Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)S
Posts
4
Comments
1452
Joined
1 yr. ago

  • If you bring a 6yo into office and tell them to do your work for you, you should be locked up. For multiple reasons.

    Not sure why they thought that was a positive comparison.

  • I love that series. The humor is just spot on.

  • RTFM

    Jump
  • 2008 called, it wants the same old joke back. This is not even loss.

  • Minimum viable product! Sell it, it's good enough!

  • I have the choice between a guilded one and a shit one. It's a cage either way, but at least in the guilded one nobody shouts at me unpunished.

  • LGTM

    Jump
  • You know, that's really close to the original way gendering was done in German.

    There used to be separate word endings for male and female, and if you don't care you'd just skip the ending. IIRC it was "Bäcko" for male, "Bäcka" for female and "Bäck" for "I don't care as long as I get good bread".

    The vovel shift then changed -o and -a both to -e, and then there was no gender marking at all. The modern -in ending for female forms only originated in the 16th century to make women more visible in the language.

    That's why German doesn't have symmetric male/female variants but only a generic and a female form. As in, if you say "Bäckerin" it's clear you are specifically only referring to women, while "Bäcker" doesn't clearly mean you are only referring to a man.

  • LGTM

    Jump
  • German works. We have more than enough options for non-genered language.

  • LGTM

    Jump
  • Singular they

    As in "just ask them to review your PR".

    It's not new either. It's been in use since the 14th century.

  • To be honest? I don't care how an honest innovator is supposed to survive. It's not my responsibility to risk my sanity and my financial stability for someone else's dream.

    I spent long enough in a crappy startup. Not doing that again.

    Also, it's not exactly fair to lump youtube in with the average startup that any random person will work in. Youtube was created by three super rich ex-Paypalers and within a year it was big enough to be sold for €1.3 billion. It was basically founded as a mega corporation, including everything that a huge corporation requires (structures, HR, good salaries and so on).

    Can't find anything on canonical's history.

    While Youtube was technically classified as a startup, it's a far cry from the average 5 person startup that you'll usually find when talking about startups.

  • It certainly supports the admin sharting when he finds out where all the data went.

  • Why bigot? If you agree that startups suck, why would that make me a bigot?

    Startups are ok if it's your first job and you have no other choice or if you own them (or at least a significant share of it). In any other case it's a ton of work in a volatile environment without any safeguards against abuse for very little pay.

  • So what did the "hacker" actually do? From what I can see, the article doesn't say anything at all about that.

  • A surprising amount of teachers work like LLMs. No idea what they are talking about but extremely scared of admitting it.

  • Or whales. They are even bigger with no secondary brain in sight.

  • On the other hand, if you have a much better resolution on an LCD, you have ample space to emulate the CRT looks.

  • Mhm, and those academics were no IT people and had nothing to do with computers?

    Let's fact-check that.

    Computer Sciences as an academic course was first created by IBM at the Columbia University in 1946. Because IBM had made their first commercial computer two years prior and wanted to have people who could operate it and who could continue to develop it.

  • This is it.

    Same with programmers. Of course I don't have the documentation of everything I use memorized. But my skill is to understand what I am reading, figure out what is trash and what is useful and then apply it to the situation in front of me.

    Same as a doctor would do when googleing the specifics of medicine and conditions.

  • But did the elevator operator get replaced by a humanoid robot pulling the lever of a formerly human-operated elevator?

    That's what they person before you was referencing. In most situations a simple computer-controlled mechanism is enough. If that's not enough, a non-humanoid robot trumps a humanoid robot. And in situations where a humanoid shape is really necessary, human labour is really cheap.

    Humans don't have their shape because it's the perfectly ideal form, but because evolution always only iterates on what it has.

    Btw: automatisation happens because either using a full human for a simple task is overkill (e.g. your elevator operator example) or because humans really aren't the optimal shape (e.g. using a robot arm to lift a car during production). If a humanoid shape is required, humans will do the job.

  • Considering the sloppy writing and them never answering in the comments, probably a bot.