Maybe most dummies in a moon orbit?

Companies no longer merge to become more innovative or more creative. Mergers (vs small acquisitions) now are solely driven by the bottom line and are designed to increase profitability by reducing costs. In general, the merger of publicly traded companies always eliminates duplicate departments such as treasury and accounting. Usually many other redundant departments and locations are also eliminated. This all falls right to the bottom line and saves the management team from having to actually come up with new products or offerings and better ways to run the company.

For most business software (not things like missile guidance systems, etc) the desire to handle every possible case that could happen ultimately overwhelms the system with costs and complexity. I would much prefer a system that handles 99% of the logical transaction volume flawlessly and that simply kicks out a request for human intervention for that last pesky percent that ends up costing 50% of the development budget and makes the system unmaintainable in the long run. Mileage may vary; it may be more or less than 99% but it will rarely be less than 50% of the as-spent development budget It is so bizarre that companies want to remove all human interaction and decision making from business apps. That's what training and experience are for.

Having spent more than 30 years of my life creating/improving/fixing software for business customers, the coding is almost the least important part of the process. In my experience, people rarely know what they really want software to do. They donâ(TM)t want to expend to create detail requirements or even to review the requirements someone else generated. Sometimes, if you can put a simulation of an UI in front of them, they might be able to tell you what they do/donâ(TM)t like but theyâ(TM)ll never be able to tell you if it meets all of their requirementsâ¦because they donâ(TM)t know what they need. In addition, they will always be in a box constrained by their current business model and processes so developing software to actually transform their business and processes isnâ(TM)t going to compute. Similar things happen around testing, test cases and acceptance. The easiest part of a development is the coding, as long as the developer truly understands the problem they are solving.

Perhaps the first place to use AI is in migrating code bases. An AI might be able to review a code base in one language and generate a matching app, with appropriate test cases in a different language.

Thomas Tusser summarized this very well way almost 500 years ago. A fool and his money are soon parted

This seems like a pretty clear and concise explanation of the DMCA. I would mod it higher if I could.

It’s totally the consumer’s choice. This is no different than when the Toyota parts guy told me why I should pay 800% more for a genuine Toyota oil filter rather than one from Fram or some other well known brand. That being said, I had the cracked screen on my 2015 iPad Pro Replaced with a non apple screen and it has been nothing but trouble since then

I only read the CNN article but I didnâ(TM)t any mention of of how (or if) ancestry affects the validity of the findings. Does the diet work just as well for someone whoâ(TM)s ancestors did not come from Europe? Would someone whoâ(TM)s ancestors Come from Africa or Southern Asia or Polynesia or The Americas experience the same results or might there be a different diet that provides better efficacy for them? I find it hard to believe that someone whoâ(TM)s ancestors never, ever ate this diet would automatically realize those gains from it.

The is the same company that had no compunction about root kitting their customers. What do you expect?

If only we had similar people doing for MBA programs what Allan MacDonald did with engineering programs. Maybe then we could see business decisions being made where the only criteria was the near term bottom line.

This doesn't sound like good news.

Monocultures are usually not good things as they introduce massive weak points.. You wouldn't want every tree to be the same species. If a blight arose you're screwed.

You wouldn't want the majority of the world's coding environments to be vulnerable to a devastating bug or security issue occurring in a single IDE and/or deployment system.

Programming may be many things, but it isn't a science. There are not a hard and fast set of rules to follow to create a 'perfect' program. Programming is more akin to an art. You either have the knack or you don't. That doesn't mean you have to have the knack to be a programmer...it just means that if you don't, your programs will vary between complete crap and mediocrity. If programming were truly a science, we would have successfully automated it to the point where you enumerate your requirements to a machine and the program is generated. So far that hasn't effectively happened.

Part of this is because people are terrible at requirements but even more so because most problems can't be solved well with mundane code.

Programming is an art like sculpture is an art. A patron (user) describes the sculpture that they need and a sculptor creates (their interpretation) of that. If we took every displaced worker and gave them a course on sculpting (which include a discussion of the 'rules' of sculpting) and turned them loose to service users, most of them would create....gravel. A few might make some nice tombstones or markers and a very, very select few would make a product that satisfied the user (customer). You can't teach intuition; you can't teach inherent efficiency and you can't teach people to with no vision to envision a solution to the problem presented. Programming isn't ultimately about writing programs...its about solving problems and very few people have the ability to do either, much less both.

Biden was part of an administration that did exactly zero to lessen the hold that the "too big to fail" banks had on the US. None of them were broken up into smaller entities and to view the constraints put on them as significant is a fairy tale. The real push during his tenure as VP was to make the big banks bigger and to give them more power...not less. They are still far too big to fail and still have the US by the short hairs.

The tech companies have done nothing to impede his candidacy and I would also presume that they have made significant contributions (both in $ and in 'editorial' control to his campaign.) Its foolish to expect him to reign them in unless they start really, really interfering with his party's plans. That would be like expecting him to crack down on trade inequities with China. Isn't gonna happen.