The question is: How to become a senior when there is no place to be a junior? Will future SWE need to do the 10k hours as a hobby? Will AI speed up or slow down learning?
good question and I think you gave the correct answer yes people will just do the 10,000 hours required by starting programming at the age of eight and then playing around until they're done studying
High beams are becoming some kind of weapon here in the EU. You have red spots and lines for some time when you happen to encounter a Porsche SUV heading your way angrily flashing at the one in front of them. What‘s next? Lasers? They are just too powerful.
1) indicators ( eu flashing yellow ones) are getting smaller: ok at night, but during the day...very hard to see. I prefer the US red brake/ blinker to these tiny mf's.
*2 Animated (EU only?) yellow indicators. The transition between each segment (usually five?) is always too slow, and very distracting. I prefer the US, and very terrible, blinky-brake lights to these disco-on-xanax horrors.
3. Why can’t there be a sign for 'zippering' where traffic merges?
Because people still think they're somehow going to arrive 30min faster by not merging one-by-one, ignoring the fact that by not letting others in they're actively slowing all other traffic down. Then have all other nervous drivers looking for the first opportunity to cut someone off because they're not going to be able to merge otherwise and you end up with all those crashes near the ends of merge lanes. It's a driving culture issue, varies by country.
Not quite. Despite the branding they’re using SLDs (Super Luminescent Diode). Sits between diode lasers and LEDs in terms of power, coherence, and bandwidth.
These kind of articles are like denial of service attacks on human attention. If I read just a few of those, I would be confused for the rest of the day.
This is something the EU Product Liability Directive potentially addresses. It demands that vendors (or importers) of products need to update their product if that's required to keep them secure. Otherwise they are liable for damages, even psychological damages.
There is no specific duration mentioned in the directive, so it's probably best from a vendor point of view to add product lifetime info to the product description or the contract, up front.
In Germany there is something similar in place, already and the expectation is that products (and necessary apps to run the products) need to be updated for 5 years on average.
> There is no specific duration mentioned in the directive
The directive has explicit 10 year expiry period, see (57)
> Given that products age over time and that higher safety standards are developed as the state of science and technology progresses, it would not be reasonable to make manufacturers liable for an unlimited period of time for the defectiveness of their products. Therefore, liability should be subject to a reasonable length of time, namely 10 years from the placing on the market or putting into service of a product (the ‘expiry period’), without prejudice to claims pending in legal proceedings.
That D-Link DSL6740C device was released in 2014. It's well past lifetime. I am not sure about PLD, but CRA is only for lifetime or ~5 year.
> When placing a product with digital elements on the market, and for the expected product lifetime or for a period of five years from the placing of the product on the market, whichever is shorter, manufacturers shall ensure that vulnerabilities of that product are handled effectively and in accordance with the essential requirements set out in Section 2 of Annex I.
The 5 year clock should start from the last time a consumer purchased the product new, though. I can't find anything concrete but some poking around on wayback machine indicates it was likely discontinued late 2018. Which probably still means they are in the clear in this instance even if you assume it takes a year for the inventory in the channel to sell through.
> The 5 year clock should start from the last time a consumer purchased the product new...
Obvious problem - how could the manufacturer determine (let alone control) when, literally, that happened? They might tell when their major distributors and online retailers ran out of stock...but small distributors and bottom-feeding resellers and mom-and-pop retail? Impossible.
On-package labeling ("Software security updates for this thingie will be available until at least Dec. 31, 2029; also check our web site at https://support...") would be the only fool-proofish method.
I think on-package labelling is a good approach. You could also make the retailer liable for a lack of updates - just as they typically already are with defective products in most jurisdictions.
Yeah, this isn’t that different than the food “best by date” requirements, and in most cases (despite popular belief) the likely consequences of eating old packaged food is not even getting sick, just staleness. Arguably, having exploitable electronics that are “expired” is a greater danger.
The manufacturer can't control or even predict purchase dates, so that leaves potentially unbounded support lifetimes. I'd be comfortable with the 10-year timer starting from date of last manufacturer though
If this works like a warranty, the manufacturer can stop 10 years after selling to the shop. The shop is the one providing the warranty to the user. The shop can oblige their warranty by replacing with a (more recent) equivalent model, even from another manufacturer.
It could be missing IGMP Snooping Protocol support in a network with IPTV or custom VLAN setups. There are 3 versions (IGMP snooping (v1, v2, and v3)), managed switches have them all, unmanaged usually don't have them. To avoid problems, only pass a single VLAN to the unmanaged switch (it must be behind the managed switch for that), otherwise the unmanaged switch can and usually will bring a network down after some time. Or just use a switch with IGMP snooping support.
Yes, but it's based on KNative (actually it's a managed KNative service[1]) which is based on K8s. You can get a dev experience similar to CloudRun with KNative on K8s.
>Absolutely, a reasonably sophisticated scalable app platform looks like a half-baked and undocumented reimagination of Kubernetes.
Or maybe Kubernetes looks like a committee designed, everything and the kitchen sink, over-engineered, second system effect, second system effect suffering, YAGNI P.O.S., that only the kind of "enterprise" mindset that really enjoyed J2EE in 2004 and XML/SOAP vs JSON/REST would love...
It's not as much mentioned in the docs these days, and Google might have built a more optimized version, but it's still using knative APIs and originally was essentially KNative deployed on GKE just managed by Google.
I think current LLMs would be completely lost with the task "scan these documents for information that could be risky for our case": they would either produce tons of false positives, overlook actual risks, or both.
I can personally attest that companies are already using those LLM-based workflows for those exact purposes successfully, performing better than humans, which often isn't a super high bar.
At least you can reasonably use them for translation and in a second pass summarize or just have it detect if a document contains specific keywords / phrases.
Suppose the source language has words which could be translated into multiple English words -- look at all the power banks which are advertised as charging treasure for example. One can see how bank vs treasure are close, after all. Further, even in English multiple phrases could be used "don't preserve" "bin it" "throw it away" and countless others. Even worse, it could be a company specific phrase which would only stand out as odd "apply procedure 66 to it".
If given a little thought this is exactly the kind of task where a native speaker would shine and LLM might just miss or if given a wide enough net produce a million false positive.
Sure! But in any case, it's worth a shot to preprocess document dumps with AI first - if it fails to spot anything obvious, you can still go and have humans sift through the pile manually, whereas if it does spot something humans can immediately zero in instead of wasting their time.
AI is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. It is smart to use it when it makes sense, it is dumb to shoehorn it into something it by definition cannot do.
Just tested out the treasure idea and seems to work fine in ChatGPT. I suspect if given context at the task at hand that the LLM would provide a pretty decent first pass.
What a weird response. Just providing a counterpoint to your idea that I don't believe is correct. I hope dang does not delete your account because I am not sure whats going on here and I hope you find the help/peace you need.
I listed like half a dozen things that could go wrong and the only reply is "look this particular one in this singular case the bullshit is accidentally correct".
Ouch, sorry you are in distress but let me repeat and help flesh it out for you. You would be surprised that when given the context at hand, the level of confusion would be a lot less than your constrained world model envisions. I have been pleasantly surprised with LLMs ability to translate, including legal documents. Should it be the only step in the process? No. Like I originally pointed out, I think a LLM can serve quite well in initial first passes. Its quite naive to hand wave it away with some what-if scenarios and then just become a dismissive immature kid when someone disagrees with you. I can only imagine when you have a corpus to work from of existing legal documents especially for translations, that you get quite close to the spirit of whats written.
You might be caught off guard then because its already happening successfully. There is a lot of overblown hype but systems already exist that do a pretty good job on first passes and other work that paralegals/juniors would be doing. I know this goes against the anti-LLM narrative here but don't be surprised as it happens.
On the other hand, perhaps the summer intern would have had an easier time finding something (and the defense more time to spot potential gaps in their arguments).
reply