At what point, and at which place, should we put the onus on the programming language, and not the programmer(s)?

IDK, it just feels like "A lot of bug happen while using X programming language" doesn't tell us a lot in terms of the programmers and their training, their practices, the knowledge being shared to avoid bugs, etc, and I wonder how much of the problems are mitigated by knowledge, training, and know-how.

I guess I really like having the control over my code that the likes of C, C++, and assembly have as well, but that really is just a piece of it. Another part of it is a question of how much we risk, in the name of "memory safety," handicapping our coders.

(You're not doing yourself any favors by just misusing "flamebait" and "troll" moderation ratings, if anything, just proving you're not someone who should be moderating).

All the citations needed.

I am convinced that people mod with their emotions rather than with their brains as they ought to when it comes to AI discussions - what is flamebait about responding to a grossly and overly broad statement about something like "the AI industry," and pointing out that the stuff that is causing controversy isn't the "AI industry" on the whole?

People need to be concise, it is a lack of conciseness that is making it hard for people on all ends of the debate to at least understand what the other is talking about w/o shouting over each other.

Just to be a pedantic sod, "AI" isn't just LLMs and things that make images, audio, and the like, it's quite the spectrum actually - including things like medical research.

IMO treating a dynamic and complex industry as a monolith, whatever industry it is, just felt off to me, heh.

The problem I have is that people don't realize that unlike snowflakes, people are not so unique that doppelgangers and identical twins aren't things (they are), that people can't look similar (and that this would open up litigation possibilities over people who look arbitrarily similar, in a similar vein to some of the IMO utterly moronic lawsuits over music similarities that have happened regarding melodies and the like. .

This totally sounds like something that could NEVER backfire horribly, or create unwanted legal tension! /s

Smarmy as I sound right now, this really does earnestly sound like a proposal that if not treaded carefully could create a lot of problems.

The idea has very faulty logic supporting it, the implementation is terrible, and defeats the purpose of street view.

That is assuming that being in an office less = working less, which IMO is baseless because it requires the amount of unproductive moments that absolutely exist in an office every day.

In before some retards 2ho don't know ho2bthe words "socialist" or "communist" flap their gums about this idea being one of those things, despite thoseb3ing economic systems, the length of a work day being something that operates under an economic system and isn't one itself, and thus are not IMO directly comparable.

Then ... they should make it (no arbitrary limit on backup point duration) a feature that exists, but isn't enabled by default, and can be opted in to, that way those who don't want it won't have it, and those who want it can have it, and everyone is happy ... erm, happier.

Seriously, why should restore points have that kind of limit? Why shouldn't they last as long as the user wants them to? Am I missing something, or is Microsoft sniffing the retard juice again?

Er ... until it's built, you're gonna call bs on plans to build something that hasn't been built, but is something they want to build?

Did I miss something, or is there a gas leak in here?

IMO use cases - and what else one is doing at the same time and their resource requirements are factors as well. Basically, "tl;dr:" it depends I guess is what I mean.

Just to be pedantic, isn't whether it is determined to be an infringement or not done during litigation? Seems, if correct, incorrect to say it IS as if that has been proven, when it is determined on a case by case basis.