Dude, I've been writing code for 40 years. I've used so many different tools, stacks, libraries and APIs that at this point I don't remember any of them, and I haven't remembered them for years, and it doesn't matter at all. Sure, I have to look everything up, but that's fine, that doesn't matter. What matters is that I know when something looks wrong, or hard to maintain, or inefficient, or insecure, or... pick the axis. And I can dig in and find the problem. Anyone can tell if code works, that's easy. Understanding when and why it might break or otherwise impose additional costs, that's the real skill.

Which, as it happens, is exactly the skill you need to use an LLM effectively. Also the skill you need to understand legacy code, review colleagues' commits, etc., etc., etc. I used to say that the ability to read and understand code is an underrated skill, but an old friend corrected me at lunch a couple of weeks ago, saying that the ability to read and understand code is the most important software engineering skill, and always has been. Upon reflection, I agreed. And LLMs make this clearer than ever before.

I'm confused by all of these posters who've never heard of "the curve". I wonder if it's because they're all young'uns who went to school during an interval when progressive educators had decided to abandon it... with the inevitable grade inflation that was totally predicted.

When I was in college 40 years ago every class that had more than ~30 students in it was graded on the curve, and even some of the smaller ones (though in a smaller class it becomes statistically questionable). I used to love the groans when a buddy and I walked in the first day of class, because they knew we were going to "bend the curve". :D

Though in all seriousness, the whole point of using a curve is that in a sufficiently large class, it's statistically guaranteed (to very high probability) to be "unbendable". Inserting a couple of students at the top would mean that students who might be just above a cutoff might fall just below it, but it's not going to make a difference to many.

College isn't like tee-ball, where every player gets a participation trophy, and it shouldn't be. Especially not at elite schools. Part of the purpose of a university education is to act as a filter, and not just to filter out those who can't cut it at all, but to rank all of the students by performance, so graduate schools and potential employers can make use of that information.

Don't be so sure about the "shipped off". Google is heavily investing in on-device AI that runs in a trusted enclave (e.g. TrustZone on ARM). I left the company in August of last year but I doubt this has changed since it's been a major area of focus for quite some time.

> example of why I remain self employed

There's a tradeoff: self-employed people will usually have to do more clerical and administrative work. I personally get bored with that and I'm not very efficient at it.

Maybe an old-fashioned keyboard/mouse automation tool can help some? (Can't vouch if adding AI to such helps.)

It could be to encourage learning the AI tools more so than automation itself. If you automate something that doesn't need automating, you are still learning to use the tool. Any real automation can be considered a bonus side-effect.

...what profits?

Sam and Elon should get a room and bang.

No! They might have demon-seed kids. The next generation doesn't deserve such horror.

Slap me!

(I'm getting a pay-wall, so can't verify.)

Skip grades altogether, but make sure everyone gets the equivalent of a B-minus at least (using traditional scoring). If you only get a "C" you probably didn't pay enough attention and don't deserve to pass. Allow one make-up test.

"Musk set up OpenAI as an OPEN SOURCE NON PROFIT because he is paranoid about AI."

OpenAI was set up as a nonprofit by numerous people, stop trying to pull a Tesla and turn Musk into the sole founder.

If they had better judgement they'd agree to a compromise or split instead of have a pettiness contest in public.

Do you really mean that if your git repo were corrupted, restoring a snapshot of the repo from backups wouldn't work? If that's true, then it sounds like your backup system is broken. The hashes after restoring ought to be identical to what they were before the backup.

If git used the files' iNode numbers for its hashes, then I could understand how a filesystem-based backup/restore might not really work; you'd have to backup at the block level instead. But git doesn't use the iNode numbers.

git isn't magical. It only knows files. It doesn't know if you moved the repo, copied the the repo, or restored the repo from a ten year old backup. I have moved git repos around plenty of times, `cp -a`ed directories with repos, tared and un-tared directories that contain repos, and the copies have always Just Worked without any hash mismatches.

mkdir ~/test. cd ~/test. git init, touch test.txt, git add test.txt and git commit. cp -a ~/test ~/test2. cd ~/test2 and check out the backup repo. The backup is valid. Then simulate a disaster with rm -rf ~/test. Then recover from the disaster with cp -a ~/test2 ~/test and you've just restored a repo from filesystem-level backup. The resulting repo works perfectly and its hashes aren't off. git has no idea you deleted and restored under its nose. Try it yourself.

What am I missing? I'm not surprised to be called idiotic, and the shoe often fits. But I'm surprised to be called that over this.

My router's hardware's parts were made in China. Its software was made as a worldwide effort but the team seems to be officially based in the Netherlands. And I'm not asking my government's permission for updating either one. Trumptards and their micromanaging far-left centralized-economic-planners can go fuck themselves. Keep your damn dirty ape hands off my computers, comrade.

MS could be far more evil than they are, given their power and market-share. At least Satya is the devil we know.

Lying to the Board and lying to the public are different things.