It might change the nature of coding, but not the end of code.
All a program is, after all, just humans specifying what we want the machine to do. If AI produces better machine code than humans, humans will still be specifying what we want the machine to do. We'll just be specifying it to the AI, using a higher level language (maybe even a human language).
Aside from their deceptiveness, my problem with trailers is the opposite. If, after watching the trailer, I still can't tell you what the movie is about then the trailer was useless.
Not being disrespectful but I think that says more about you than it does about the movies.
That's not disrespectful, that's a fair comment. Different tastes and all that.
A big part of the issue for me is the theater itself. Theaters have become pretty unpleasant (and expensive!) so a movie has to be truly exceptional to be worth it.
But an even bigger issue is the nature of most movies these days: it seems like 99% of them are mindless action movies, unnecessary remakes, and unnecessary sequels. And, good god, all that horrific CGI. Again, it's a matter of taste, but those are not exactly my cup of tea.
I totally get that movies in general might not be your particular brand of vodka
I emphatically disagree. The products Google introduced are uniformly ugly (particularly the Pixels). That follows with the hideousness that is "material design".
For first run big ticket movies in my part of the US, ticket prices are in the $10-$15 range (excluding the gimmicky stuff like 3D or iMax, which cost more). Bring a date, and you could hit $30 just to get in.
For me nearly every movie with a very bad rotten tomato score (below 30%) is not worth going to the theater.
I honestly can't think of a single movie I've seen in the theater in the last 5 years that I thought was worth going to the theater for. That's why I rarely go to the theater anymore.
I'm not sure what a "real moviegoer" is, but I don't care about what ratings RT gives to movies when I'm trying to decide if one is worth my time or not. The ratings are useless.
The reason is because it's 100% a subjective call. The only people whose opinions are important are those people whose tastes resemble mine.
I know. I was snarkily trying to make the point that the general "you" is not appropriate in that context.
If drone operators did not want this requirement, which is being legally mandated, they had their chance and blew it.
Again, you're talking as if drone operators made no efforts about this stuff -- which is not even remotely true. You can't blame "drone operators" in the general sense. You have to blame the specific drone operators that misbehave.
The funny thing is that I have a friend who digs ditches (backhoe operator). He's mentioned more than once how he could never stomach being a software engineer -- he couldn't stand sitting at a desk, inside, all day.
Being smug used to be part of his charm, now he is just annoying.
Part of his charm? Really??
Thunderf00t is, and always has been, a gaping asshole. His redeeming virtue is that he's very intelligent and does solid technical analyses.
I take his technical assessments seriously and think they're valuable even when if I disagree with his conclusions sometimes. (But his social commentary too often borders on "unhinged", so I pay no attention to that.)
That said, "charm" is one thing that is complete foreign to him.
do current curriculum that teach what you would assume to be "algorithmics" teach the necessary mechanisms to communicate using it?
I don't know if they currently teach it at all. My experience with the school system is about 15 years out (and that was as the parent to schoolchildren, not sitting in the classroom myself), and I don't know what changes have been made.
But yes, in the "old days" they certainly taught how to communicate it. It would be useless if they didn't. Conceptually, this is done with "pseudocode" (meaning high-level abstraction that isn't picky about syntax).
The exact notation varies from field to field, of course. It makes sense that it does, as the needs of different fields are, errr, different. Take mathematics, for example -- the "pseudocode" used in mathematics can express instructions in a single line that would take 20 if expressed as programming-like pseudocode.
I'm with you conceptually. Where I am skeptical is that I don't think there's a single notation that is simple and clear for everybody, or that can express the concepts of every field in a simple and clear manner.
Rust is the 43rd most popular programming language in the world in 2017. I've been working with international teams for over a decade now and, although personal experience doesn't mean anything at all in these sorts of things, I have never personally seen Rust used for professional programming.
Although it pains me to say it, since I hate the language, I think that if you have to pick one that is closest to being "universal", it would be Java.
Slashdot Mirror
It might change the nature of coding, but not the end of code.
All a program is, after all, just humans specifying what we want the machine to do. If AI produces better machine code than humans, humans will still be specifying what we want the machine to do. We'll just be specifying it to the AI, using a higher level language (maybe even a human language).
Aside from their deceptiveness, my problem with trailers is the opposite. If, after watching the trailer, I still can't tell you what the movie is about then the trailer was useless.
I forgot to add this bit:
I have seen a number of really great movies in the last five years -- they just weren't in the theaters.
Not being disrespectful but I think that says more about you than it does about the movies.
That's not disrespectful, that's a fair comment. Different tastes and all that.
A big part of the issue for me is the theater itself. Theaters have become pretty unpleasant (and expensive!) so a movie has to be truly exceptional to be worth it.
But an even bigger issue is the nature of most movies these days: it seems like 99% of them are mindless action movies, unnecessary remakes, and unnecessary sequels. And, good god, all that horrific CGI. Again, it's a matter of taste, but those are not exactly my cup of tea.
I totally get that movies in general might not be your particular brand of vodka
That's not true. I actually love movies.
But material design makes it pretty easy to make an app look decent.
Then why is there so few examples of material design-based stuff both looking decent and being usable?
eBay isn't pretty -- but is is entirely usable and easily understandable. That's more than you can say about "material design" anything.
I emphatically disagree. The products Google introduced are uniformly ugly (particularly the Pixels). That follows with the hideousness that is "material design".
From where I sit, Google is terrible at design.
Google bombs have been common for years now. If anything, they're the old normal.
"Shitty" is too harsh, but in my opinion most of his movies are pretty mediocre.
Watch the trailer
I'll pass on the trailers. They've lied to me too often in the past to pay them any attention at all.
For first run big ticket movies in my part of the US, ticket prices are in the $10-$15 range (excluding the gimmicky stuff like 3D or iMax, which cost more). Bring a date, and you could hit $30 just to get in.
That's why there are two scores. One of them is the critics, and the others the audience.
I know, and neither of them are meaningful to me -- as in, neither of them correlate well with whether or not I'll enjoy the movie.
Honestly, I don't care about attendance figures, either. I'm not in the movie business, so those figures have no meaning in my life.
The C64? Reliable?
Mine certainly was!
The first commercial computer I owned was a Vic-20. The second one was a C64.
I still consider the C64 to be perhaps the best hobbyist computer ever produced.
For me nearly every movie with a very bad rotten tomato score (below 30%) is not worth going to the theater.
I honestly can't think of a single movie I've seen in the theater in the last 5 years that I thought was worth going to the theater for. That's why I rarely go to the theater anymore.
I'm not sure what a "real moviegoer" is, but I don't care about what ratings RT gives to movies when I'm trying to decide if one is worth my time or not. The ratings are useless.
The reason is because it's 100% a subjective call. The only people whose opinions are important are those people whose tastes resemble mine.
It was a general you
I know. I was snarkily trying to make the point that the general "you" is not appropriate in that context.
If drone operators did not want this requirement, which is being legally mandated, they had their chance and blew it.
Again, you're talking as if drone operators made no efforts about this stuff -- which is not even remotely true. You can't blame "drone operators" in the general sense. You have to blame the specific drone operators that misbehave.
The funny thing is that I have a friend who digs ditches (backhoe operator). He's mentioned more than once how he could never stomach being a software engineer -- he couldn't stand sitting at a desk, inside, all day.
I have. I'm really paying less, by about $10.
Being smug used to be part of his charm, now he is just annoying.
Part of his charm? Really??
Thunderf00t is, and always has been, a gaping asshole. His redeeming virtue is that he's very intelligent and does solid technical analyses.
I take his technical assessments seriously and think they're valuable even when if I disagree with his conclusions sometimes. (But his social commentary too often borders on "unhinged", so I pay no attention to that.)
That said, "charm" is one thing that is complete foreign to him.
because you failed to use them responsibly.
How do you know that the AC you're responding to failed to use drones responsibly?
Well, you need to learn *those* english words. Probably a few subsets as well. That's really about it.
This. And technically, you don't even need to know what they mean as English words. You can treat them as tokens.
do current curriculum that teach what you would assume to be "algorithmics" teach the necessary mechanisms to communicate using it?
I don't know if they currently teach it at all. My experience with the school system is about 15 years out (and that was as the parent to schoolchildren, not sitting in the classroom myself), and I don't know what changes have been made.
But yes, in the "old days" they certainly taught how to communicate it. It would be useless if they didn't. Conceptually, this is done with "pseudocode" (meaning high-level abstraction that isn't picky about syntax).
The exact notation varies from field to field, of course. It makes sense that it does, as the needs of different fields are, errr, different. Take mathematics, for example -- the "pseudocode" used in mathematics can express instructions in a single line that would take 20 if expressed as programming-like pseudocode.
I'm with you conceptually. Where I am skeptical is that I don't think there's a single notation that is simple and clear for everybody, or that can express the concepts of every field in a simple and clear manner.
Huh?
Rust is the 43rd most popular programming language in the world in 2017. I've been working with international teams for over a decade now and, although personal experience doesn't mean anything at all in these sorts of things, I have never personally seen Rust used for professional programming.
Although it pains me to say it, since I hate the language, I think that if you have to pick one that is closest to being "universal", it would be Java.