I still have two 2013 era t430s, one with windows 7 and one with windows 10. When browsing the web they barely feel any slower than my corporate supplied t14 gen 2 or p1 gen 6 both with windows 11 now. I guess that’s the price of security.
I have pro edition on multiple home systems, definitely have had more issues with my corporate issued Win11 laptop, but it's also many major versions behind what I have at home.
>They’re not all going to get their own boat and captain hat
Why not? Anyone can load up Claude code and start trial and erroring until they get something that works and has similar reliability to accepted software … what is the stat about 1 bug per 10 lines of code on average?
I am meeting a lot of non coders telling me about their projects they are getting AI to do for them, stuff to help land title something or other, stuff to work on avalanche forecast, whatever their area of expertise they are unchained and writing programs using AI that they couldn’t before.
Anyone can load up Claude code and start trial and erroring until they get something that works and has similar reliability to accepted software..
You still need to understand the code that AI is generating to fix the problems that you can't vibe a solution to. You still need to understand the process of developing software to know when something isn't working even if it looks like it is. You still need other people to trust the software that you created. None of those things comes naturally to vibe coders. They're essentially teaching themselves software engineering in a very back-to-front way.
Everybody learned somehow. I wonder what % of programmers actually have relevant training and education in programming vs just taught themselves with online resources.
Maybe the amateurs aren’t going to be writing a new distributed database but CRUD apps must be easier than ever
The studies I have seen show that AI written software is 70% more buggy than human written code [1]. I am curious where you get your data on AI code having “a similar reliability to accepted software”?
Everyone wants to be but I don’t think there will be enough seats. There are people doing boilerplate and simple CRUD stuff - they’re not going to switch to farming. Reckon this will lead to more competition for same number of senior seats
Huawei is often blamed for stealing information from Nortel that led to Nortel’s bankruptcy, both information about deals being made that let Huawei undercut them and technical product details that allowed Huawei to more easily be a substitute for Nortel products
Nortel collapsed long before Huawei even started competing outside of China in any serious way.
Nortel was severely hit by the bursting of the tech bubble, and then it got caught faking its financial figures. To blame that on Huawei is just a rewrite of history.
If true, how did that have any effect on Nortel? As I said before, Huawei wasn't a serious competitor for Nortel at that point. Nortel's business fell apart (and it started fudging its financials) long before Huawei expanded globally.
No not at all. I is just something that behaves as if it is equivalent to negative one (that is, the additive inverse of the multiplicative identity) after combining it with itself in some way. We commonly call this multiplication. If such a thing comes with another operation called addition that behaves similarly to addition and multiplication (i.e. form a ring), then they will behave like i. Geometrically, multiplication by I can be seen as a 90deg rotation of a 2d vector. Complex numbers are simply 2-d coordinates (or rather, they are isomorphic to 2-d coordinates). Nothing special really. Easy to measure with a protractor and ruler.
In general there are many algebraic rings with an element that, when multiplied by itself, produces the additive inverse of the multiplicative identity.
In math, officially i is the "root" of x^2+1=0 or to be more precise, C is R[x]/x^2+1, i.e. you take all the polynomials in x and pretend that the polynomials A and B they are equivalent when A-B is a multiple of x^2+1.
There is also a construction with matices instead of polynomials.
And perhaps others. Each of them are useful in some cases.
X*X + 1 = 0 is a fundamental statement on an algebraic rings behavior with the additive and multiplicative identities and the additive and multiplicative group operations. Namely, it says that the ring contains an element that when multiplied by itself is equal to the additive inverse of the multiplicative identity . Plenty of rings have such an element. You can complete any ring with such an element and call it whatever you want. The use of the term imaginary for it is incredibly unfortunate. There's nothing strange or mystical about it. It's very real. In fact the rational complex numbers are more real than the non complex real numbers
In general, determining if two arbitrary reals are the same is impossible per the halting problem. People claim to measure 'real' numbers. This is a lie. People can only measure rational numbers. A real number is either a rational or the supremum of some arbitrary set of rationals (perhaps an infinite one). A set is described by whether or not a number is in it. To be able to determine what number is in your set you need to have some sort of decision procedure (a program). However, more real numbers exist than there are possible written programs. Thus, the full set of reals is inexpressible
On the other hand, it's very easy to see and measure rational complex numbers with a protractor.
Dummit and Foote is the classic abstract Algebra textbook to learn about how to precisely define these. Its treatment of ring theory is very well motivated and easy to grasp
Everything makes sense when you see I for what it is -- an escape from the number line rotated by ninety degrees.
Even the roots of a parabola that doesn't hit the z axis are actually the roots of the ninety degree rotated inverse analogue hitting the imaginary plane. Since the apex of such a parabola is always centered at 0i, the imaginary places it hits are symmetric, explaining why if a + bi is one imaginary root, then a - bi is as well.
Again... There is nothing weird about imaginary numbers. They actually make a lot of sense. It's actually insane to only do math in one dimension when our world has three.
I’m still using redmine. It allows me to create a project, break it down in to tasks, assign time estimates for the tasks, assign % complete, log time against tasks, which then allows for burn down charts so I can see if I am on track or behind. With time logged against projects I can generate timesheets and invoices. It also has Gantt chart which is handy for initial project planning meetings.
reply