Yep. In their mind it's safer to force-push updates of not only OS programs, but also *any* third parties whose software I installed at one point in the past. I don't automatically trust every new version that comes out, and for many programs I don't even need the security fixes (which often come together with all kinds of regressions, new issues, and sometimes even worse security holes). As a sophisticated user I want to decide what gets installed on my machine and when. But some people simply lack the ability to think critically beyond the (admittedly often justified for novice users) mantra of "keep everything updated at all times".

I'm happy with PopOS!. It's based on Ubuntu, with some stuff stripped away, and designed to work well with Nvidia. I switched from Ubuntu to PopOS! because Ubuntu Snaps pissed me off to no end. Particularly their refusal to allow users to stop automatic updates, which had me jumping through hoops and crippling my Ubuntu installation to achieve. I vaguely remember I read that they eventually backed from that paternalistic policy but I will still try to avoid Ubuntu in my future endeavors. It just felt way too Microsoft-y to me.

Yeah explore the world when I'm downloading something, uploading something, or running something...

This phenomenon is quite common. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The People Republic's of China. The United States Department of Education...

How people can be so indifferent to their computers occasionally rebooting on their own is beyond me. This obnoxious Microsoftism is the reason I've switched from Windows 7 to Linux instead of downgrading to Windows 10. I absolutely wholeheartedly do not miss Windows.

In my experience - never work for free for a business. If anything - it will make them appreciate you and your services LESS. But like anything in life, there can be exceptions. You've already worked with this business for three years, but this couple of months they have a cash flow problem and ask to delay their payment by a few months? That might be fine. But what you described doesn't seem justified. If the business is just starting up then maybe it makes sense to give them a lower rate for a limited period (as long as it's still worth your while), or maybe take some of the compensation in stocks or stock options. But don't work for free.

But musicians do get exposure this way and for some it works out very well. A physicist doing tasks for a business? Not so much exposure there, unfortunately.

Windows having all kinds of bugs and Microsoft not caring about them because too busy researching new ways to annoy users with ads - I can live with. But Dell not installing lights for the NumLock and CapsLock keys is a crime against humanity.

I've used Thunderbird on my Linux for a while. It's a very sub-par experience compared to Outlook. Its UX is pretty terrible and unintuitive. Its search capabilities are confusing and often seem to just not work correctly. And last time I checked (a couple of years ago or so) - it was broken on Wayland (there was a known issue that hadn't been addressed for a long time, even though Wayland has already become the default on some distributions, like PopOS 22.04). It's unfortunate but free alternatives to desktop applications, especially complex ones, always seem to lack significantly. Can't really blame the developers working nights and weekends for free, but I wish people were more open to actually paying for software on Linux. I believe it would have really helped the ecosystem. Donations and corporate sponsorship are simply not enough. At least for desktop.

I used to be annoyed back when it was just used to cheat investors out of their money. But now? Now it's the real deal, my friend.

I used to be annoyed back when it was just used to cheat investors out of their money. But now? Now it's the real deal, my friend.

What kind of person asks a friend to scan an entire book for him? And what exactly prevented this friend from scanning the book himself?

My previous reply was just ChatGPT's response to the OP (I copy-pasted their post as the prompt). I thought it would be obvious but I guess I was wrong, it seems that no one picked up on that. Anyway, I guess it depends on how you define "intelligence". A quick Google definition check yields:

Quote:

Intelligence: the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

I would say that LLMs easily fit inside this definition... As for real vs. magic - our brains are also real and not magic. Doesn't mean we don't have intelligence, right?

Our brains are also algorithms that go through massive amounts of data and in some cases, as a result, make things up :)

Quote:

I know what code I want to write and don't need the assistance of my machine to help me

You are living in the past, my friend... I've been programming for 30 years. I am proficient in a variety of languages and platforms. I use AI daily for my work. You don't know what you're missing out on.

Your sentiment touches on an interesting and nuanced debate within the field of artificial intelligence and technology. The terms "AI" (Artificial Intelligence) and "LLM" (Large Language Models) refer to different concepts, though they are related. **Artificial Intelligence (AI)** is a broad term that encompasses the development of computer systems able to perform tasks that normally require human intelligence. These tasks include understanding natural language, recognizing patterns, solving complex problems, and more. AI aims to mimic or replicate human cognitive functions, and it can be applied in various ways, from simple algorithms in a calculator to complex systems driving autonomous vehicles or providing personalized recommendations on streaming platforms. **Large Language Models (LLM)**, on the other hand, are a specific type of AI focused on understanding, generating, and interacting with human language. LLMs like GPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) are trained on vast amounts of text data and can generate coherent, contextually relevant text based on the input they receive. They are a subset of AI technologies, showcasing the advancements in natural language processing and understanding. The distinction you're hinting at might stem from the perception that the term "AI" is sometimes used too broadly or ambitiously, suggesting a level of intelligence or autonomy that current technology does not yet possess. In reality, most of what is popularly referred to as AI involves machine learning algorithms, including LLMs, that are highly specialized and operate within defined parameters set by their human creators. The debate around terminology also reflects concerns about AI's societal impact, ethical considerations, and the future of human-machine interaction. By preferring not to use "AI" to describe current technologies, you might be emphasizing the gap between the capabilities of present-day systems and the concept of true artificial general intelligence (AGI) — machines that can understand, learn, and apply knowledge across a wide range of tasks, similar to a human being. In essence, your preference for terminology might be advocating for a more precise language that accurately reflects the current state of technology and its limitations, fostering a clearer understanding among the general public and within the tech community.

Post-modernism.

I bet ChatGPT can do it.

Quote:

it should be really simple to calculate what angle to tilt the monitor in order to have the diagonal become horizontal.

Yes, but where's the proof that making the diagonal horizontal is optimal for developers? (or for any other use case, for that matter).

If it gets too long vertically then we can combine multiple approaches. In my code I don't get to 20 or 30 lines that are part of a single statement.. but if it happened to me, I'd probably split it up into multiple statements. It would probably also make it easier to debug/troubleshoot.

string someString = mything
.something()
.somethingElse()
.foo()
.bar()
.bang()
.whiz()
.toString()
;