> You’re taking a bunch of pre-built abstractions written by other people on top of what the computer is actually doing and plugging them together like LEGOs.
Correct. However, you will probably notice that your solution to the problem doesn't feel right, when the bricks that are available to you, don't compose well. The AI will just happily smash together bricks and at first glance it might seem that the task is done.
Choosing the right abstraction (bricks) is part of finding the right solution. And understanding that choice often requires exploration and contemplation. AI can't give you that.
Not yet, anyway; I do trust LLMs for writing snippets or features at this point, but I don't trust them for setting up new applications, technology choices, architectures, etc.
The other day people were talking about metrics, the amount of lines of code people vs LLMs could output in any given time, or the lines of code in an LLM assisted application - using LOC as a metric for productivity.
But would an LLM ever suggest using a utility or library, or re-architecture an application, over writing their own code?
I've got a fairly simple application, renders a table (and in future some charts) with metrics. At the moment all that is done "by hand", last features were stuff like filtering and sorting the data. But that kind of thing can also be done by a "data table" library. Or the whole application can be thrown out in favor of a workbook (one of those data analysis tools, I'm not at home in that are at all). That'd save hundreds of lines of code + maintenance burden.
> Didn't we get to the point where we realized that microservices cause too much trouble down the road?
That's a largely ignorant opinion to have. Like any architecture, microservices have clear advantages and tradeoffs. It makes no sense to throw vague blanket statements at an architure style because you assume it "causes trouble", particularly when you know nothing about requirements or constraints and all architectures are far from bullet proof.
For sure. There are some systems I would hate to build as a monolith and some systems I would hate not to. There's a good reason microservices showed up.
A website for a meetup I host including a store. It was a 30min thing and amazing. A web app to track my contact lens usage. An android app for my gym routine. A web app to try drum patterns
> The design of Pandas is inferior in every way to Polars
I used Pandas a lot with Jupyter notebooks. I don't have any experience with Polars. Is it also possible to work with Polars dataframes in Jupyter notebooks?
So much negativity in this thread. I actually think this could be useful, because tamper-proof computer systems are useful to prevent evil maid attacks. Especially in the age of Pegasus and other spyware, we should also take physical attack vectors into account.
I can relate to people being rather hostile to the idea of boot verification, because this is a process that is really low level and also something that we as computer experts rarely interact with more deeply. The most challenging part of installing a Linux system is always installing the boot loader, potentially setting up an UEFI partition. These are things that I don't do everyday and that I don't have deep knowledge in. And if things go wrong, then it is extra hard to fix things. Secure boot makes it even harder to understand what is going on. There is a general lack of knowledge of what is happening behind the scenes and it is really hard to learn about it. I feel that the people behind this project should really keep XKCD 2501 in mind when talking to their fellow computer experts.
Russia considers all the European countries as lesser states that should be dominated. Even Hungary, which is politically friendly to Russia, is probably experiencing a lot of disinformation campaigns, because Russia wants to ensure that Putin's lapdog (i.e. Orban) stays in power and serves russian interests.
It would be helpful if we could avoid this kind of language that assumes (in this case) 'everyone knows that Orban is Russia's lapdog with an implication that if you don't know that then you're ... whatever. No, I'm not supporting Orban. I simply don't know enough in detail to comment. Perhaps you don't either. Better to describe what actually transpires (facts on the ground) and leave the generalization which inevitably depends in too many cases on one's private predilections. Popular public discussion in general is replete with this. Better to be aware that many of us have a tendency try to shoehorn factual observations into a handy emotive category which happens to appeal.
Correct. However, you will probably notice that your solution to the problem doesn't feel right, when the bricks that are available to you, don't compose well. The AI will just happily smash together bricks and at first glance it might seem that the task is done.
Choosing the right abstraction (bricks) is part of finding the right solution. And understanding that choice often requires exploration and contemplation. AI can't give you that.
reply