> In theory the government is hired by sofereign to govern the country to the benefit of the people.
This kind of suggests that the people ever sat together and decided on a political system that would benefit them. The reality is that even the most egalitarian and liberal system has been put into place by the ruling class and naturally was designed to benefit them. I'd say this is and was true for at least all major western societies. "By the people, for the people" is propaganda to legitimize said political systems after the fact. And we believe it, because it's the ruling ideology.
Are you claiming that LLMs have an intent beyond producing the statistically most "correct" output? This sounds a bit like you are saying LLMs are conscious.
Funny, I had a similar experience. I wrote a script that enabled players to "call in" mortar support, by looking at the target and selecting a distance. Also using shoddy trigonometry and also one of my earliest programming experiences. Very basic from today's perspective, but I was mighty proud back then and so hooked!
My impression is that smaller companies, that depend on rapid prototyping to gain clients, exert a lot of pressure onto their devs to use LLMs. At least that's the situation in the companies some friends of mine are working at.
I'm in a slow-moving, much bigger company. Lot's of talk about "AI" here and we can use copilot if we want to, but there is 0 pressure. I'm in a small team and one colleague uses copilot often. In the beginning there was a minor conflict between him and me, because I found the quality of the LLM code unacceptable and had to ask him to review it more carefully. I think that's settled now, but it makes me sad how a once motivated colleague now seems to try to cheat his way out of work.
I personally find it incredibly boring to write copilot prompts or read its answers full of boiler plate and sycophancy. I don't understand how anyone would want to replace the cognitive work of programming, that I find enjoyable for the most part, with the cognitive work of "talking" to an LLM.
Anyway, I think it will be like this at least for a little while longer: only vibe coding allowed in small companies and less vibe coding the bigger the company is.
But before vibe coding can take over the slow-moving big companies, all the accumulated technical debt will come back to haunt us and vibe-free software will be the new fad. That's what I hope at least.
No. They cut on maintenance to make line go up. And then they deconstructed existing switches, signal boxes, train lines, and train stations to cut costs even more. This is not an EU problem or a regulations problem or labour cost problem. These are the fruits of privatisation and capitalism.
My mistake. I see my oversight now. `Either String String` is not equivalent to `String | String`, but to `Left String | Right String`. The same must be done for the C# version.
You are correct that this requires support for disjoint unions (aka tagged unions), which Haskell always had and C# will soon have.
My mistake. I see my oversight now. `Either String String` is not equivalent to `String | String`, but to `Left String | Right String`. The same must be done for the C# version.
I think it's almost always about making code more concise and programming more ergonomic. Assembly could already solve all the problems higher-level languages can solve. Yet we didn't discard them as useless.
No, it's a union of a left value (that happens to be a string) and a right value (that happens to be a string). But the compiler-generated code can't tell them apart.
I don't think it's a matter of the type of problem and I always found it weird how F# is being framed as being only useful for "math-heavy" problems.
What matters is what libraries you are gonna use for your solution. If most of them are C#-only and don't have an F# equivalent then you'll lose the ergonomics and conveniences that make F# so easy to work with.
What's the company's name? And why the unnecessary secrecy in the first place? It's a publicly traded company so this information is public by definition.
Could you please show us an example of the change made to one of these if statements? I'm curious, because it seems absolutely wild to me to end up in such a situation (where that many changes are required and the usual refactoring tools of modern IDEs are insufficient) in the first place.
This kind of suggests that the people ever sat together and decided on a political system that would benefit them. The reality is that even the most egalitarian and liberal system has been put into place by the ruling class and naturally was designed to benefit them. I'd say this is and was true for at least all major western societies. "By the people, for the people" is propaganda to legitimize said political systems after the fact. And we believe it, because it's the ruling ideology.