Those services are available, however, people would not stop using Twitter and will continue to do so until we stop consuming their content, then maybe they will finally get off Twitter...
It's companies. Corporate PR accounts never migrate off to Mastodon/Bluesky/Threads. Many neglects update of updates pages, announcing everything on Twitter.
Some of them would move to Instagram if it makes sense to do so, but Twitter apparently makes the best ad ROI figures among Twitter-like services.
I mean, lots of local and/or small services announce disruptions on Twitter only. Many of those have separate news/service status pages on WWW, and yet neglects updates of those. Possibly because users without access to Twitter aren't worth informing.
IOW, Twitter still is a social data infrastructure, like road or tap water. Something that the society depends on, that also ain't nobody paying for it, something that only makes sense at-cost max or at a loss.
I think that was always a fundamental problem with Twitter as a for-profit company. Surely it handles a large amounts of important communications, that are also not so exploitable or monetizable, ethically or not, just fundamentally.
I question your definition of 'need', mainly because my only interactions are interest-related, not work/life related, and whenever I capitulate and follow the link, it's not as interesting/useful as it was purported to be.
As such, I find it easier and easier to just not visit. This is, however, entirely my own anecdotal.
Nah, ME3 is pretty poor throughout. Almost every mission feels anodyne and flat, the skill balancing is way off. There’s still some decent writing though.
People go on about the ending but never really address the whiplash of revealing a third party at the finale. It’s not a question of Shepherd survives or not, it’s that even with all the changes they made, it just doesn’t feel like it has very much to do with what’s gone on before.
I’ve experienced this myself. I’ve had to downgrade my opinion of my own code. LLMs are great at pointing out the edge cases that you might have taken years to find. Honestly feels quite dispiriting but we move on.
Previously my main concern was with LLM's writing worse code. Now my concern is the ability to write better code than I was ever able to write before -- considering every possible potential bug and race condition and error state and what have you -- but at what cost? How much more time do you have to spend researching, designing, making decisions around every possible edge case and state?
Before, you couldn't even attempt to balance quality with speed, because you couldn't see the quality in advance. You had to wait for bug reports to come in. Now, you're confronting quality up-front in a much deeper way. Which allows for much more reliable software, but then you have to decide how much effort is worth it and how much isn't?
This keeps bringing me back to John Backus’s Turing award lecture/paper, “Can Programming be Liberated from the Von Neumann Style?”
In it he pointed out a huge deficiency of most programming languages that still haunts us: they’re wickedly difficult to reason about. So proving important properties about programs is all but infeasible.
So we try to handle it empirically with unit tests, but that has its limitations.
LLMs can kinda sorta do it analytically, but that isn’t completely satisfying, either. The results are probabilistic, and they are pretty bad at inferring intent which can be a source of both type I and type II errors. But still, it would be silly to throw out a layer of Swiss cheese for having holes.
But I sure do wish we could have a plausible version of Backus’s original vision of a language that lets us formally declare (a useful subset of) the specification and then statically verify that the program conforms to it.
I mean, it depends on how you use an LLM like Claude.
You can not know what you're doing and use it to write slop.
Or you can set up your project with best practices in every way with full design documents and code that flows from design and full rigor around everything.
I do it the second way. And so yes, I find myself being confronted with so many edge cases that I just never thought about before. And I'd say it about doubles the time it takes me to deliver stuff, and I'm not always sure it's worth it.
I don't intend to argue that your experience is invalid. if 99% of people don't use ai in your way then you must understand your argument is parallel to that of gun control. anyway the edge cases you are unexpectedly encountering through ai, may I ask on average how many of them would be career ruining (or life endangering) as a percentage?
99% of people? Gun control? Career ruining? Life endangering?
You speak in hyperbolics, my friend. You may be lacking some realistic perspective here.
Plenty of people who are using LLM's within technical organizations, as opposed to script kiddies vibe coding, are encountering the same kind of issue. And people spend lots of time fixing bugs in existing code anyways. This is just a simple question of newly-visible tradeoffs.
your account has been here since 2011. unless the account got sold off, i take it that you're my elder and therefore are deserving of respect. so respectfully I ask, if you made a comment opening multiple avenues of discussion, and somebody shut them all down without acknowledgement, how you would react personally?
Most of my old defects fall into tradeoffs I knowingly made at the time: well, this edge case is really unlikely, not worth pursuing a fix, the remediation won't be bad, some jank isn't going to annoy users too much, etc. But LLMs don't care: a bug is a bug, and they'll happily surface it for you.
Being able to take an old code base up to 100% test coverage alone is incredibly eye opening.
I've remarked on this before: IT Departments seem practically designed to obfuscate the actual cost of development. The discourse online very rarely has numbers against it. My theory as to why this is is that firms really don't want devs to know how much they budget for a dev, and so they structure the organisation to hide that information.
Oh boy do I have opinions (mostly in line with your’s), but I actually think there’s another factor of “Devs left to the own devices will still write software.” It’s a “problem solving” skill set with a very low ceiling for implementation. That problem solving ends up as more internally developed (or newly integrated third party) applications that end up in the operational critical path, that now also need to be supported.
It’s something like a cargo cult. We have this system because of course we need this system and it “insists upon itself”.
The further development is removed from the final “product” of the company the more this crap piles up.
So, I agree that in some instances it’s intentionally obfuscated, but there are others where the bloat simply cannot be calculated.
I’ve had a good think about this, and while it’s good to see them finally answering bubblewrap, the truth is that we as an industry have been ridiculously at permissioning for some time and this does not solve this. It’s all very well saying we have read only resource access, but then you connect up to JIRA and all of a sudden you’ve got a different identity system, different resource model and and more complexity than you can shake a stick at.
Our current answer of just making the security model more and more complex isn’t working. It just means that, when things inevitably fail, we can say “well, they didn’t secure it correctly”. When even describing what is correct is hard, and setting it up is harder.
Honestly, this looks good, but we need a root and branch rethink of security if we want something that can protect us from rogue agents.
Microsoft security is a bimodal. They might have exquisite delineation for network resources in Sharepoint or Azure but consumer applications are a joke.
Excel, VSCode, Outlook, etc the permission model is a modal, "Do you trust this?" binary choice to enable full permissions to everything.
> Excel, VSCode, Outlook, etc the permission model is a modal, "Do you trust this?" binary choice to enable full permissions to everything.
Because years of experience has shown that even users who should know better (developers) get extreme permission fatigue. The demand end users make is "it should just know without me having to click 'approve' all the time." Well, that's tough. You're basically stuck between a rock (fine-grained permissions) and a hard place (don't make me deal with it).
End users aren't expected to care about security and if they do, usually they are in an enterprise setting where it's taken care of automatically by enterprise settings.
Not to say it's good or bad, just not the target market.
Seriously. Mobile devices have done a better job with this (in some ways) but it really should be a standardised thing of least permissions by default. And way. Way less confusing.
How do you describe the various different capabilities and access modes that a software application might need in a way that a non-technical user can comprehend and make decisions about. Even at a high level "access local files" or "access the network" is a distinction that many people will not fully understand.
They tried to do proper sandboxing and capabilities and such with UWP around the Windows 8 timeframe and developers at the time totally revolted and claimed Microsoft was taking away their freedom lol. Because clearly every app needs full disk and network and key logging access.
I feel like there's got to be something more core around how many things we could make revertable. You can't "un-leak" a document, but you could reverse financial transactions / structure as escrow, and we know that having version control removes certain permanent loss scenarios.
Sometimes this may be just law. In the UK we have "direct debit" from accounts which fundamentally lets companies I approve take money from my account - as much as they choose. But the way of managing that risk is that banks will immediately and in full refund any money taken if I say so. Frankly lots of payment is the same online, we hand over enough information for the other party to take money from us, rather than explicitly sending it - with guarantees that we can get it back if it shouldn't have been allowed.
I recall there were plenty of people on here going into bat for Theranos way after others were calling it fraud.
The thing is, she expertly rode a belief system that was already prevalent: that SV was going to change the world and that SV and what was happening there was different. Plenty of WeWork fans as well. Plenty of fans of firms that actually did something as well, but most of those "did something"s were a website.
10 years ago I would defend FSD against the naysayers who said it would never work. We are currently at the stage of figuring out what approximates never.
The war in Ukraine and subsequent move to Czechia did seem to hurt them pretty badly, but I wouldn't say they are stagnant. I've been a happy customer of PHPStorm for years and it continues to improve.
reply