Guys, I'm not saying the article doesn't say that this conclusion is wrong. Well, I was trying not to say that, apparently I got that wrong.

I'm saying that no matter what the researchers and the better parts of the media do to try and get this through, they will fail. Why? Because it's a complicated conclusion and because the simpler version is a "better" story.

It's so hard to read a story like this and remember that the only thing they have found, is that stroke victims more often had xylitol in their blood.

In another study - and IMHO one of the highlights of scientific achievements - it was found that in countries with a natural population of moose, womens breast size is larger than in those without moose. So the Danish media promptly concluded that moose had a positive effect one breast sizes. Sigh.

Of course, these studies are actually useful, because they hint that we should test causality. It's just not in any way helpful to make an informed decision on whether to eat something with xylitol or not.

I stay away from anything with xylitol in because I've had some serious stomach problems before, and the doctors said they don't know for sure what causes this problem, but that they have some indication of some things that tend to increase the chance of it. Xylitol was on this list. So I actually did note this new study because it's directly related to actual recommendations given to me by doctors on a basis they knew were scientifically invalid.

So the problem here is not that the study shouldn't be made, it's that it's hard to avoid people overstating the importance and arriving at the wrong conclusion.

This is so wrong and backwards that it's surprising that it ended up on /.

The reason we have an "Oral tradition" is because we're lazy. Everyone knows this is the bad way to do software and we should have documentation on many different levels.

"The code is the documentation" is the standard phrase used. But good developers know this a bad excuse and always say it as a half joke. Not completely, because there is a truth to it, of course. But using the code as the only documentation is just plain wrong.

The problem is that we don't want to write stuff twice, and we seriously hate writing the same thing three times. So when we should be doing the overall documentation, feature documentation, code, and unit tests, we just sigh and start writing code.

AI actually goes a long way towards fixing this, if used well. Create plans for the implementation, and you get at least one level of documentation. Then ask the AI to generate the code. Preferably, you would ask a different AI to generate the unit tests for the code, but at least make the same AI generate the unit tests.

Now we almost have what we should create for all projects.

The great news is that we get to focus on the fun stuff - architecture, working with our code assistant on the very hardest parts of the code, talking to other people about what we should build.

To me and the others in my team, we find that AI is an enormous boost to productivity. We get much more done, and we do it like we always wanted to do it. And we have fun while doing it.

This is why I think this article is utter BS. We're not loosing a tradition, we're improving our workflow.

This is a guy I have a lot of respect for, and when he says something, it's usually worth listening to.

Which is why this one surprised me a lot, because it's unbelievable that he actually said this. And yes, I read the article.

After 20 years of C++ coding, I switched entirely to rust about three years ago. Rust is good, and there is certainly a set of bugs that it will protect you against. But rust still has it's own set of problems. And the really hard security problems don't come from dangling pointers or double deletes.

I have been doing a lot of rust coding, and over the last time using claude code to help with it. And I still have bugs in the code. Also when claude has been all over it.

I think rust will increase the quality of the code written for the linux kernel. But save it from AI? That's a long and weird logic jump.

The Linux community still responds to Microsoft as it was 30 years ago.

Today, MS don't make the money on Windows, they make it on MS 365 and Azure. Which means they don't care if you use Windows or Linux, as long as you use their online service.

You need to stop the Embrace-Extend, Borg Linux etc comments. It just shows ignorance. Although I did find Borg Linux funny :)

But seriously, there is no conspiracy here. Sure, MS would prefer you use Windows. But it's such a small part of the amount of money their users pay them, that it's not a big deal.

Look at their actual track record. They have done real contribution to Linux over the last 10 years or so. A lot more than most other companies you think are cool. But you still somehow perceive them as coming with an agenda that just doesn't exist.

What the article fails to mention is that the number was "only" 2½ mio NOK per winner, which is about 250.000 USD or 210.000 EUR.

It's still a big scandal, but I doubt people would consider themselves filthy rich for this kind of money. Well, I wouldn't.

The purpose of a teacher is to help the student understand the topic of the course. How this is done is almost irrelevant. That the professor used AI is definitely irrelevant.

Did the little princess assume the professor made all the materials? The books, for example?

Come on, people, move along. There's nothing to see here other than a student who clearly doesn't understand anything.

It's from 2015! How many Linux distros or Mac OS do you remember with that long support time? Most of you here are bitching while sitting on something like Ubuntu with a 2 year update period, 5 year for the long term releases.

More than 9 years free updates on a standard desktop OS is better than almost everyone else. And MS still gets a shitstorm for EOL on it.

I am aware that this isn't a popular opinion here on /. but that doesn't make it wrong.

This story seems to come up every couple of months. Exactly the same all the time - the USB-C is awful, no one can be certain about connectivity, etc. Sounds like it's completely useless, if you read it, right?

Well, my last three laptops have been USB-C only. Same with my phones. And guess what: It actually works in practice. That may be because the engineers of the stuff I buy have been through the USB-C hell. I don't know if that is the case or not. But as a user, I'm pretty satisfied with it. I have never seen problems with not being able to connect. I have a single USB-C cable to one monitor from the laptop in the office giving me the power, network and video connection in a single cable. And from the first monitor there's a pass-through USB-C to the second monitor.

Stuff does work.

I can't say that everything does, but we are a lot of people in the office and everyone has their own devices. All of us have this experience.

Either the story is that we should all hail the great engineers for succeeding with making this work despite the standard, or the story is just wrong. I don't know which one it is. And frankly, I don't care. I'm just happy that I do have the connectivity that this story claims doesn't exist.

Sique, you are completely correct. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

In the OSS world, it's easy to find all these people who think that they are special because they know something or have good ideas.

Well, unfortunately, those are easy to come by. The only thing that truly makes a difference is to offer work on fixing the problems or on adding new stuff. Ideas are cheap, code is not.

Instead of being an a$$hole about it, the person should offer help in fixing the problem. That would show skill and that they do something worthwhile instead of just shouting at clouds.

I was part of the team at SUSE that AMD hired to do the Linux port to x86-64. They (the AMD guys we worked with) told us that they did reach out to Microsoft, but was basically told to go away.

What they didn't answer was whether AMD would have hired SUSE to do this, if MS had done the port.

But it did turn out very well. We had a complete, native port for the chip when they got the first prototypes of the chip, and it just worked right away. They were ecstatic :)

Since the 1960'ies, people have claimed that AI is 10 years away. Yes, that is now 60 years we have been promised AI.

10 years is around 3.652 days - this qualifies as a few thousand years.

So he's really just saying exactly what everyone has been saying for the last 60 years.

I find this hilarious. Even more so, since /. fell for it.

I'm amazed at the level of comments on this story. You guys really don't get it :(

A lot of you think this is a small amount of money - two steak dinners one say, 0.25% of the 4,000$ butchered meat fetches, 0,4% of what a farmer sells the cow for (at least this makes more sense than the first two which are both down right stupid). The real comparison should be what the PROFIT of a cow is to the farmer. I don't know how much money is spent on raising a cow, but it's going to be a large chunk of the 2,500$. So suddenly the tax is actually maybe 5 or 20%. Of every single cow. That is not a small tax. And this is on the base resource, which means it hits the consumer with the same percentage as the farmer. That tax will mean a very large increase in beef price. It's a good bet that this will also at a later point result in a tax on all imported meat.

A couple of others claim that cows will just move to an untaxed country. That's again uninformed stupidity. First, this tax is going to come to all EU countries over the next years. And later to any other country that actually cares about fighting global warming. Farming has been the biggest area that up until now has had very little regulation and it's one of the biggest sources of greenhouse gases. Second, what do you think the individual farmer will do? Someone who has his/her family on a farm will just suddenly move to a third world country? Of course not. There will still be cows in Danish farms.

The really funny thing is, that these two sets of comments contradict each other. One says this has no effect, the other that cattle farming in Denmark is doomed.

I'm amazed that no one here actually thinks this is a good thing. If anything, it's too little and too late. What you should do is demand the same from your politicians.

It's a really bad idea for mail servers, as blacklists will often have ISP blocks listed. Same for many of the IP addresses handed out by the hosting services, although this isn't as big a problem as for ISPs.

For internal services, it is definitely common to take the servers back inhouse. The cost of cloud services is so high now that financially it can make sense to do it. It's not a simple calculation, though, as many of the hosting companies make it very simple to do something that can take a long time to set up. Also, it depends on the amount of network traffic, resource use etc.

It is a more complicated question when it comes to external services or even the companies main solutions. But there are some things that push towards self hosting as well.

There have been some horror stories of the big hosting companies just deleting accounts, and these have made some people nervous. Others don't care or believe these stories. But it's just one more thing that makes some people switch.

There is also a school of thought about supplier security that pushes companies towards self hosting. Yes, it is doubtful if the companies are actually better at security than the hosting provider, but that doesn't change the fact that some companies do make the move because of this.

Finally, the management trends are not as weighted towards "only do the main thing and let others handle the rest" as it used to be - witness the discussion about the Boeing fiascos lately.

All of these are reasons why more companies are doing self hosting than about 5-10 years ago where cloud was as hyped as AI is now.