Exactly, we also have to think about support and maintenance when building and shipping products. It's always nice to play with new things to keep the learning fresh and see what people are up to. I started with php and .NET Framework ASP and in the early-mid 2010's when the reactive JS frameworks started coming around I just never found my jive with them and just started working at C#/.NET shops and am using Blazor Server now. For my domain of web application development the .NET web application ecosystem works great. Looking at the dagger.js docs and examples found myself thinking, this is more Java(SCRIPT) development. It's going to inherit the same issues as JavaScript (weak typing, no runtime reflection, no binary build output, locked into vendor interpreters with mixed feature support), and that's not mentioning all the oddities with the way object prototypes are implemented and interact with each other. I think the ambition and result of the project are amiable. The author did good work, but it's good work on a thing we need less of in my opinion.
I think they're another tool in the toolbox not a new workshop. You have to build a good strategy around LLM usage when developing software. I think people are naturally noticing that and adapting.
I've had my Rotring 600 mechanical pencil for 10 years and I might need to add the ballpoint variant soon. I see some people mentioning that the new Rotrings aren't as good, which is a shame.
Not just the technical aspect here. I read through the page and nothing of any measurable importance was stated. What problems did this solve? What benefits does this bring to users? I guess I was expecting more from Google. The initial Material design system made some good points and addressed some issues for UI design. This just seems unfocused.
> We can finally just take a photo of a textbook problem that has no answer reference and no discussion about it and prompt an LLM to help us understand what's missing in our understanding of the problem, if our solution is plausible and how we could verify it.
I would take that advice with caution. LLM's are not oracles of absolute truth. They often hallucinate and omit important pieces of information.
Like any powerful tool, it can be dangerous in the unskilled hands.
I don't think it will boost the fertility rate in any significant way. I think the only way to really make a dent in low fertility rates is to incentivize mothers to stay at home and men to work full-time at least for the first five years of a child's life. I know people disagree with this, but it's worth considering if the declining birth rates are a major concern for the State.
Imagine blending the traditional educational structures into EdTech and using network engineering to clamp down what can be accessed in a classroom device to only the educational software modules needed. For example, you could put timers on how long each module is open. Give teachers the ability to override them and tap into each student individually if needed.
The issue is that the surrounding infrastructures would need to be much more competent than they currently are in education. I worked at an educational institution in the IT department, and the level of knowledge the IT staff had was abysmal. It was surprising that anything worked at all.
Additionally, not everything needs to be gamified. Somehow this notion that everything a child interacts with on a computer has to mimic a video game is a really narrow way of thinking. Instead, we could start with basic computer usage skills such as file management, and system configuration, and using core tools such as word processes and image manipulation software.
Instead of dumping kids into the world of Google which is a for-profit mechanism that is inherently designed to get people to click on stuff as much as possible, we actually as software developers need to re-think EdTech and have it be learning first.
This is exactly what I was thinking. I'm always trying to have fewer third-party dependencies in my codebase no matter how tiny, especially if it's solving problems that already have platform/system native solutions.
Those are my thoughts exactly. No metrics. It seems like an ad for some AI product to governments. Also, while cutting emissions is a good thing, wouldn't it be good to sell how this will make people's commutes more pleasant and generate some interest other than emissions control?
It depends on what needs to be built. If the regulators 'like' what needs to be built it'll pop up fast, look at the wind turbine expansion in Europe and parts of the USA. In terms of material input that dwarves what building one nuclear power plant or blast furnace requires.
I think we need to re-think the fundamental reasons for why we use computing technology. There was a time where computers were mainly used to assist humans in handling complex, tedious tasks. Specifically, tasks rooted in computation and organization of data.
Today people expect, because they have been sold the idea that computers should do everything from drawing for them to fulfilling their social needs as a human.
I think it's time to step back and really think about what the role of computers should be and how we as humans use computers.
I remember when using the Internet and digital media were in their early stages. Compared to today there was a very small segment of the population doing those things. You were underground if you were playing video games on the Internet.
Most computers lived in offices doing what they did best: office work.
"Let's do wind turbines to generate clean electricity!"
The wind turbine manufacturing and decommissioning processes are hugely inefficient, not to mention the negative impacts wind turbines have during their operational period. Regardless of these findings large areas of land in North America and Europe are littered with wind turbines. Oh while we're at it lets shut down all the nuclear power plants because we're scared of them.
"Hey, this whole green energy thing has been a total disaster. Regardless, let's start setting arbitrary deadlines on which we want to eliminate gas powered cars and replace them with electric cars that rely on our disastrous green energy rollout!"
The push to widespread electric car usage is ignoring major infrastructure short comings in many places where the push is happening.
It's almost like the people in charge of this stuff are a bunch of idealistic nitwits who are risking plunging us into the dark ages.