I asked it how to do something with an AWS cli tool. ChatGPT invented a new parameter that looked like a programmer would come up with it and it would do exactly what I was looking for (I assumed many people had my problem before).
Took me a while to figure out that the parameter --no-reset-origin-access-identity was not only not working. But it did never exist on any version of the cli tool.
ChatGPT was my first choice just because I want to know if it is any good at helping me with my work.
But for this problem (CF-Distribution lost OAC settings when updating the root file), all the google fu in the world did not help me. It turned out that I had to update my aws-cli and my problem went away. Apparently no one else on the internet had that problem, so only my gut could help me figure it out.
If you just want a career in making computer software. Build something. Then do it again. Google all the stuff you need to build your current thing. After a few month it will be obvious to you that you can build software. Then talk to companies about junior positions. Tell them you are self-taught and show them the stuff you have built already.
Best to talk to a company (usually small companies are easier), where you are allowed to talk to a programmer early on. The fact that you learned everything by yourself means they do not have to hold your hand all the time. Hand-holding time is the most important consideration for me, when taking on junior devs.
Does not matter if it is more safe or not. It is typical goverment overreach. Me wearing a helmet is no ones business but my own. It has no effect whatsoever on anyone else in society.
A possible steel man for the opposite position could be that a person hospitalized because of a preventable injury to the head will be of a greater cost to society, and that the sacrifice of personal liberty is outweighed by every dollar going towards something more beneficial.
I'm not saying I totally agree with that, but I think it's an argument that's rarely articulated, whereas the more reductive argument of keeping everyone "safe" is almost always the default.
You're emphatically wrong. If we have an accident and you die as a result of not wearing a helmet then your estate can file a wrongful death lawsuit against me. If there was a helmet law in place and you weren't wearing a helmet at the time of the accident then your estate is going to have a much more difficult time winning a wrongful death lawsuit. Your actions have consequences for others and frankly it's rather childish to try to pretend they don't.
Is your child specifically sensitive to brains? If she sees me lying at the end of a long red smear in a pool of blood with my head intact, but with my leg ripped off and my other limbs contorted into absurd positions, is she likely to have no lasting effects.
This is a logic failure; I didn't say specifically or exclusively brains, I provided an example of one of the many gruesome ways your dead body would cause harm to others based on your poor decision making skills.
Maybe future programming systems can use an assertive pattern, where software developers only define what the software is supposed to do. And the programming systems generates a program that fulfills all assertions.
Then when the software designer finds that the software does something wrong, he can simply add assertions. Its a little like TDD but without coding.
For GUI applications it would be cool to define assertions via natural language and the programming system drawing pictures to explain what it understood.
> Maybe future programming systems can use an assertive pattern, where software developers only define what the software is supposed to do. And the programming systems generates a program that fulfills all assertions.
Isn't this just a programming, but harder and worse?
We've invented programming languages to be less ambiguous about what we want done, that's a feature and not a bug. It allows us to avoid the struggle of lawmakers (who are programming in spoken language) and lets us tell the computer exactly and unambiguously what to do.
Natural language does not.
"Bang on the floor" may mean to slam the floor or to have sex on the floor.
There's a programming joke that goes like a programmer's partner says "Go to the store and buy a loaf of bread, and if they have eggs, buy twelve". The programmer comes back with twelve loaves of bread.
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.
My intuition is that making all the assertions to write correct code with decent performance and scaling is at least as complicated as writing the code.
When I say "what" but not "how", I am trusting the system to be reasonable in the "how" it generates. But "reasonable" depends on my situation. Unless the system knows and understands that, it may easily do what I said, but do something that is anywhere from non-optimal to disastrous.
And if I have to say enough to prevent that - to prevent all the ways that could happen - is that more efficient, or less, compared to just writing the code myself?
Main reason to make the distinction is that most systems that parade themselves as "low-code" today are IME indistinguishable to high-code development to your average joe.
Even taking this example, the level of value totally depends on the degree of abstraction you can trust the computer to perform for you. There is a tremendous amount of nuance to human language and while we've come a very long way in that field of study, it's still a hard nut to crack.
Bubble, Webflow and Notion will not be happy that your service takes their custom domain revenue.
How much are you prepared to deal with the legal and technical roadblocks they might try to throw at you? (have you talked to a lawyer? which country? botnets?)
With OpenBox (linux window manager thing ... included in eg LXDE) there is a configuration option called "Focus new windows when they appear". You can uncheck that (have not tried it myself).
aws cloudfront update-distribution --id <distribution-id> --distribution-config <new-config> --no-reset-origin-access-identity
Took me a while to figure out that the parameter --no-reset-origin-access-identity was not only not working. But it did never exist on any version of the cli tool.