I really wish if they were going to abuse the standards process, they would have come up with something more rational than the shadow dom. Abuse standards, introduce useless crap.

Too lame, DON'T read. Sorry for the inclarity.

Yeah, you just listed a bunch of programming languages. You didn't give any indication you actually enjoy them. Have the things in your list are just you insulting them.

Again, I don't think you enjoy programming. That's why you became a manager.

You very convincingly make it sound so fun.

It's not just about popularity of the destination, it's about the ease of making the map, and the difficulty of traffic in the area. Waymo avoids roads that are too difficult to drive on, routing around them if possible.

Have you ever shot an animal?

tl;dr

I think you have a point you are trying to make, but I cannot figure out what you are trying to say here at all.

COBOL was "$Coding_technology" is so easy anyone can program!

I seriously doubt you enjoy programming in any language.

I like Rust, but if you don't like programming in C, you won't like programming in Rust.

If you have fun programming in Rust, you will have fun programming in C.

"Fun" is something manager types tell you when they are trying to convince you to do something. If something is fun, you don't need to tell people. It's also what you tell toddlers.

Selfdriving cars cannot drive to every location, they can only drive to somewhere that has been mapped. So they might actually be incapable of doing this.

This is fuzzy thinking, "Shakespearean text" is not the same as "text of Shakespeare."

LLMs only produce text within the parameters they were built. If it was not built to produce a text of Shakespeare, then it won't.

A simple heuristic to understand this is to think of Elizabot. An Elizabot can produce meaningful English text, and has even passed a Turing test. But it will never produce a work of Shakespeare, no matter how long you let it run. It's outside of its parameters. If you don't understand how an Elizabot works, then this example is too much for you.

A random number generator can generate anything.

A non-random generator cannot. LLMs are not random generators. To generate the entire works of Shakespeare, they would need to retain the entire works of Shakespeare in their memory (weights).

Security isn't something that can be tacked on afterwards, otherwise Microsoft Windows wouldn't have vulnerabilities.

Security has to be a main design requirement from the beginning. If your software engineers don't know how to write secure code, then they won't write secure code.