IIRC the Boeing issue was because no one had installed those "Boeing bolts".

But 20 million cells? That seems ridiculous. Why aren't they using a database for something that huge?

Because I can bet it started out as a way for an engineer to track say, the parts of their little piece of the plane. Maybe it was just all the mechanical bits associated with the inner flap on the right wing. It started as a manual tracking system on pieces of paper and post-it notes.

Then the guy gets handed a spreadsheet, realizes all those little pieces of paper can be consolidated in a nice table that fits in a nice small file. The guy starts using features like colors and such to make tracking easier and boom, he's gone from needing dozens of pieces of paper, risking their loss, to a spreadsheet table that holds all the same data

Slowly it accumulates features and other engineers on other parts of the plane start asking him for a copy of the spreadsheet to simplify their operations. At the same time, people start realizing they could get a better overview if they put all their information into one document instead of it being spread out across dozens of spreadsheets.

And now you have a spreadsheet with 20 million rows which provides remarkable insight into all the parts going into a plane.

Could a database do it better? Of course it can. But it likely wouldn't have happened - it just started as one engineer's way of keeping track of parts, that then grew organically until it became the behemoth it is. I'm sure when it started they decided it was 100 odd parts, the effort to use a database wouldn't be justified, if they learned how to use a database.

But now, it's difficult because now you need to create a database and program it to how the spreadsheet works now, then import all the information over. It's likely something that's going to take some time for a developer to properly develop and deploy it and make it work the way the people using the spreadsheet used it. And then deploy it so it works with dozens or hundreds of users.

And it all took place over 20+ years so it's likely for many users it was always how it worked when they started.

As usual, reality is less glamorous. Social Media company will only be liable "if itâ(TM)s clear that they failed to remove an online scam that had been reported". (source: TFA) Which just means it's another obligation of removing contents, which they already have to remove in short order sorts of violent, obscene, or otherwise illegal contents. Meta will add "financial scams" to the list, hire a few more third-worlders in their WFH moderation team, and continue their day of obscene profits.

Except it was shown that Meta profits heavily from the scammers buying up ads. If it means they have to take down scams a few minutes after posting, this is a plus as it greatly narrows down the window of victims that can be exploited. This can also make Meta not worth scammers time and money reducing their profits.

It just means Meta will have an incentive to quickly bring down scams than to slow-walk them down because they make big money off scams.

The inability of people to clear student loans with bankruptcy generally, was a fantastic gift by legislators to universities and lenders who otherwise needed to actually evaluate loan risk.

US Federal Debt in 1995 was about 65% of the GDP. Plus, the US was looking at a booming (fake) dot.com economy and expecting to reap the benefits of significantly reduced defense spending due to the end of the cold war.
Yes, when you're flush with cash (and helps being a Democrat) it's easy to promise $ for anything and everything.

In 2020 it's 132%.
1/4-1/5 of the US budget ANNUALLY is borrowed.
We *can't fucking afford to buy everyone lunch any more*.
https://www.investopedia.com/u...

It's ironic that Biden's comment "lines up to Ukraine" as oyu say, when largely the problem today is his Boss's/Clinton's meddling in Ukraine (ie about as critical a Russian sphere of influence as it gets), toppling Putin's puppet, and then doing FUCK ALL in 2014 when Putin boldly invaded Crimea (because Mr Obama was desperate to have RU support for his pointless, unenforceable treaty with Iran as a way to ensure Mr Obama's historical "legacy").

Just to maybe jog your memory a bit: Mr OBAMA was the first that told the lazy ass free riding Euros that they need to start paying their way. Not Mr Trump.

https://www.france24.com/en/20...

Mr Trump was merely "classless" enough to HOLD EU economies to their promises of years before. HOW GAUCHE!

Thought you might have forgotten that bit.

"You're not allowed to do what we do."

No, that is not "super easy". The problem is the LLM needs to recognize it needs to hand-off a specific question. And that it cannot do reliably.

Do you know what happens if a robot-controller hallucinates? You end up with a broken robot, and maybe an injured or dead person on top of that. LLMs are not fit to control any physical actuators.

Do not mistake an impressive toy for a professional tool.

Agreed. Also the amount of waste, concentration of money that then does not cause productivity, significant parts of the population losing access to education, medical care, etc. are a factor in a society descending.

Let's hope this goes without a major war. That is at least a possibility, since global dependencies make wars much, much more costly than they used to be.

Not LLMs. In a robotics context they would wreck equipment and probably kill people.

Agree to all of that. While, say, a machine-learning enabled gripping tool is "AI" in some sense, it is not the current hype AI, but an entirely different breed that you can actually rely on, no hallucinations or other crap.

The other thing is that China tries to push its industry, and for good reasons. But eventually, this will need to be reduced and then they become another regular player. The question is who of the other players will be left standing at that time. It will not the ones that maximize short-term greed.

The only reason anyone would even think about adding "Russia" to that list is because the current elderly resident of the White House has a hard-on for Putin.

Militarily, Russia has demonstrated it has a hard time defeating a country 1/10 of its size.

Technologically, Russia is so far behind, it's had to rely on equipment being manufactured by Iran and North Korea (neither of which is "first world").

Economically, yeah I'm not even gonna bother with that one, even their sycophants know Russia is a basket case.

They do. Some people don't use them; and (if disciplined) use one or more worksheets to store data and refer to it purely internally and (otherwise) just sort of ad-hoc mix data and formulas.

In some cases a database connection is where the data comes from; but the number of cells grows because it's conceptually easier(and in practice often less opaque, given the ugliness of displaying very large cell contents) to munge on the data step by step rather than trying to ram everything into one transformation.

Coming from the IT side; and having to field questions from the perpetrators of some absolutely hideous excel sheets from time to time(no, I didn't even know that there was a way of creating a type of embedded image that actually quietly triggers the print spooler subsystem to do something that generates a new image based on the contents of another region of the spreadsheet, still don't know how they did that; but it's objectively depraved) I understand the hate; but I do have to admit that spreadsheets are pretty good for napkin-math thinking-it-through type processes.

Like when you work it out on paper; you've got your input, then you have a cell with the contents of the first transformation you wanted to make, then the second, then the third, and so on, and at each step you can think "does this value make sense?"

It rapidly gets out of hand in quantity; but as a rapid sketchpad for thinking something through you could do a whole lot worse. It's also tempting(again, tempting down the path of darkness in quantity) for dealing with jobs that need both a bit of string munging and a pretty-printed output.

You send the intern down to storage with a barcode scanner and have them start snagging SNs and MACs and stuff from the shipment of new gear. Turns out various vendors use different prefixes on different barcode values to inform their own ERP/inventory system/warehouse people which of the 5 closely spaced barcodes their scanner hit. And each vendor uses a different set of conventions, and while obvious enough they aren't documented. Ok, no problem; intern comes back with raw list; all the Lenovo SNs get a 'last x characters' substring; all the Cisco MACs get another transform, whatever.

Obviously if it were your inventory/warehouse system you wouldn't be treating the barcode scanner as a raw HID device and doing ad-hoc transformations, there would be a program that automatically uses the prefixes to populate the correct parts of the form; but you want to stick your head into ERP project hell rather than come up with maybe a dozen lightweight string manipulations? Obviously, you could also do it in your choice of scripting language and iterate through one CSV to create another; but that mostly just conceals what you did from anyone who doesn't use that scripting language; while you can walk basically anyone employable through the logic of the spreadsheet prettifying.