Sorry to spoil the party. Unfortunately, this news was based on a letter from the State Secretary, trying to tell the House that all is well. But it isn't. Here is https://berthub.eu/tkconv/document.html?nummer=2026D48732 that letter, in Dutch. Reading carefully, the news isn't all that good.

“On-premises solution in combination with open source” = a proprietary solution.

“As many [...] existing licenses as possible” = Microsoft.

“In 2027, the on-premises email and calendar service will be implemented. European open-source solutions for personal storage and collaboration features will follow later in 2027 and in 2028” = email and calendar will be proprietary.

“That is in line with the Advisory Council’s recommendation not to rely on a single solution from a single vendor, but to explore alternatives for each function” = for functions other than email and calendar, we’re doing something other than Microsoft.

So the migration from (brace yourself...) Lotus Notes (!!) to Exchange will continue and there really won't be any open source in this migration. The letter is just openwashing to make a good impression on the House.

Gee, even the Wikipedia page doesn't survive Slashdot's ancient commenting. That's pathetic. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L_with_stroke this one.

BartÃ...omiej = BartÅomiej although I'm not sure my comment will survive the recoding. It's Bartlomiej with a small / across the "l", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Å this one.

The real deal, of course, is that users should not have any "raw text" files to edit anyway. Those that do may, sooner or later, want to do other things outside the Microshop.

Office, Onedrive, Outlook - the world is wonderful but don't even think about changing a settings file, dear customer.

Nothing would make it “help get a little closer to making it a reality” if it’s not physically possible, and there’s a very strong argument that that’s the case. If nothing else, the maximum specific tensile strength allowed by covalent bonding - which is fundamental physics that we can’t change - combined with the reality of defects in a 36,000 km cable - is far below what’s needed to build a space elevator in Earth gravity. It might be possible to build a space elevator on the Moon or even (in the far future) on Mars, because their gravity is such that real materials could potentially do the job. But doing that involves bootstrapping an entire offworld industry, which is far beyond anything even the most advanced nations are capable of currently, let alone a technologically stunted oil state.

There’s no chance they’d actually succeed in building a space elevator. The Line is at least theoretically physically possible with current technology, even if it was always an obviously spectacularly bad idea. A space elevator is not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Always interesting to see the fascist take. Oh wait... no it's not.

I agree. Questions like this often seem to come from people who don’t *want* to use AI, or perhaps are afraid of it for whatever reason, and they’re looking for reasons that they shouldn’t use it.

It was Andrej Karpathy, one of the world’s top AI engineers.

Description of the term: https://x.com/karpathy/status/...

About him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I’ve stopped arguing with people about it (mostly haha) for this reason. They’re either going to have to figure it soon enough without our help, or as you say be left behind.

This matches how I use it. I’ll add a few other points:

4. Writing the first core version of a service or UI. I’ll typically use close to 100% of those generated lines, and then continue building with LLM assistance where it makes sense. It makes a big difference to development velocity.
5. Finding bugs. If some bug isn’t obvious to me, provide the code to an LLM and describe the problem. Its success rate is high.
6. Working with tech I’m not particularly familiar with (an extension of your #3, i.e. learning)
7. Writing documentation.
8. Reverse engineering existing code, i.e. describe some code to me so I don’t have to dig through it in detail.
9. Writing unit tests.

What do you object to, her support for equality or her opposition to genocide? Or is it that a woman stated an opinion?

So, the functional equivalent of reasoning?

Are you saying that ChatGPT, Claude, Deepseek etc. “make heavy use of external tools” to write code? Because they all write pretty good code, up to a certain size of program. Certainly far better than the average human, who can’t code at all; or the average software developer, who isn’t really very good.