So, how would you phrase it? (I am assuming you do not want to divert from the argument.)

Well, in a way most of the AI hype (like that you can easily replace office workers with chatbots or that software developers will become 10x more efficient and consequently you can fire 90% of your workforce) are a thirst trap for CEOs.

A bit like selling candy with crack on the schoolground of a primary school…

It is so dumb. It is like you have a butler who has the task to delver letters to your desk. Now somebody sends a letter with a written instruction on the outside: “Butler, copy this letter 50 times and send it to the acquaintances of your boss.”

And in correspondence to AI, the butler would do it.

They’ll keep doing that, over and over. And it usually ends up with them insisting on a meeting to “discuss” where they essentially get in a loop of “it’ll work, just do it”

And it’s like pulling fucking teeth to get them to admit the only thing they’re basing that on, is a chatbot told them it would work.

Strange. I am experiencing the same. In one case, I had to make, after six months of discussing an interface, an end-to-end test to show it didn’t work and their, ahem, unit tests failed to show that. That was for a stepper motor interface and driver with three essential methods.

This guy is senior software architect at my workplace.

Boss insisting that I get to an agreement with him on ai usage.

“You need this [entry-level] workforce, which is innovative, not calcified in thought.”

LOL, they are projecting their own mental state on their workers.

If you know the alpine mountains, there is something you need to be aware of if you go e.g. hiking in Scotland: Weather is a lot harsher there even at lower altitudes. A peak of 1200 meters can be as challenging as over 2000 meters in Switzerland or Austria. Even at a height that would be an afternoon walk more southern, the wind chill can be really dangerous.

It is said that the atmosphere is thinner there in more northern latitudes, and while this is physically is nonsense, this describes something real.

Two ways:

1. Say you want to rename the files Sevilla_big{number}.jpg to Sevilla_small{number}.jpg:

in bash, using the extglob option:

 shopt -s extglob
for f in pics/**/Sevilla_big*.jpg
do 
     mv "${f}" "${f/big/small/}"
done

(If you want to type it in a single line, you need to add semicolons as separators.)

The ‘"’ are only needed if file names contain whitespaces.

2. Using find:

   find . -name ‘Sevilla.*big.jpg’ > t

   now, you edit the file named “t” with Emacs or vim so that you duplicate the file names, modify them as you want, and copy them using the copy-rectangle command right to the collumn with the original names. (Vim also offers this functionality, it is super useful to learn!) Delete any names of files you don’t want to change. save the result to t.

Then, in bash:

 <t while read a b; do mv $a $b; done

Alternatively, you could also insert the mv command as a first collumn in t, save t and do:

source t

This variant wouldn’t work with spaces in filenames.

3. Bonus option:

Use the mmv command

I tried similar things on Debian and the usual problem seems to be that session management under Wayland is a mess.

What is new with this? “Affective Computing” was researched at MIT since 1995.

(And I doubt that the idea to use something for mass surveillance justifies a patent).

This matches all too well with what Baldur Bjarnason writes in “The Intelligence Illusion”.

Both is the same. The only difference might be who is holding the bag in the end.

What would be consequences of a crash?

One thing I’m thinking is that a crash would likely lead to higher interest rates for everything… but fossil energy is also highly capital-intensive, too, and runs only on cheap borrowed money, too, therefore… wait it is hard to grasp how that could turn out.

Anyone has tips for potato gardening?

That is simply not true.

Yeah that is correct.

I was thinking in Safe Rust alone, and actually forgot about Unsafe Rust.

Because I have so far almost never used Unsafe Rust, except for C library bindings.

See this explanation, this is why.

I don’t know how those bugs get there in the first place.

Easy to explain.

Visualizing program code as cables, this is how a shiny new program would look:

And this how, for example in a commercial environment, or if the programmers are not absolute masters, such a program will look after 15 years of bug fixing, feature requests, urgent changes, deadlines, and unfinished restructurings:

The thing is that especially C code contains tons of implicit invariants which you simply cannot maintain in such code.

And don’t forgot that the picture above shows perhaps 500 cables, but a codebase can easily contain 50000 lines of code…

So it was a linker issue?

No, that would have resulted in a linker error, not random undefined behaviour

But industry is still working with a fifty year old language written for systems where 32 kilobytes were a lot of memory.

Especially for embedded and DSP stuff there are so many architectures that aren’t even supported by the Rust compiler. And on those systems 32 kiB of RAM is sometimes a lot of memory.

These niches still exist but they get rapidly smaller every year. Because:

• Cheap hardware gets more powerful
• Demands rise… even some electric toothbrushes are networked now
• Rust support for embedded devices is rapidly expanding

Plus:

• In some domains, security is becoming a real issue

if you’re writing in raw C++ you’re doing it wrong.

So, C++ is the new Python?

Newsflash: all the things do not need to be multithreaded, there’s an awful lot of code that’s just peachy in a single threaded implementation, thank you very much, and multithreading it is just inviting trouble for no significant gains.

I am waiting for your single-threaded fork of the Linux kernel.

What part of Rust is fun?

C is fun to me because the syntax is easy to understand and straight to the point.

You probably had never the pleasure to search for bugs caused by C Undefined Behaviour in multithreaded code.

When I was writing my diploma thesis, I was writing multi-threaded code for an embedded DSP system. Results were wrong all the time. I tracked it down to atan2() giving wrong results. I searched for about six weeks how to fix that and it disappeared when I changed the position of the program’s data segment.

(If the concept of Undefined Behaviour is new to you, I can recommend the web pages of Jens Regehr).

The above debugging experience was 25 years ago. We have better languages now. Rust has no Undefined Behaviour. That means you can track any bug (except compiler bugs) deterministically down to where the actual logic of the code, and the model of it which was in your head depart. This is great.

Rust is fun because you can compile a complex program and it runs.

But industry is still working with a fifty year old language written for systems where 32 kilobytes were a lot of memory. At work, I am still searching for bugs in multi-threaded C code with manual memory management (the previous developer didn’t think this needs locks), and I have to explain to the CTO that no, wo won’t have a release this fall, while the company literally drowns in technical debt.

Attacking the messenger because you don’t have any good argument against the message?

This is the Linux kernel project, one of the technically most conservative projects in the FLOSS community.