Where's my Matrox?

Matrox Mystique was a combination 2D/3D consumer card, which at the time, was still something that mattered. Sure a Voodoo addon card mattered more, very soon, but then quickly things shifted back to combination 2D/3D card with Nvidia!

Also, how is a "first $2000 consumer card" something that "matters"? That's precisely the kind of thing that doesn't matter. My entire laptop cost less than that and I play games with it. What matters much more is that I can play quite a bunch of games that are even pretty recent with a laptop that cost less than that, all with an integrated graphics chip from a company that is precisely known for having abysmal 3D performance: Intel (I have an Iris Xe)

In general, Claude was impressed by what Codex produced and noted the parts where it (i.e. Claude) had missed something vs. Codex "thinking of it".

From a "daily driver" perspective I still use Claude all the time as it has plan mode, which means I can guarantee that it won't break out and just do stuff without me wanting it to. With Codex I have to always specify "Don't implement/change, just tell me" and even then it sometimes "breaks out" and just does stuff. Not usually when I start out and just ask it to plan. But after we've started implementation and I review, a simple question of "Why did you do X?" will turn into a huge refactoring instead of just answering my question.

To be fair, that's what most devs do too (at least at first), when you ask them "Why did you do X" questions. They just assume that you are trying to formulate a "Do Y instead of X" as a question, when really you just don't understand their reasoning but there really might be a good reason for doing X. But I guess LLMs aren't sure of themselves, so any questioning of their reasoning obliterates their ego and just turns them into submissive code monkeys (or rather: exposes them as such) vs. being software engineers that do things for actual reasons (whether you agree with them or not).

Even the smallest resolution images I see in the link that the parent edited into their comment have better quality than what news outlets posted.

I want TIFFs that takes ages to download and I need to scroll around in/zoom out on!

If you want to turn it around, sure. Let's see how you'd want to take out a Patriot: high cost weapons, like an Iskander might try it? Costs about as much as a Tomahawk? Would need multiple ones, because the Patriot would defend itself against even multiple ones? But the Patriots cost as much and you want multiple interceptors for each Iskander sent its way?

What if I could send, for less money/resources, a drone swarm that also takes out the Patriot or at least expends more money/resources in interceptors shot from it, than I had to spend on the drone swarm?

I totally agree, it's "just a race". If I build an offensive drone swarm for $x, which is less than your high cost interceptors, you better build an "anti drone whatever thingie" (which might be anti-drone drone swarms) that's even cheaper.

But, thanks, essentially you're agreeing with me: Don't use your high cost stuff to take out SAMs and then use cheap drones. Instead, use cheaper stuff to swarm it out of existence. Just gotta be faster at being cheaper. Doesn't matter if you're the attacker or defender.

Zerg vs. Protoss.

    namely your high cost weapons take out air defense capability, so you can stop using them and use cheaper more numerous systems to hit the now undefended targets.

That's precisely what Ukraine was/is doing and has developed. The West provided lots of military support, including the US of course, but way not enough as we can see now play out in even the US itself vs. Iran. They developed cheap drones that can shoot down cheaper Shaheds. Shaheds that are way too cheap to use regular interceptors for. But even cheaper drones tip the scales back.

Why would I want to waste Tomahawks 1:1 vs. S-400 interceptors, if I can kill it with a much cheaper drone swarm?

Not saying those precise conditions/weapons exist today. I have no idea. But if they did, why would I still waste my high cost weapons.

As a developer, SaaS all the way. I really really love not having to deal with versions, release branches galore, hotfixes on different releases and all that jazz. I'm so glad I could leave that behind and we have a single Cloud "version" i.e. whatever the latest commit on the main branch is. Sure we might be a few commits behind head in what's actually currently deployed to all the production envs but that's so much more manageable than thousands upon thousands of customers on different versions and with direct control over your database. We also have a non-SaaS version we still support and I'm so glad I don't have to deal with it any longer and someone else does. Very bad memories of customers telling you they didn't do something and when you get the logs/database excerpt (finally, after spending way too much times debugging and talking to them already) you can clearly see that they did fudge with the database ...

Then I thought: Sure but management made the devs promise these things. We don't do it of our own volition (exceptions prove the rule - some people are conditioned to do it of course).

    I would argue that we are seeing a new emerging group of coders come into the realm of programming and we are judging them at their worst and comparing them to our best

    It is quite insane to me to expect someone who just started to fully build google.com and all of it's infra,security,etc.

Look, I've been using Claude and Codex agents for about 6 months now, full time for coding (when I code) essentially (coz I can't ask my people to use a tool I have no experience with myself, so I purposefully forced myself to use the agent and only the agents as much as I could bear, only resolving to manual changes in very very few instances. And there have been many many frustrations, believe me).

The amount of times that even Seniors have just verbatim pasted Claude analyses as truth to me, when it was apparent after the first read through of the output, that it wasn't true is amazing. How we expect juniors that have way less developed "spidey senses" to successfully navigate that is beyond me. Most people are trusting by default. They shouldn't be, but it's human nature for most of us. For some it isn't, like myself. I'm already the dude that asks too many questions of humans when they're not clear on what they assumed vs. have verified.

Like, example, I showed an analysis, full page in a slack thread recently to one of my Seniors (made by some other Senior) and tell me where they think it shows that it's BS and not true. He couldn't do it. He tried over and over and he was unable to. I read it and the second paragraph out of lots of them was BS and just not true. Easy to verify. Claude didn't have access to the actual information (because of various circumstances) but just made something up. Said the relevant code was deployed, thus XYZ was true. Listed lots of extra analysis after that, which sounded reasonable and probably was, if the premise was correct. Just it wasn't. The code had never been released at that point.

I've been doing the same kind of "spidey senses are tingling" comments and questions back to people for lots and lots of years. And others are usually not good with that sort of thing (exceptions prove the rule). Coz people do the same kind of "BS-ing" that Claude et. al. do. Claude is generally "better" about questioning his/her (yes, it works both ways) judgement actually than people, which in many cases have feelings attached to their investigations (even if they very blatantly didn't check something and just assumed it - pre AI - all by themselves).

Look, as a software dev myself, I really like that my company lets us use our computers the way we see fit. Pre- or post-AI with no restrictive lockdown. Been there, hated that.

But I totally get the freaking out over "normal devs". The amount of stuff most people think is reasonable, AI or not, is mind boggling. For myself of course I like to just be able to be responsible myself. But as a security team I'd also be freaking out.

Like, the amount of people that find our super boring, totally corporate "security training videos", helpful and insightful and "oh dang I'd never have thought of that!" is mind boggling all by itself. Never mind any actual security training that'd be useful to someone with half a brain. You can literally just click through the 8+ hours of stuff you're supposed to watch / answer / do in 30 minutes.

I am also a software developer. So while the numbers of "people" that use one AI or another may be higher than either of these, it's not a useful metric for myself.

A branch hitting a wire, happenes all the time here too. Lots of trees in this community. The video of a transformer you shared: that's not the transformer I'm talking about. That's at a transformer station.

I'm talking transformer on a street pole. The kind that hangs right across the street from me. This kind: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/y3E7avUvj6I

See it's the kind in your second video. It's a transformer. You just chose a narrower definition I suppose. It's a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_transformer ;)

And yes, I know it's transformers and not just wires (but also wires do happen definitely) coz I do walk the neighborhood regularly and I can tell when a transformer is new vs. old up there. Ours is old. The ones a few streets over sometimes are very new and I see the Hydro trucks go by the next day(s) to make them new ;)

Again, like seventeen times knock on wood but the ones next to us have not actually blown up. But three streets over, seen the new ones. Literally last weekend, we had an ice storm come through and while no blowouts we could see or hear, the outage map showed plenty of failure.

On the other hand I've read about plenty of stories of the "cheap" UPSs you'd usually buy as a consumer (not to name any brands coz I've never had any) actually causing such issues in the first place. Without any actual surges from the grid.

That said, being totally not superstitious (for real, but someone's gonna "kill me" if they find out I wrote this and something dies from a surge...), now I guess I need to knock on wood like seventeen times ...

I do use surge protectors when we're on generator power temporarily.

Not because you use 2 spaces. You can argue 2 spaces and the pros and cons and how horizontal scrolling is an issue. One question back would be for example if that means you have huge run-on files where a single function does everything and that's why you need like 17 levels of indentation and that's why only using 2 spaces for each becomes important to you. And then you'd need to argue how that's better for visibility and what might actually be worse about it. If you can do all that, you're hired (if the rest of the interview goes well :P )

    Who still uses 8? Isn't that like a COBOL thing?

The amount of people that can't even navigate "their own" code is astonishing. Never mind explaining what it does or making changes.

What you're stating is your wishful thinking. Don't get me wrong. I'd also like what you say to be true. It very much is not. Quite the opposite, which is why salespeople "work".

The amount of AI bullshit Senior+ level developers just paste to me as truth is astonishing.

It's not really bad to ask someone to do a design session with them and "build their product with them from scratch" isn't inherently bad. That's actually pretty neat if you ask me.

What's bad is if there's only a single answer and that's whatever they actually built themselves, which might be a pile of thrown together startup poo that was never cleaned up. But you have the same problem with all sorts of "needless trivia" type questions.

And then do you really want to work at a company, where you can't have a proper "pros and cons of different approaches" type of discussion? If you got hired, you'd have those kinds of discussions with them on an ongoing basis. Bad on the company for letting that person do the hiring but they got what they deserved so to speak.

Just to make an analogy:

If they simply ding you for using 4 spaces coz they use 8, that's bad.

If they ask you why you use 4 spaces, they use 8, give them pros and cons and are there any other approaches and what are the pros and cons of those? That's a good interview so to speak. As an interviewer I would give bonus points if the candidate says something like "I used 4 spaces because I thought that's what you guys were probably using coz everyone's moved away from 8 spaces but secretly I love usings tabs and setting tabwidth to what I want but in reality it really really doesn't matter as long as it's consistent across the codebase as humans can get used to almost everything and this one isn't worth fighting over. Linters and formatters exist for a reason".

At this point, we think using AI and being able to use AI effectively is a skill in and of itself. When you're hired, you'll have access to AI. You'd be expected to be able to use said AI effectively.

So, we still give you a FizzBuzz. You can use AI. Even if we told you not to use AI, we know almost everyone would use AI. But you have to understand the FizzBuzz and be able to explain it to us and make changes to it "live". The amount of people that get weeded out just by having to explain the code they "coded themselves" is staggering (even pre-AI, even on a take home where you had no "OMG I suck at live coding" pressure).