BillyClark

Whatever bad shit I want to say about Henry Ford, at least he understood the basic idea that people could only spend the amount of money that they have or make. That’s one of the things he’s famous for is that his factory workers could buy their own Model Ts.

We now live in a stupid reality where the world is controlled by rich people who see others as slaves and who are wanting to keep slave labor in perpetuity, even when the labor doesn’t need to exist.

Assume for a moment that AI really was taking all of these types of jobs, which by the way, almost certainly includes CEOs. It would only be a matter of time before robots take those other jobs he’s talking about.

A normal human of normal intelligence would see that and conclude that people simply wouldn’t have to work anymore. And that therefore, everyone should have their basic necessities taken care of by their governments.

People would be free to do whatever they want, whether it be “humanities” work or creating things or whatever. We’re no longer constrained by the fact that our lives depend on our usefulness in jobs to the ruling class.

Only a member of that ruling class would see themselves as indispensable and others as slave labor.

If the government has more income, that just means they have more money to give to corporations and wealthy people.

Pete and Repeat are sitting on a bench. Pete jumps off the bench. Who is left sitting on the bench?

Pete and Repeat are sitting on a bench. Pete jumps off the bench. Who is left sitting on the bench?

One important skill for school is to look at the entire question so that you can understand what the teacher is asking for, even if they don’t format the question exactly right.

In this case, your answer would not fit into the 6 spaces provided for the answer.

So you have to ask yourself what they meant by “Write the following words”. Since “the” is the same word repeated twice, once you’ve written “the” after 5, then I could argue that “the” has already been written.

Therefore, if there are only six blanks for the answer, looking at the entire question, I argue that the answer I provided is most likely correct.

1. alphabet
2. come
3. in
4. order
5. the
6. they

I think people should rate things consistently, and both of those criteria in the post are fairly subjective. Like, they could both vary based on your mood.

Here’s my 3-star rating system, which is less subjective:

*** I would happily watch this movie again, or I have already enjoyed it multiple times.

** It wasn’t bad, but I don’t see myself watching it again.

* I would refuse to watch this again, or I turned it off because I couldn’t watch it once.

Of course, it’s not perfect. Movies like Dear Zachary would be forced to be 2 stars. But for the most part, since star reviews are to help people decide what to watch, if the criteria is whether or not people would want to watch it a lot, I think the intentions line up with the implementation better.

I’m still surprised that all of the January 6 insurrectionists could just storm the capitol building without being shot. They were breaking into the main building that had all of our lawmakers in it at the time, and only one of those morons was shot. Only the stupidest one. The queen of morons.

And did you notice what happened after that idiot was shot and killed? Nobody else tried to go through that window.

I suspect that most Linux users are former Windows users.

You’re still not supposed to cite Wikipedia because it is an encyclopedia that contains no original information.

If you use Wikipedia for research, you go to the links that Wikipedia cites, and then you read and cite those, instead.

Did Alanis Morissette write this?

It’s honestly weird to store treasure in a chest in the first place.

If you’re rich enough to have treasure, wouldn’t it be in like a treasure vault or on display?

This does happen a lot, but have you ever had the opposite happen? Where you go into some of your older code, and not only is it nice to read, but you had anticipated that you’d have to make this change later, and so the design makes the change easy?

That’s happened to me a few times and all I can say is that it takes days for my self-satisfaction to wane.

It’s irritating to see him looting the company like that when he actually delivers negative value to the company otherwise. Literally it would be better for Tesla to give those bonuses to some random person on the street than to Musk.

Looks like the last Beartato update was in 2023. Sad, I always liked that comic.

I don’t expect other people will like it as much as I do, but here is maybe my favorite Beartato comic ever: https://nedroid.com/?403

a large chunk of the replies were “well MY displays work just fine!”

I just went to check the previous thread, and I think there’s miscommunication both ways here.

They read your post as “I’m trying Linux, but it’s even hard to get monitors to work.” So, they responded, “I haven’t had a problem with monitors on Linux in decades.”

There’s not much else they can say, as you weren’t really asking for advice, so you didn’t give any technical details, but you were still complaining about something that they like.

Meanwhile, you read them as you said, “well MY displays work just fine!” So their replies seem utterly baffling, defensive, and unhelpful from your perspective.

It’s a bit of a change of mindset to begin thinking that you can’t trust a PR even a little.

It has never occurred to me that other people trust PRs, even a little. I mean, that they might think about it in those terms.

This explains a lot to me.

Why does it take me longer to review code than other people? They trust the person who wrote it, but I don’t.

Why is it that when my coworkers think a person is untrustworthy, that they always end up begging me to do all of that person’s reviews. It’s because I’m not bothered by that. I already treat everybody as untrustworthy.

I’ve never understood how other people think when they do reviews, I guess.

Forgetting AI for a moment, I am always shocked when I am reviewing a coworker’s code and it’s obvious that they themselves didn’t review it.

Like, they sent me a PR that has a whole shitload of other crap in it. Why should I look at it when you haven’t looked at it? If you don’t review your own review requests, you’re a failure of a programmer human.

And I would be a failure if I approved such a request.

Getting back to the post, where is all of the review? The coworker should have reviewed the AI shit, whether it was code or documentation. The person who approved the PR should have reviewed it, as well.

Every business with more than one programmer should have at least two levels of safeguards against this exact thing happening. More if you include different types of test suites.

This post describes a fundamentally broken business, regardless of the AI angle, and so it’s good if everything is broken. With such a lack of discipline and principles, I say let the business fail.

The word “robot” can be defined in many different ways, and that affects whether this has already happened, or how soon it may happen in the future.

If robot means remote controlled machine, think Battle Bots, or if it means something with a robotic arm, then it’s probably already happened.

If robot means human shaped machine, then I’d guess if it hasn’t happened yet, if only because of the expense.

If robot means sensors, processing, and actuators, like I learned in school, then I’m guessing it hasn’t happened yet, simply because it’s more work than a machine that follows a routine, but I could easily be wrong.

If robot means fully functional human sized android type robot with integrated processing then who knows? If it also requires AI, then I’m guessing it’s a ways off.