To be fair, most of the chaos is done by the devs. And then they did more chaos when they could automate their chaos. Maybe, we should teach developers how to code.
Does it though? Even without LLMs, any sufficiently complex software can fail in ways that are effectively non-deterministic — at least from the customer or user perspective. For certain cases it becomes impossible to accurately predict outputs based on inputs. Especially if there are concurrency issues involved.
Or for manufacturing automation, take a look at automobile safety recalls. Many of those can be traced back to automated processes that were somewhat stochastic and not fully deterministic.
Impossible is a strong word when what you probably mean is "impractical": do you really believe that there is an actual unexplainable indeterminism in software programs? Including in concurrent programs.
I literally mean impossible from the perspective of customers and end users who don't have access to source code or developer tools. And some software failures caused by hardware faults are also non-deterministic. Those are individually rare but for cloud scale operations they happen all the time.
Thanks for the explanation: I disagree with both, though.
Yes, it is hard for customers to understand the determinism behind some software behaviour, but they can still do it. I've figured out a couple of problems with software I was using without source or tools (yes, some involved concurrency). Yes, it is impractical because I was helped with my 20+ years of experience building software.
Any hardware fault might be unexpected, but software behaviour is pretty deterministic: even bit flips are explained, and that's probably the closest to "impossible" that we've got.
Yes, yes it does. In the every day, working use of the word, it does. We’ve gone so far down this path that theres entire degrees on just manufacturing process optimization and stability.
The thing is that so many people are used to doing whatever they want from behind the safety of their screen and are now able to do a lot of things they don’t want anyone to know about. Now the law and common sense is catching up and we’re starting to see things we take for granted in the physical world are coming to the digital world. And I think a lot of people are scared of not being able to do what they used to or being found out for doing it.
Plus, and doing what you suggest but in a country where board directors don’t need to be public really solves it.
> Now the law and common sense is catching up and we’re starting to see things we take for granted in the physical world are coming to the digital world.
Your concept of "common sense" is repulsive, as is your submissive attitude.
Yea, cus when I write a fanfic I should show my id to the company that owns the printer I purchased and own, before I print out a copy to give for my friend, ffs. Does that analogy make sense to you?
No because you purposefully crafted one that is not BB anywhere near similar to what was being discussed. Being obtuse generally means you’re wrong and know it but don’t like the truth.
While we may be smart, a lot of us are extremely pedantic about tech things. I think for many if they did nothing it would wind them up the wall while doing something the annoyance is smaller.
As a customer who has managed to fall in between cracks quite a few times. I would say N26 customer service needs some serious work.
At one point they literally lost some of my money and then said it was returned but I wouldn't be able to see a transaction for it because there wasn't one. That is probably the worst but other times have seen me on the phone arguing about stuff that really shouldn't need arguing about.
I like the idea but having people give you their username and then generating the password for them is clearly a security risk since it's easy for that to be hacked and the save the passwords it's generated for people.
Maybe I'm not meant to see the change as I'm an adult but the only change I saw was Google Suite repeatedly telling me that under 18 year olds weren't allowed to use the service. So just denying them access to things has changed.
Make a goddamn effort to figure out why someone's project is worth time investigating? Literally, that landing page has a video and links to articles. I don't want to spend minutes watching an ad. I went to the about page and read the info I should have read next to the video and understood what was what in 10 seconds.
Expecting people to make an effort to find out if a product/project is useful to them is basically asking not to have as many users. Basically, you just wasted your time building the product.
Some of us value our time. And this is not a techincal project it's an end user project. So as an end user I want to know quickly if it's worth my time. Even on a techincal project I want to know a rough overview within a minute or so of reading. Marketing is all about giving people the info they need fast. Marketing is about selling the benefits and telling of the pains it solves. If you're unable to do that for your project, why did you build it?
And I think the person who spends their time reading techincal documentation to decide if a social network is worth using is probably sadder than the person who goes and reads the about page. Not got much else to do?
GPL is copyleft, they're mainly doing additions and modifications to code that is GPL. They have to publish their code. I believe they try to be sneaky and hide how they add it but it's all open source.
The support contract between RedHat and the subscriber isn't anything to do with the GPL. That's a separate document. They could terminate your support if you buy a red car. They can't stop you from buying a red car (distributing the source to RHEL) but they can terminate your support and perform no further distribution of GPL'd software to you.
Terminating support contracts for using your rights could easily run afoul of other laws in different regions as anti-competition. It only takes 1 region to take this approach and the code is out.
Making a support contract dependent on restrictions on distribution sounds a lot like imposing additional conditions on the GPL, just with extra steps.
I don't buy that. They're not restricting their subscribers from distributing the GPL'd code. They're restricting who they choose to offer support to. They're not adding any conditions to the GPL. You can exercise your rights under the GPL. You just may not ever get support from them again.
Actually I think (I don't know that it's been tested in court) that this is a known security vulnerability in the GPL, as long as they only decline to do any further business with that customer (including renewing their subscription), rather than reneg on a already-agreed-to deal.
Snap, Tiktok, Pinterest, and even twitter were never competing for the space that Facebook has. The main space Facebook has is social advertising and there is no competitors and anyone tries to enter that market gets attacked by Facebook since Facebook runs it. Try starting a company that will allow you to buy influencer ads on Instagram and uses the API the influencer can grant to you to correctly identify how much money to pay the influencer. Facebook will remove your API access the minute it realises you're trying to do advertising and they're not getting a cut. Facebook are very open that their problem is they're not making any money on it. We understand their reasoning but it's againist the law to then sue companies for trying to get public data and the other attacks. If Google can't rank it's own products higher in google search Facebook shouldn't be allowed to remove API access solely because you're providing a service they don't even provide and don't even want to provide.
