"fake" or "thing you will create" is not an accurate description when you consider that it can be a directory (thus creating a new link within that directory that exists) or even omitted to use the current directory.
The point, decades ago when I first started with unix, was a short, memorable way to remember the order of the arguments, not to memorize the man page. For that, "ln -s <real> <fake>" works fine.
I just threw in SIMD processing on a whim to an existing library.
It wasn't a regular structure that needed one operation or two again and again, it was this irregular object that needed each field each operation to be carefully picked. Assessing what instructions were going to help me do which fields how would have been hard hard hard. Hours of analysis, would have gotten stuff wrong. Would have been so frustrating.
I could just ask for, and I got it.
This is a very specific kind of example. But smart people who know what they want but don't have endless time to go chase every idea themselves will, I think, find great joy getting the AI to go out and land some amazing improvements.
And there's so many projects like zerobrew that just would never be attempted. We can make whole systems, see their performance, and if it's not good, change the stack and generate a new version of the app, a new attempt, with far less effort. We will try many more things.
Kinda all very very obvious to the actual excited doer folks.
Increasing the friction and difficulty to stalk someone definitely results in less actual stalking. I'm sure some would-be stalker can figure out AirTags but can't figure out or afford the alternatives.
Also, wouldn't
this argument apply to the use of AirTags as anti-theft devices? Since AirTag alternatives exist, just use the alternatives devices for anti-theft that also work for stalking. But some people don't do this and just want to use AirTags for anti-theft purposes. Which sort of illustrates my point. Fewer people do a thing when it's harder. No would care that AirTags aren't good for anti-theft if there were alternatives equally as good.
There are infinitely better ways to protect your car from being stolen than putting a fucking AirTag in it, and as a bonus you can buy all of them without sounding self-centred and flippant about real threats to other people.
Backup cameras are an enormous safety improvement.
You know that a backup camera can be added to practically any car right? My ~2002 Toyota has a Pioneer deck from around 2007 (I guess?) that supports reversing camera input. My wifes 2012 Toyota hybrid has a reversing camera using some POS cheap Chinese deck that's so shit it doesn't even support Bluetooth audio.
No part of reversing cameras are dependent on any of the "modern" trends in cars that are being discussed here.
I feel like you're deliberately missing the point.
You don't need them to have a reversing camera. Literally millions of cars over the past 2 decades have perfectly fine reversing cameras using the screen of a regular double-DIN deck (or fold out single-DIN deck).
I, too, felt you were being intentionally dense in this thread. We've just been talking past each other.
I don't see a meaningful distinction between a screen on a DIN unit and an integrated screen.
With Android Auto or the ios equivalent -- a hard requirement for most car buyers today -- a touchscreen is basically required.
Other "smart" features aren't required but I'm not surprised car companies want to try and extract value from in-car tech. It's got nothing to do with providing value to consumers.
> I don't see a meaningful distinction between a screen on a DIN unit and an integrated screen.
Someone questioned why a car needs two 12" touch screens.
To which you replied
> Backup cameras are an enormous safety improvement.
My entire point is, that there's zero relationship between having a backup camera, and needing a 12" touchscreen, or a touch screen of any kind.
If your backup camera needs a touch screen, you've already failed. The entire point is that it activates automatically and deactivates automatically.
They've been available for literally decades - Toyota had a production model with a reversing camera in the fucking 80s.
Nothing else you've said since is related to your claim "Backup cameras are an enormous safety improvement" and that claim is completely unrelated to OP's question about why a car needs not one but two 12" touch screens.
A few years ago it came out that one of the manufacturers (my hunch is Samsung but I don't remember the specifics) had their "smart" tvs aggressively try connecting to any and all networks it can find in range, if you didn't connect it to one.
I reluctantly bought an LG with webOS (least bad option available) a couple of years ago. For some reason they weren't content to let the TV menu/remote work with up/down/left/right buttons.
That's too fucking predictable, and anyone who's used a tv in the last 2 decades could use it....
Let's give it a fucking nipple, just like those horrific fucking IBM/Lenovo laptops.
Then of course it also tries to "help" by detecting HDR content and change view mode... while something is playing.... which makes the screen go black for several seconds.
I don't think that's right. When you explain a technical problem to someone who isn't intimately familiar with it you're forced to think through the individual steps in quite a bit of detail. Of course that itself is an acquired skill but never mind that.
The point or rubber duck debugging then is to realize the benefit of verbally describing the problem without needing to interrupt your colleague and waste his time in order to do so. It's born of the recognition that often, midway through wasting your colleague's time, you'll trail off with an "oh ..." and exit the conversation. You've ended up figuring out the problem before ever actually receiving any feedback.
To that end an LLM works perfectly well as long as you still need to walk through a full explanation of the problem (ie minimal relevant context). An added bonus being that the LLM offers at least some of the benefits of a live person who can point out errors or alert you to new information as you go.
Basically my quibble is that to me the entire point of rubber duck debugging is "doesn't waste a real person's time" but it comes with the noticeable drawback of "plastic duck is incapable of contributing any useful insights".
> When you explain a technical problem to someone who isn't intimately familiar with it you're forced to think through the individual steps in quite a bit of detail.
The point of Rubber Ducking (or talking/praying to the Wooden Indian, to use an older phrase that is steeped in somewhat racist undertones so no longer generally used) is that it is an inanimate object that doesn't talk back. You still talk to it as if you were explaining to another person, so are forcing yourself to get your thoughts in order in a way that would make that possible, but actually talking to another person who is actively listening and actually asking questions is the next level.
I guess I can see where others are coming from (the LLM is different than a literal rubber duck) but I feel like the "can't reply" part was never more than an incidental consequence. To me the "why" of it was always that I need to solve my problem and I don't want to disturb my colleagues (or am unable to contact anyone in the first place for some reason).
So where others see "rubber ducking" as explaining to an object that is incapable of response, I've always seen it as explaining something without turning to others who are steeped in the problem. For example I would consider explaining something to a nontechnical friend to qualify as rubber ducking. The "WTF" interjections definitely make it more effective (the rubber duck consistently fails to notify me if I leave out key details).
It's kind of disingenuous if not deliberately misleading to say
> Otto Kekäläinen (former Software Development Manager at AWS)
He also happens to have a past involvement with MariaDB foundation.
Furthermore, his article about MySQL not being "true open source" is honestly laughable when you consider the context of his (and this author's) suggested replacement.
reply