If I was able to use open book for every exam and had the whole thing digitized in advance with billions of notes and evaluations of the texts the questions were based on I'd probably ace it to.
It can summarise (covert freeform text to json etc), it can expand (convert these bullet points in to content) and it can transpose (rewrite this python as java).
It's a starting prompt for fiction and a research time saver for non fiction. It's a multipurpose tool. Functionally it's also a UI if you write it as hardcoded reply formats.
Not really; the consensus view within the company was that the justin.tv website wasn’t long-term sustainable and the company needed a narrower focus.
There were three segments with sizeable viewer counts at the time: sports, video games, and social streams. The people streaming sports probably didn’t have the necessary permission from the copyright holders, so that was only possible through the DMCA safe-harbor provisions; obtaining the rights ourselves didn’t appear to be a viable option.
The entire company basically split into two divisions: the social division turned into SocialCam, which had some moderate success, and the gaming division turned into Twitch.
Wow, that is a great insight of them. Usually my managers want to do MORE disparate things, and spread more thinly. It's nearly impossible to get them to cut anything and focus on a mission.
As a profession we work in the fastest changing industry in the history of work.
Typically once I make a contribution to the framework or the language alarm bells go off in my head and I learn the new shiny. It's the only way to survive.
It's also complete lunacy. Doctors, scientists, lawyers and engineers in other fields are life long learners, still going to conferences and publishing papers in their 70s. Software however prides itself on the young eating the old. They learn new languages and then holy war everyone else that theirs is the one truth.
And that's fine, but I know plenty of older developers who are astoundingly good and many who are garbage and the general difference is whether their company valued learning or whether it aimed to burn out their developers and replace them with younger developers. Supporting the second type of company is a strange masochism that is widely prevalent in the industry with the "Adapt or Die" mantra.
I agree with your positions above and nothing below is intended to counter that.
> Doctors, scientists, lawyers and engineers in other fields
Careful there - Doctors notoriously fail to adopt (as a group) newer lessons until they are replaced, and lawyers have a similar problems when new areas of law open up (often in tech) - those areas are just fewer because law tries to define everything in terms of existing procedures. And I'm sure science has plenty of ageism problems that are similar enough. Note that the continuing ed classes for doctors and lawyers do not prevent this.
> Software however prides itself on the young eating the old
Software has a cycle we've not learned to defeat, and I think that's the root cause. Specifically (ish): To solve a tech problem in a clear context is easy and quick, so you adopt that system. Adoption means more reliance, dependencies, complexities. Soon, a problem arrives that is not easy to solve with all the baggage you've collected...but solving it OUTSIDE of that baggage is easy. Cycle repeats.
At a large scale: Software is a bit unique in that we get to code our own tools. What I can do in an hour after 5 years on a problem is far more than I can do in an hour with nothing - that learning and those tools get encoded into a library/framework/language, which becomes the hot thing. But now it can't itself change without violating assumptions relied on by everything using it, which means the rate of adding learned knowledge to it slows, while the rate of adding to "competing" systems does not. Eventually they are just plain faster/easier/better, and they become the hot thing.
The reason this is significant is that we're still learning how to program. We're actually REALLY BAD AT IT - programs are to translate between humans and computers, and those two do not think alike. We're embedding complexity and then suffering because there is complexity.
We're learning, but that is an iterative process- eating itself, as you say. Once the field approaches the age of medicine or law, we'll be as good (or as bad) at managing change as they are, but until then we're can't really compare directly.
>>Doctors notoriously fail to adopt (as a group) newer lessons until they are replaced, and lawyers have a similar problems when new areas of law open up (often in tech)
Even as individuals they need to adopt to newer lessons. If anything its harder in their case. Gaining a new skill or learning something new is way easier for an old programmer than for an old doctor to learn something new in their practice.
If you have chosen a knowledge based profession, you have to learn all life. Or its over.
These are like the fundamental rules of this game.
You are paying for python. You pay for any software product you use by not using an alternative.
OSS maintainers deserve respect but at a certain point they have turned their hobby in to their career, complete with clients and marketing. If you are willing to trust an open source project for your livelihood than the maintainer also has an obligation to respect that.
> You pay for any software product you use by not using an alternative.
Sure, but in the same sense "you pay" for eating a day-old egg salad sandwich you found sitting on a park bench. (Luckily, even using badly-written open source software generally has a less unpleasant outcome.)
Like open source, the chef -- who you have no relationship, connection or contract with -- is not under any obligation to guarantee either your satisfaction or survival.
If you want to reduce the risk to your livelihood, you should pay money for both your critical open source software and your egg salad sandwiches.
In a previous life I threw some tarballs w/ a buildable OpenGL clone and separately a buildable Renderman "clone" onto an FTP server and published the location.
Some people downloaded it, built it and used it. Even added to it, where they liked.
I'd assume ads like that in SF are aimed at developers and general tech talent. Facebook bulkheaded themselves from shifting tastes in social media by buying insta and whatsapp but they've got to be concerned at their brand being toxic for hiring. It's death by a thousand cuts.
If they were aimed at devs and tech ppl, why is it phrased in grandparent-friendly terms? This isn't just a True Scotsman, it takes money and time to refine their message into something so plain and comprehendable by everybody.
It's representing the views of people who have quit facebook over Cambridge Analytica and explaining why they did it.
Writing your take on the article is probably in the works and probably takes a lot more time than 2-3 days. Reporting on something is what newspapers mainly do. Analysis and opinion usually comes later and from other sources.
