Maybe for the whole movie before long.

Just type in a few prompts to tell the AI what you would like to watch, then sit back and enjoy the show.

A custom movie, made just for you.

well, their chips are coming out of a foundry after all...

Right or wrong isn't at issue here.

Someone is being charged with a crime, so we're discussing matters around what constitutes legal versus illegal.

Please do try to keep up.

Not sure about the assembly of small electronics. It looks like that's still a fairly hands-on, manual process.

One of the barriers to automating the assembly of commodity microelectronics is that the revisions iterate fairly quickly. It's difficult to build an automated assembly line that can handle those changes. It usually just ends up being easier to have a person do that assembly work if the product is going to change in a few months and it would take a couple of months to retool for the change.

A broken clock might be right a couple of times a day.

Unless of course someone rips the hands off. Or if it's a digital clock that simply doesn't display anything. Or probably for a bunch of other possible reasons.

MTBF calculations are a bit of a scam in of themselves.

If you use that as an absolute standard, wouldn't it put a lot of other businesses in the crosshairs too?

When three businesses all have a sign in the window that says "Best price on Rugs!", should two of them be prosecuted for fraud?

...is normally preferred with a good, crisp apple.

Someone tells me that he wants a particular car.

Knowing someone else who has that car for sale for $500, I tell the first person that I can get him the car for $5000.

The guy hands me $5000, I go to the seller and hand him $500 and bring the car back to the purchaser and say, "Here you go."

While that may be unethical, is it illegal?

What if the guy who wants the car says he'll pay $5000 for it and I take his money and buy one for $4999?

The difference being just the amount of profit?

I genuinely don't know the answer.

We're running a business here. We need real software, not toys created as a fun weekend experiment with a chatbot or burning money to run an agent and get 50% (or more likely 5%) of the way there.

You'd have to either discipline or expel cheaters. You can't discipline cheaters because then their mommy and daddy will stop giving money to the endowment. You can't expel cheaters because the school will lose the tuition revenue on top of that.

There is no financial justification whatsoever for solving the cheating problem.

This anti-AI bullshit has got to stop. If an AI finds a real bug in your program, sing hallelujah and move on with life. Computers will always be able to execute algorithms faster than humans, and with greater depth and accuracy. That's the whole point of their existence - to do stuff that is too complex for humans to do, and to do it quickly.

Bolsonaro: "We cheated fair and square and didn't win, so we're going to sue."

It's the same playbook Trump is going to use to try to overturn the midterm results because "we couldn't possibly have lost because we rigged the election with gerrymandered election maps!"

You'll see. Just wait.

The real world is more complicated than that. For example, we still have a Windows 7 machine in my office. It has some very expensive but still very useful software locked to it that has no direct replacement available on either Linux or Windows 11. Obviously we have to be careful about security and controlling access to a legacy OS like that.

Blunt statements about "forcing an upgrade" are worthless in this kind of situation. Chances are anyone who is still using a system like that has a good reason for it, at least if it's in use professionally. We buy these assets because they solve problems. Those problems might or might not have a useful and cost-effective solution available on a different platform. If there is no modern solution available and the original still works, your statement that "the old ways are obsolete" is by definition false.

What you do need to do is rationally assess the risks and the threats you face and provide other ways of mitigating the risks and protecting against the threats if you can't rely on, for example, a legacy OS that no longer gets security updates to be secure by itself. But then ideally you shouldn't be relying on any single device or piece of software being secure as your only line of defence anyway, and assuming you already have some degree of defence in depth, accommodating unusual requirements is more a redistribution of security responsibilities than a fundamental change of approach.

Yes, it does look like we broadly agree here.

I suppose the main thing I'd have said very differently is the terminology, in that I wouldn't regard the kind of incompetent senior as a senior in the first place. But then I'm pretty old school about this: to me, a junior developer needs quite close supervision to produce useful results, a regular/mid developer can perform routine tasks with minimal supervision but might need more help with larger or more complex tasks, while a senior is someone you can give more or less any task on your project to and they'll figure it out, and senior is also the level of someone who would be capable of supervising and training a junior.

We've had a wave of people, particularly since the tech boom during COVID, who have obviously been over-promoted due to the employee's market and title inflation. They might now have titles like "senior" or even "lead" or "staff", but they don't have the skills and experience to operate successfully at those levels. I agree the acceleration of everything due to increasing AI use tends to show these people up and I agree that a good mid-level developer using AI might well outperform them. But then I suspect in reality a good mid-level developer was probably outperforming them before AI as well, it just wasn't so obvious.