I'm still impressed that the Teams web client can't edit a message with an emoji in it without messing up the keyboard controls and often corrupting the message and losing data. It's had this bug for years. It's literally a messaging app where you can't reliably send messages.
I once worked with a guy who wrote an entire smallish HTML reporting and graphing application via one big single Oracle SQL statement. I'd hate to do maintenance on it, but it got the immediate job done.
But he's the Chosen One. Jesus Fox Christ says he's Special, so the rules don't apply to him. We muggles get shit
This is pretty standard when someone leaves Microsoft.
The management above the person leaving sends a nice message about them and their work and NEVER tells the truth about _why_ they are leaving.
At the upper levels I don't think there's really any sincerity about anything said, one way or another. This is just how corporate America operates.
Nextcloud has done great work in terms of EU-Soverignty and offering credible replacements for all the pieces of the the Microsoft stack.
Nextcloud Talk works well for video conference meetings.
MS Teams is a pretty terrible piece of software. The design of it is bad, and the implementation is bad.
Any software that tries to copy it will also be bad.
If you haven't spun up a nextcloud AIO instance yet for your organization(s), you should try it out.
They hired some uninspired losers to lead their self-driving efforts. They basically were weak, looked into it and figured it's impossible.
There's nothing wrong with knowing your own limitations and acting accordingly. Had Mr. Zuckerberg had that sort of self-knowledge, he might have avoided lighting 80-billion-with-a-b dollars on fire and renaming his social media company after a technology that nobody wanted.
And human drivers are NOT, "on average, really bad".
That is true, but it's a little more complicated than that.
The average driver is pretty good, 99.9% of the time. The other 0.1% of the time, they are tired, or angry, or momentarily distracted, or just looking the other direction from where they need to be looking under those particular circumstances. It's those occasional blips of inattention that cause lead to most accidents occurring.
They are kissing up to Donny by letting him rename everything he farts on.
But I value even a 1 line change that clears a static analysis warning if even in practice it was impossible to trigger the issue in a real system.
Yes, I agree. The problem with thinking "this bug seems harmless, because I can't imagine how anyone could exploit it" is in the "I can't imagine" part; my imagination is limited to what is covered by my mental model of how computers work, but an attackers' ingenuity is not.
In particular, the C/C++ optimizer is a devious beast, and will exploit any opportunity to make the code more efficient, even if that means doing things that are wildly unintuitive to a naive human reader -- and it sees any instance of undefined behavior as an opportunity to exploit.
Execute it for spying on gov't.
(C) is the only one of those the AI companies are really concerned about -- they want to stave off model collapse for as long as possible. The problem is that AI generates so much content that the ratio of AI-generated data to human-generated data keeps rising, and sooner or later there simply won't be much human-generated data left to anything to consume. At that point they'll either have to figure out to ingest AI-generated content without causing degradation, or they'll have to accept that AIs have gotten as smart as they will ever get, and it's all downhill from there.
I hope you've all read the Aschenbrenner paper from 2024.
https://situational-awareness....
Never mind Trump's rambling speaking style. He's aware of it and he likes it.
We know that people in the Trump admin have, at minimum, been briefed on the Aschenbrenner paper. I assume some of them have read the whole thing.
The point he's making - that we're on the cusp of ASI, and the USA MUST not get there wildly behind, for example, China, is correct. And that the USA should not be shackled by an international framework that rival nations are going to ignore anyway.
He's directionally correct, even if you think he's too stupid to know what he's agreeing with.
No. I think hollywood has always been subversive and run by foreign pedophiles. For example, look for the interview with Shirley Temple about what they tried doing to her as a _child_,
I think it has produced enough pro-American-MIC films every now and then to stay out of more government trouble.
You usually don't realize (at the time) that the media you watched as a child was subverting you (and your parents desires). And unless you revisit those films a generation later with a critical eye, you may not realize it ever.
But that's how the ratchet effect works. The newer media that is now visibly odious to me is only visibly odious to me because it is targeting the edge of an overton window that has continued moving since my own youth. The leading edge of socially allowable media subversion continues to advance until a historical reset event sets it back somewhat. Or, sometimes, when there is sufficient market rejection.
In the case of hollyweird, the concentration of power has significant drawbacks; destroying that concentration of power will probably be a net benefit. (to be clear, I think It will amplify other problems instead).
In general, I think evil seems to be more effective when it is centralized and powerful, with captured institutions, while maintaining the ability to operate openly, and has de-facto monopoly control over the domain in which it operates, and when most people do not understand what is being done to them.
If Trump had promised to destroy hollywood, I would have voted for him 10x harder.
(And i expect I would be disappointed because he wouldn't actually follow through with it)
Anyway, hopefully, AI gets the job done and finally kills that wretched industry. I look forward to further democratization of movie making.
(fwiw, my knee jerk reaction is to oppose the merger.)
The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.
