It's not clear to me why they booed him. you think for only asserting predictions that benefit him? Not because they agree on those predictions and don't want that future, blame him for this role in it?
I really thought that this was unintentional. It's hard to believe that you think this is fine to do because one can opt out. Take it for whatever it's worth, this is not OK. It is really bad. You want people's data to help you make your product better? Make it opt in and ask for their help.
I like the separation of planning and execution. I think the right set of artifacts to pass on to the execution will evolve but may be it's different for different types of work.
From the project: "The plugin enqueues the input and a daemon picks it up - planning, building, reviewing, and validating autonomously."
The part that is not clear to me (and causes most problems for me) is the "validating". It makes a mistake, or decides mocking an interface is fine, etc. declares success and moves on to the next. The bigger the project the more small mistakes compound. It sounds like the agent is doing the validation. What's the approach here for validation?
In Great Automatic Grammatizator by Roald Dahl was one of the
stories that stayed with me through the years. In the story, there is a machine that can write stories, replacing authors but they were at least paying real authors to use their names.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Automatic_Grammatiza...
@cebert Have you looked at us serverless specific solutions like Thundra (my company), Serverless.com, etc.? I think the cost for use case may be order of magnitude lower since the pricing is only based on number of invocations.
What if it was easy to see why a test is flaky, compare failed/successful test runs like a code diff? Would that be useful?
This is what we're building at Thundra (foresight product), instrument the tests as well as backend services to enable devs to quickly diagnose failing/flaky tests. Would appreciate any feedback you may have, here or privately.
This happened to me as well. I wanted to share how we dealt with it was it was different from most comments here and may be useful to you. We paid. My company was sued along with few multi-billion dollar companies. I only found out because one of their lawyers called me as they were planning to fight back and wanted to check whether I wanted to join forces.
I found a good patent attorney and explained the situation. After learning that we were a small company with less that $500K revenue that year, bootstrapped and only had couple hundred thousand dollars in the bank, he suggested that I talked to the patent trolls lawyers by myself without a lawyer first. His rational was that they were not really after us as we were small, and once they learned that, they would either drop it or ask for a small amount to settle.
I followed his advice and had a call with them and it went exactly as he predicted. Upon learning that our US revenue was only few hundred thousand dollars, they asked $30K to settle and sent me an agreement. He reviewed the agreement for us, and recommended that we settle. We did. It was a ridiculous patent yet all of the companies that were sued settled as well. The experience was traumatic and was one the main reasons I decided to raise money from investors later. I slept better knowing that we had the funds to fight lawsuits if need be. Patent lawyer was happy to take the case if we needed to, but warned us about how expensive it would be.
Given that you're a single person company, you're likely small fish for patent troll. The best option for you may be to let them know that and see what they do. Best of luck!
Good point. There are also some software solutions (picus security, etc.) that tests your validates whether your environment is exposed due to specific CVEs. It's a good way to prioritize which vulnerabilities that you should tackle first.
Analogy does not work here and is misleading. You cannot do much if anything with 20 most representative pixels (if there is such a thing) but you can infer highly valuable characteristics about the person. Yes, you cannot recreate the original data but what you end up is potentially much worse (sensitive/private) than the original data.
Yes it's very common to rent from a company rather than individual landlords. Some of these companies are massive managing hundreds of thousands apartments. Many of the building are specifically built as rentals and all units are for rent hence there is often a leasing office somewhere in the building.
You can select a method and see the logs generated for that method. Idea is to have all the information - request parameters, return values, logs, metrics all in one place to make it easier to troubleshoot problems.
multiple is highly dependent on the growth rate, and makes no sense to talk about it without knowing how fast the company is growing. $100k/year growing 100% is very different than growing 10%.
You can use snagit from techsmith for this. It supports saving as an animated gif and can upload to number of places like screencast.com directly from the product which generates a URL that you can share.
It's not that we should not do what you're suggesting but clearly we're not able to due to political differences. I'm suggesting that we may need to take a different approach to tackle the problem that considers political realities. Trying to reduce the carbon emissions is not the only way to address the climate change, many people argue that it may no longer be sufficient anyway. Suggestion is to focus on the fact that it's happening and try to find ways to reverse it, mitigate it's impact etc.
Is it really? Would it not be easier to find consensus (hence more productive) if we were to focus on whether the climate is changing (and not why)? Determine what the impact of the climate change will be and how we should address this problem?
I feel most of the discussions on this topic miss the fact that the most critical challenge is not what will happen when machines will be able to do all the work, rather it's whether we'll survive the transition. Even a small increase in unemployment can cause significant social unrest, all kinds of dangerous politics, trigger wars, etc.
This is exactly how we use the chat and have few dozen conversations per day. Most (not all) initial conversations are pre-set but if you reply, you'd get a real person, including one of the founders. The email is asked when no one is available to engage within few minutes so that we can get back to the person.