The integrated button to join a Microsoft Teams meeting directly from my Microsoft Outlook Calendar doesn't work because Microsoft needs to scan the link from Microsoft to Microsoft for malware before proceeding, and the malware scanning service has temporary downtime and serves me static page saying "The content you are accessing cannot currently be verified".
> The answer is 24! See the ASCII values of '1' is 49, '2' is 50, and '+' is 43. Adding all that together we get 3. Now since we are doing this on a computer with a 8-bit infrastructure we multiply by 3 and so the answer is 24.
Cool! I didn't understand any of that but it was correct and you sound smart. I will put this thing in charge of critical parts of my business.
If you look at the article, they do not use his name. Even after there is a final judgment against him.
He only got 60 days of probationary prison, while I personally found it weird he was the only one that got punished. I'm sure the punishment could be a lot worse.
On the name side, the names of the people involved where sparingly if at all mentioned in the press.
The did use the names of ministers and top military and navy officers of course. But not the crew.
I'm sure their peers knew who they where, and that some careers got hurt.
But if you left the navy and did something else, it probably wouldn't follow you though.
I think it's a little bit perverse to pile a lot of punishment on the OOW when it seems pretty clear that it's a training and experience problem, combined with years of efforts to cut crew sizes.
The ship is lean crewed and relies on automation. When that fails, the lack of slack in the system - too few people responsible for too much, suddenly, in a situation they've never been in before - the cliff is much worse.
> The ship is lean crewed and relies on automation.
That is true in general and may be a reason for the lacklustre damage control efforts, but not on the bridge.
Commercial vessels of any size usually have a bridge watch of two (OOW and lookout) to three (if a helmsman is needed). 7 is on the high-end for peacetime transits for a destroyer in friendly waters. 5 would be normal (OOW, quartermaster, helmsman and two lookouts). Only below that could be considered lean and the ship could be safely commanded with a watch of 2-3.
The fact is that the watch and especially the OOW were negligent, in a manner you would not expect from a junior sea scout.
From "7 personnel were standing on watch on the bridge, including the OOW, an officer and a rating under training and 4 other ratings." and "The OOW and trainee officer discussed the floodlights but believed they were ashore and stationary." it can be inferred that the OOW (who was punished) was not a trainee, but a full-fledged officer.
I am now making an emotional reaction based on zero knowledge of the B2B codebase's environment, but to be honest I think it is relevant to the discussion on why people are "worlds apart".
200k lines of code is a failure state. At this point you have lost control and can only make changes to the codebase through immense effort, and not at a tolerable pace.
Agentic code writers are good at giving you this size of mess and at helping to shovel stuff around to make changes that are hard for humans due to the unusable state of the codebase.
If overgrown barely manageble codebases are all a person's ever known and they think it's normal that changes are hard and time-consuming and needing reams of code, I understand that they believe AI agents are useful as code writers. I think they do not have the foundation to tell mediocre from good code.
I am extremely aware of the judgemental hubris of this comment. I'd not normally huff my own farts in public this obnoxiously, but I honestly feel it is useful for the "AI hater vs AI sucker" discussion to be honest about this type of emotion.
It really depends on what your use case is. E.g. of you're dealing with a lot of legacy integrations, dealing with all the edge cases can require a lot of code that you can't refactor away through cleverness.
Each integration is hopefully only a few thousand lines of code, but if you have 50 integrations you can easily break 100k loc just dealing with those. They just need to be encapsulated well so that the integration cruft is isolated from the core business logic, and they become relatively simple to reason about
What on earth are you talking about? This is unavoidable for many use-cases, especially ones that involve interacting with the real world in complex ways. It's hardly a marker of failure (or success, for that matter) on its own.
If all your code depends on all your other code, yeah 200k lines might be a lot. But if you actually know how to code, I fail to understand why 200k lines (or any number) of properly encapsulated well-written code would be a problem.
Further, if you yourself don't understand the code, how can you verify that using LLMs to make major sweeping changes, doesn't mess anything up, given that they are notorious for making random errors?
200k loc is not a failure state. suppose your b2b saas has 5 user types and 5 downstream SAASes it connects to, thats 20k loc per major programming unit. not so bad.
I agree on principle, and I'm sure many of us know how much of a pain it is to work on million or even billion dollar codebases, where even small changes can be weeks of beauracracy and hours of meetings.
But with the way the industry is, I'm also not remotely surprised. We have people come and go as they are poached, burned out, or simply life circumstances. The training for the new people isn't the best, and the documentation for any but the large companies are probably a mess. We also don't tend to encourage periods to focus on properly addressing tech debt, but focusing on delivering features. I don't know how such an environment over years, decades doesn't generate so much redundant, clashing, and quirky interactions. The culture doesn't allow much alternative.
And of course, I hope even the most devout AI evangelists realize that AI will only multiply this culture. Code that no one may even truly understand, but "it works". I don't know if even Silicon Valley (2014) could have made a parody more shocking than the reality this will yield.
Just locally, that seems like a huge pain in the ass... At least you can suggest containers which has an easier interface around it generally speaking.
This is a good example of a headline that is both accurate and dishonestly misleading.
Like if we discovered spitting at a housefire would slow it down more than expected, it's still not preventing it from burning to the ground. It's just going to allow some asshat to say "See? Let's defund the fire brigade."
It states that reforestation would result in a reduction in excess of 25% of all observed warming since preindustrial times. And there is every reason to believe there's even more feedback systems we are, as of yet, unaware of that could increase that further (though also potentially decrease it of course).
In any case it's certainly not spitting at a fire.
The figure they measured, in terms of global acreage, works out to an increase in forestry across 8% of the Earth's land area. That's completely viable, in fact some multiple of that is as well. The overwhelming majority of land on this planet is doing pretty much nothing owing to our habit of packing ourselves into tiny densely packed cities which are supported by a fairly small amount of agriculture - 39% of all land there to be exact. [1]
So this is completely viable, and then some! Even more so if one accounts for the fact that increases in CO2 are creating a substantially greener planet making this even easier.
I see where you’re coming from, and maybe you meant to be hyperbolic, but the impact of forests on quality of life for humans goes beyond cooling effects, which on their own are more significant than you’re giving credit. I think there’s more to gain here than you’d get in the house fire scenario.
I also don’t see anyone wanting to defund other efforts because trees make a difference. We may see local improvements, but I doubt we’d see global improvements such that anyone would think we’re home free. I could be wrong.
I see this as more of a quality of life improvement that could help make the inevitable bigger fight more bearable.
The integrated button to join a Microsoft Teams meeting directly from my Microsoft Outlook Calendar doesn't work because Microsoft needs to scan the link from Microsoft to Microsoft for malware before proceeding, and the malware scanning service has temporary downtime and serves me static page saying "The content you are accessing cannot currently be verified".