Tyfud

Don't give him credit for having a heart to explode.

I think that's a well established worry at this point

He'll never admit he's lost the election. He's going to keep doing this and he's going to keep getting away with it. Because reasons

This is incorrect. And I'm in the industry. In this specific field. Nobody in my industry, in my field, at my level, seriously considers this effective enough to replace their day to day coding beyond generating some boiler plate ELT/ETL type scripts that it is semi-effective at. It still contains multiple errors 9 times out of 10.

I cannot be more clear. The people who are claiming that this is possible are not tenured or effective coders, much less X10 devs in any capacity.

People who think it generates quality enough code to be effective are hobbyists, people who dabble with coding, who understand some rudimentary coding patterns/practices, but are not career devs, or not serious career devs.

If you don't know what you're doing, LLMs can get you close, some of the time. But there's no way it generates anything close to quality enough code for me to use without the effort of rewriting, simplifying, and verifying.

Why would I want to voluntarily spend my day trying to decypher someone else's code? I don't need chatGPT to solve a coding problem. I can do it, and I will. My code will always be more readable to me than someone else's. This is true by orders of magnitude for AI-code gen today.

So I don't consider anyone that considers LLM code gen to be a viable path forward, as being a serious person in the engineering field.

They're falling for a hype train then.

I work in the industry. With several thousand of my peers every day that also code. I lead a team of extremely talented, tenured engineers across the company to take on some of the most difficult challenges it can offer us. I've been coding and working in tech for over 25 years.

The people who say this are people who either do not understand how AI (LLMs in this case) work, or do not understand programming, or are easily plied by the hype train.

We're so far off from this existing with the current tech, that it's not worth seriously discussing.

There are scripts, snippets of code that vscode's llm or VS2022's llm plugin can help with/bring up. But 9 times out of 10 there's multiple bugs in it.

If you're doing anything semi-complex it's a crapshoot if it gets close at all.

It's not bad for generating psuedo-code, or templates, but it's designed to generate code that looks right, not be right; and there's a huge difference.

AI Genned code is exceedingly buggy, and if you don't understand what it's trying to do, it's impossible to debug because what it generates is trash tier levels of code quality.

The tech may get there eventually, but there's no way I trust it, or anyone I work with trusts it, or considers it a serious threat or even resource beyond the novelty.

It's useful for non-engineers to get an idea of what they're trying to do, but it can just as easily send them down a bad path.

Nobody knows who they are either.

The only thing people in this thread know is that Selena is not Batman.

This was his speech at the DNC tonight. I saw it. This was also for a republican who lost his seat due to agreeing with the Jan 6th committee that trump should be impeached and prosecuted for inciting an attempted coup. That cost him his re-election.

He may be a republican, but he's been anti-trump and has put his money where his mouth is, so to speak.

His speech was very fair and rousing. He's a good orator, and he's been criticizing trump for many years.

Even so, he's wrong. This is the kind of stupid thing someone without any first hand experience programming would say.

I'm not an expert by any stretch, but it looks fairly legit.

You can see the lighting of the picture is similar to the lighting of the scene/world, including some mild reflection of the ground and cars in front of the dark parts of the picture (his black jacket).

These are very subtle details that, while always possible to fake, would have been a pretty serious investment in time and energy to have done.

So I'm inclined to think it's legit.

She was a democrat along the same lines as LBJ. And a Texas Democrat, so very moderate by today's standards.

But she was well loved, respected, and surprisingly, did accomplish a decent amount, including prison reform, drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs, significantly improved the educational system, etc.

But her big black mark was signing the anti-homosexuality act into law, even though she campaigned against it as Mayor.

Still, after her came George W. Bush, so in my mind, she was the last good governor Texas has had in almost 30 years.

They're not in denial, they're intentionally distorting the facts to push a narrative that POC and immigrants are bad.

It's the only move they've got left, and it's usually a favorite of fascist policies/agendas, so historically, it works well for their base.

I'm sorry, I need to support my assertions?

Which assertions did I make?

I asked for your sources, and you just gave rhetoric back in response. I've asserted nothing, other than without you providing proof of assertions, you sound like a teenager trying to be edgy with a weak grasp of politics and world /American history.

Your claim to try and whataboutism me on asking for supporting assertions continues to support the narrative that you don't really understand the terms and topics you're throwing around. Your heart is in the right place I think, but you're coming across in a way that's damaging to your argument or point because of some simple mistakes and erroneous assumptions you're making and continuing to defend (like Obama is an oligarch, which he absolutely is not, and if you ever lived or visited a country or met a real oligarch, you would understand that. This de-legitimizes much of your argument to many people.)

Of course Obama screwed up and made mistakes with things like the supreme court position. He, wrongly, assumed Republicans would play fair and the voters would hold them accountable if they didn't.

He was brutally wrong. He addresses that issue, and others you've called out in his book and there are numerous witnesses and sources to back him up.

But do go ahead and try to demonize him, without acknowledging that pretty much every other president in modern history did much worse. That's not to excuse the mistakes he did make, but much of what you're claiming is just rhetoric.