• 2 Posts
  • 626 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: November 14th, 2023

help-circle








  • It was only car enthusiasts, and more specifically motorheads, that has those skills. Did more older folks know how to work on their cars then today’s youths? Likely

    Yes and you are a techie surrounded by techies. You didn’t see the millions your own age who used computers in the 80’s and 90’s without ever understanding them. I ran a mid sized ISP in the mid and late 90’s which meant training and supporting the help desk staff to handle the phone calls. I’m very aware of how stupid the average Millenial was about technology. I hired many smart kids. But they were rare. My company had a relationship with a private school where we’d get some high school students to work at my ISP and it counted as their “computer class”. There were maybe two kids per class of 100 students each year that knew how a computer worked rather than just how to click the buttons on their Mac or Windows.

    There were more computer techies in the 90’s. There were more motorheads in the 50’s. Computers are more complicated now such that even an average techy can’t modify an iPad just like an average person can’t fix a car today because of its encapsulation of complications.

    Your much older brother is an anomaly. There are exactly 0 people that I know that are 50+ years old that would know anything about fixing a TV.

    Wrong generation. I’m 50+ (Gen X) and have no idea about how to fix a TV at the component level. Because I grew up with TV’s everywhere like kids today grow up with iphones everywhere.

    TV repair was a thing. Radio shack and even Woolworths (Walmart of the 1950’s) had a tube tester so that people could walk in with the tube from their TV and test it without paying for professional repair.

    Average people knew more about repairing TV’s than today!

    Again, it’s not “everyone”. It’s the techies of each generation. It’s the same subset of the population that has the interest and skills to understand things. The only thing that changes is the popular technology that the techies focus on.



  • My brain had to bridge the gap between two different worlds.

    As did past generations with new technologies. No car- cars everywhere. That generation could rebuild a transmission whereas it’s a mystery box you have a specialist fix for you.

    No TV, TV everywhere, tubes in tvs, then transistors. My much older brother in law can identify and fix any TV at the component level. Like identifying a bad capacitor and not only replacing it but understanding the circuit to know that a larger ufarad capacitor will not only work in that part of the circuit, but prevent a future problem.

    I suspect that like me, your TV repair knowledge ends at matching cables on the back to ports and replacing batteries.



  • that they have no way of knowing that the algorithm is actually correct.

    He tested it and it was good enough for him. If he wrote the code he’d still not know if it was correct and need to test it. If knowing an algorithm was all that was needed for writing working code, there wouldn’t have been any software bugs in all of computer history until AI.

    text predictors pulled words

    My phone keyboard text predictor lists 3 words and they’re frequently wrong. At best it lists 3 and you have to choose the 1 right word.


  • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.worldtoProgramming@programming.devA theory I have
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    It’s weird how there is such a knee jerk hate for a turbo charged word predictor. You’d think there would have been similar mouth frothing at on screen keyboards predicting words.

    I see it as a tool that helps sometimes. It’s like an electric drill and craftsmen are screaming, “BUT YOU COULD DRILL OFF CENTER!!!”



  • Maybe the detail you were searching for could not be found, because it did not actually exist.

    He said he clicked the source it quoted.

    Maybe if Google hasn’t been enshittifying search for 10 years, AI search wouldn’t be useful. But I’ve seen the same thing. The forced Gemini summary at the top of Google often has source links that aren’t anywhere on the first page of Google itself.



  • I really like that he included social costs but he used Present Value calculations to get that high private cost number- which is lowkey bullshit. Because it assumes you will use every Euro saved to invest money in the stock market and make consistent good returns on your money.

    So it’s not that the private cost is that high it’s that if you saved money and the stock market is consistently good you’d have more money at the end of 50 years. The reason that’s bullshit is that same present value calculation makes solar or almost any purchase look bad.

    He should have focused on the social costs. That’s real.