!".
But surely there is some happy middle ground that doesn't end up with a entire js runtime in the damn start menu?
I'm a fairly casual dev compared to faang folk, but surely even they realised this was an awful choice?
I read the first two paragraphs, found a bunch of fairly glaring errors, and got put off.
>It has type hints, which are optional, which means they’re not there.
I mean it is there, and it works.
I've also not had an AI make a dict key error in a while, but mostly as I use objects - haven't magic strings in code been bad for a while now?
Also llms are bad at architecture, not things like typing or keys. I'm really struggling with even opus having an absolute atrocious abstraction approach, and has made implementing business logic incredibly difficult. Borderline having to throw out days of work.
>>It has type hints, which are optional, which means they’re not there.
>I mean it is there, and it works.
The argument is that developers will avoid using things if they don't have to, especially if they're not used to it. But this isn't every developer nor an universal truth, just a jab at things.
Google is paying Mozilla to be the default search engine. Google is only paying Mozilla because Firefox has users, regardless if they use the default search engine or not. So, indirectly everyone is the 'product'.
I'm sure if 95% of people did swap to ddg, then google may change their mind.
Also I believe there is the possibility Google also pays Mozilla to offer competition so Chrome isn't considered a monopoly (but maybe Edge has changed that to some extent?)
Wouldn't having a warrant, with the purpose redacted - if that's the concern, be a good balance of "proof of legitimacy" but also keeping some presumably sensitive information private?
I feel even if the models are stagnating, the tooling around them, and the integrations and harnesses they have are getting significantly more capable (if not always 'better' - the recent vscode update really handicapped them for some reason). Things like the new agent from booking.com or whatever, if it could integrate with all hotels, activities, mapping tools, flight system, etc could be hugely powerful.
Assuming we get no better than opus 4.6, they're very capable. Even if they make up nonsense 5% of the time!
I'm not sure this is actually a necessary explanation...but while propellers technically COULD function in space (not a perfect vacuum, right?)...they're basically going to be useless.
He probably misuses "propeller" which is strangely restrictive to "rotative blade propulsion" in English whereas "to propel" is generic in its meaning.
Inflammable made me so angry as a child/teen when I found out. I read it in our encyclopedia set but we didn't have a dictionary, and this was pre-internet.
It was in the context of hydrogen and I could have sworn it was flammable. But here is this encyclopedia telling me it's INflammable. It's... not flammable? Looked it up in the school library.
Thank you, that memory came up from the depths of time. Probably haven't thought about that in 30 years. Funny how we sometimes just didn't know stuff, and couldn't find out back then.
It's just a parsing error. "in-" is also a prefix to create verbs from a name or another verb like inhume, inflame, induce, incite, inject, infiltrate. Inflammable is (inflame)-able and not in-(flammable)
There are many counter-examples to your examples, such as “direct” and “indirect”, “humane” and “inhumane”.
The words used should be clear in their meaning. “Inflammable” is ambiguous, and it makes a great deal of difference which meaning is intended.
Flammable is unambiguous, as is non-inflammable. I’m forced to use these. Personally, I’m more in favour of flammable (able to catch fire) and inflammable (not able to catch fire).
There's an inconsistency but no ambiguity, only ignorance. Inflammable only ever means one thing regardless of how ridiculous english might be.
The historically correct term would be non-inflammable. The modern variant is non-flammable.
Similarly, inflammable is the historic term and flammable is the modern variant.
The confusion arises when people are exposed to the word flammable and then attempt to apply the usual rules to construct a word they've never actually used before.
This isn't the usual sort of inconsistency introduced by our fusing multiple incompatible languages. It's from the original Latin and I'm unclear what led to it. For example consider inflammable versus inhumane. It seems Latin itself used the prefix to mean different things - here on(fire) versus not(human). But confusingly it's ex to indicate location, despite ex also being the antonym of in. So ex equo means you are on horseback, not off it as I would have guessed.
> There are many counter-examples to your examples, such as “direct” and “indirect”, “humane” and “inhumane”.
They are not counter-example. You use the other "in-" prefix that take an adjective and give the opposite adjective, not the one that create a verb from a noun.
That's potentially true, but not necessarily. I haven't looked into this particular case, however it's entirely possible that a lot of the EU have started divesting from Windows and into suse, which has caused a big spike in revenue here.
But surely there is some happy middle ground that doesn't end up with a entire js runtime in the damn start menu?
I'm a fairly casual dev compared to faang folk, but surely even they realised this was an awful choice?
reply