Josh Collinsworth paints an accurate picture here, and he’s not wrong. People will be hurt by the displacement and disruption that new technology brings, not just AI. It has been happening since humans first picked up stones and sharpened sticks. No one says you have to be happy about it, or even optimistic, even if you happen to be part of a privileged class.
It's a tough game for Perplexity as long as they use Google's search, and with Google now providing "AI Summaries," and with the whole ad ecosystem (invented by Google) designed to turn us into predictable consuming robots, what's a pre-IPO company
going to do? Fight the good fight and stick with a subscription model, or knuckle under and start sending us Google ads?
Sucks. I will say this though: as soon as I see ads in my Perplexity search results, I'm cancelling my paid subscription and simply going back to Google. Without any other differentiating feature set, why would I pay Perplexity?
Good article. I, too, am fascinated by calculators and how they work, especially the HP scientific RPN calculators. So much so, that I ended up developing this:
Reading down further I see this is a follow-up to "40 Algorithms Every Programmer Should Know". So, is this new book the same 40 algorithms from the prior book with 10 added?
If so, perhaps the real book could be called "The One Book Writing Algorithm You Will Ever Need."
Wow. I see almost nothing controversial in the McKinsey article. In a nutshell it addresses hard metrics (DORA) gathered via the repo tooling (commits, MRs, etc) which is enhanced with some outcome metrics, and they combine with soft metrics (SPACE) which are inevitably fluffy on the numbers combined with some other measurements to fill out arguable gaps. But overall, it didn't read like a manifesto.
As far as the criticism from the "ex-finance developers" - yeah, some of whom have done a lot of other noteworthy things outside of "fintech". I don't think it was overly harsh. In fact, maybe just focusing in on certain things that inevitably leave a bad taste - such as assigning numbers to human being's activities or otherwise trying to distill human activity down to hard numbers can lead to abuse - no kidding - almost a tautological argument.
That said, happy people with a shared vision and supportive management delivering a product/idea that is contributing to the team's concept of "the greater good" will always be the sweet spot for productivity.
I would lean more towards the SPACE metrics as the best way to measure, but allow that hard metrics such as DORA can be helpful as alarm bells.
Pair programming can be a productive, even fun, activity in limited situations. Now that we have the option of our pairing partner being human or AI, it sort of highlights a lot of the situations where pair programming is NOT productive, or even fun.
We've reached the point just past the elbow on the Moore's Law graph where things are skyrocketing. Any projections we humans make about the future advancement of AI are hopelessly inaccurate.
For example, running a GPT-4 model on your laptop will likely be possible in the next five years*.
*It may even happen within six months. At that time, much of the concern surrounding private conversations with an LLM will evaporate, and attempts to regulate its use will likely be hopelessly ineffective.
Yep. It was fun while it lasted, but I expect none of the manufacturers will support hacking or mods on these devices in the future because there's too few people doing that compared to the masses they want to sell to, and they have zero time or money to train technical support staff. They want to sell you an appliance that can't be repaired, has planned obsolescence and locks you into the platform by (effectively) keeping your data hostage.
So anyone who has already unlocked their Pixel 2 is good to go right? Getting the latest Pixel unlocked requires an internet connection, but once done it's done.
So the complaint is that in the far future the vendor might not support that on a six year old phone (by that time)? But, it is supported now, so what's the beef?
My old Pixel 2 only works now plugged into power and on WIFI because the battery is dead. I can get super-pissed off at Google for not supporting battery replacement on the Pixel 2, but it's a 6 year old phone. How long should I expect them to support it knowing at the time about the sealed battery. I can't get that pissed seeing as I bought it knowing the facts at the time :)
ELI5 - everything about a phone only works when the carrier allows it to connect to the network.
So, the way this is done is to, well, connect to the network and allow the phone to be unlocked - which according to the article is what happened?
So the real complaint is that the Pixel can't be loaded with a customized Android OS (or Linux, etc.) without being connected to the internet first and this is bad because the vendor might put bloatware, spyware, etc. on the phone, which, once you install your OS will be gone anyway?
OK, well then other than the underlying hardware needing to still be recognized on the carrier's network, which pretty much means you still have to be connected. The point is you aren't going to be stealthy using the carrier network on a phone, so at the EOD you have a pretty expensive device you can really only use on WIFI using your own VPN without the Vendor's software.
So what's the advantage over a small tablet based on OTS SOC hardware that you have full control over? IOW why buy the phone in the first place?