So career development really means ‘learning a completely different skillset which is not technical’
1,713 karma · joined December 19, 2017
So career development really means ‘learning a completely different skillset which is not technical’
I think populous or theme park were better games.
I think that it’s been diverted from its original purpose,and is now indeed horribly complicated since it’s supposed to be all in one package.
I’ve also noted that in large companies the quality of the product for end users, as long as it’s not a massive drag on productivity or on recruitment and is not core business, is irrelevant and that other factors are more important ( costs, contracts , easy to install integrate and maintain, quality of support, breadth of use within the company etc ). This makes atlassian a natural superpower.
https://gs.statcounter.com/windows-version-market-share/desk...
What am I missing here ?
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windows-10-suppo...
So the market for personal computers has grown massively with phones entering it, and Linux has won here.
As to the general state of Linux usability - I’ve been using Linux since 1995, and professionally for more than 20 years - it’s great for professionally administered servers or workstations, less great for regular desktops / laptops where things pretty never work out of the box which is unfortunately not going to bring in extra users …
What worries me is the trend and speed at which things are progressing, especially with the amount of money thrown at it.
If you believe the trend will stay then many of us will be out of a job in a few years. If you don’t then you’re safe.
There are already markets ( translation, illustration etc ) where AI has changed things significantly. Ours is slightly different because it requires formal things to be correct unlike translations or illustrations which can be slightly ‘off’.
My view is that either AIs learn how to generate human debuggable or already correct code, or it won’t work and the trend will stop. I believe there’s a fundamental hardness here - if they break that , then other things will change and our world will be fundamentally different.
Note, this is all belief !
Yes, tools like zoom alleviate the problem somehow but not completely.
I’ve also said this before but because it doesn’t look like an ad, and because it’s relatable it’s the only one which actually makes me want to apply !
I’ve always wondered how they came to shoot themselves in the foot like that - any basic consumer or journalist test would have flagged that.
Don’t have to because they usually have a full machine, and unless they saturate it, the problem doesn’t exist.
Don’t care, because many people think it’s alright if things are slow, or inefficient ( the user can wait, or will live with 100ms instead of 1ms).
Don’t know what to do - this one is interesting : many people don’t realize it’s actually possible to get the same result , but faster.
I now instruct chatgpt to search the web for me and I read the result, since it works. I also read the news directly from various newspapers that I subscribe to to make sure they actually get money.
Spark is a different use case from rust - it’s a full prover, and the goal is formal verification, typically in contexts where human life is at stake ( say, you’re writing software for an artificial heart , to take an extreme example ). This comes at the cost of being less flexible, but they’ve been slowly evolving spark so that it can handle increasingly complex cases .
Now that I’m quite a bit older, I have come to appreciate the game part a lot more - it’s maybe less techie, but it’s actually also why people make games. When I play with my kids then don’t see the tech - they see the game !
At 1 million/year ( worst case ), that’s roughly 3k/day so 40 dollars / analysis using your numbers . Assuming the machine lasts a bit longer ( say 5 years ) that’s 8 dollars/analysis, assuming 20min/sample. Make it a bit faster (5 minutes) and you’re down to two dollars which doesn’t look super expensive to me.
In other words, what is progress for the field might not be progress for you !
This reminds me of Thomas Kuhn’s excellent book ´the structure of scientific revolutions’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Re...