Come to live in Europe and you will see how nice it is to stagnate because rule A depends on rule B, but there is an exception C that requires D....

Death by a thousand cuts.

So basically people outside can lock your online account.

I am shocked by how F** dumb this was ever designed.

> Im Zusammenhang mit den bereits bekannten sechs Fällen von Malaria tropica bei Personen, die am Flughafen Frankfurt am Main tätig sind, sind zwei Erkrankte verstorben

And a quick search says that this is the most dangerous one. Of course it had to be...

[0]:https://frankfurt.de/de-de/aktuelle-meldung/meldungen/gesund...

If there is one thing I miss on the internet is indeed stackoverlow jobs. Crazy that it didn't work out.

LinkedIn is the Facebook of people who don't want to be on Facebook but want to post Facebook kind of stuff.

Let him contribute to something, yes for free, so that potential future coworkers can see 1) who he is, 2) what he can do, 3) how he approaches people.

Wtf of course i don't, otherwise i would not apply for a junior role!

Nevertheless, the point is not the electronic toothbrush, but rather the "BIG" stuff that costs much and it's creating a lot of garbage.

A 1200 euro TV that breaks after 5 years - are you willing to buy a new one just because?

Once you have that infrastructure in place, eventually also the "smaller" things will be cheaper to replace.

In all cases it was meatbag. In the 1st case gave chatGPT 0.35. The remaining ones were much lower.

EDIT: I didn't ask just to generate some text. The original prompt was very specific, which is most of the time the way I use LLMs anyways. Probably it catches better the "hey just generate this email...".

There is evidence of a lot of ugly diseases caused by this, without even mentioning the constant 40+ dB background noise.

There are so many regulations EE companies follow and offer that no startup owner or worker could ever deal with. The moment your company shifts to that sort of work, you're automatically not anymore a startup (by definition).

Only if you get super smart robots that can manage a lot of bureaucracy etc. Starting from multicloud/region deployments, local regulations, accounting, taxes, laws, etc. Which is what companies like SAP (but not only them) do basically.

But if that happens we are all in a situation that we don't need companies anymore (the way we know them).

We pollute right outside our block, give credits to companies claiming to be "green" so that we can sell hardware here that is certified, so that we can go to sleep a bit happier as human beings, because we believe we're doing the right thing.

In all this, they make tons of money, make our economy worse than it ever was with no end game.

We're measuring with the wrong targets.

The Green party itself was literally born out of a protest against nuclear reactors in the 70's (Whyl).

CDU tried to slow down the phase out, but when Fukishima happened Merkel thought about staying in power rather than doing the right thing (= not shutting down the power plants).

I don't care about CDU, which as usual never misses a chance to disappoint, but not saying that the phase out was planned and executed by the Greens (and obviously SPD) is just factually wrong, because they initiated it all and implemented it. It wasn't just a draft, "let's see if it gets amended, etc..".

EDIT: I was talking just purely about energy and such reforms. The last 30 years have been ... to say the least... "weird" and short term.

Disabling a technology is a huge mistake, no matter what. No country did it the way it was done in Germany.

So it cannot be that simple (for the reasons you mentioned).

Of course, you can mention all the things they can't do (what if there are stairs, what if the doors are smaller than the robot, etc) but it's mindblowing to see what they can do - and also the chat panel is really nice and makes it more interactive.

This is a choice some countries did in the past due to Chernobyl and Fukushima.

The "fatality" was performed successfully by the Greens.

EU did the Green Deal, though, which is way worse than shutting down a few nuclear reactors that after all didn't produce that much energy anymore and were anyways planned to be shut down.

I don't want to be responsible for a bug in my 8 years old code, which I probably even forgot how it worked etc. I probably don't even work anymore in the same team or on the same service.

Why the hell should I be responsible and how is this sustainable?

I am not even sure if your criticism makes any sense at all anymore nowadays. AI is writing 80% of the code, if not more. It's technically not even your code anymore, although there is your name on the commit. Why should I be responsible for that 3 years from now, when I have again moved team or service etc.

Accountability ok, but you should not retire with your code.

Needless to say, this tool gives scores exactly like the article mentions. Same document, same LLM, same prompt, and different results. It becomes even more ridiculous once you switch to other models, or if you ask a model to review the work of another model.

I am not sure why we insist on making LLMs do the work they are not supposed to do and/or in a way they are not supposed to do.

The worst part is that people are aware of the problem but they just ignore it and consider it as "a reference number, just to have an understanding".

If it were like that, it would be less of a problem. The issue comes from the fact that eventually someone without enough knowledge will trust the output (so X points out of Y is how it is), or someone will stop challenging the output and consider it for their process - like in this unfortunate case of hiring.

At a certain point, people who don't know what they are doing give a tool that doesn't know what its doingto people who don't know what they are doing. A pure mess. And everyone has to comply and applaud. If you go against, you are against AI.

This is what I hate the most about AI. Not the tool, but the shortcuts we're willing to take to justify its existence.

This is the main issue about compliance nowadays. In a fedramp scenario you would very likely have to prove that it's unreachable, and you might even risk compliance over it.

From an attacker perspective they don't know the lib version you're using, but bruteforcing / finding patterns faster than a hacker can? That's what I believe AI can do. This is why for me CVEs are a useless metric, the number and/or criticality. It's a simple security control but they are giving it so much importance. Then you "forget" to secure access to your mcp server and this leaks company info, but hey, zero CVEs, soc2 compliance check check check.

I think it's a good practice to fix as many CVEs as possible, to have a clean/updated codebase, but I am of the opinion that if someone wants, with the tools they have nowadays, they will find a way in. Of course, using a lib that has obvious security issues for input validation, for example, should be a no-go. However, we're reaching a point of ridicule (like you said above, a critical CVE but unreachable).