It's always fun when people point out an LLMs insane responses to simple questions that shatter the illusion of them having any intelligence, but besides just giving us a good laugh when AI has a meltdown failing to produce a seahorse emoji, there are other times it might be valuable to discuss how they respond, such as when those responses might be dangerous, censored, or clearly being filled with advertising/bias
IMHO its far worse than "I googled this". Googling at least requires a modicum of understanding. Pasting slop usually means that the person couldn't be bothered to filter out garbage, but wants to look smart anyway.
I think "I googled this" can be valid and helpful contribution. For example looking up some statistic or fact or an year. If that is also verified and sanity checked.
Yes, while citing an LLM in the same way is probably not as useful.
"I googled this" is only helpful when the statistic or fact they looked up was correct and well-sourced. When it's a reddit comment, you derail into a new argument about strength of sources.
The LLM skips a step, and gets you right to the "unusable source" argument.
I agree. Telling I googled this and someone has this opinion is pretty useless. Be that someone a LLM or random poster on internet.
Still, I will fight that someone actually doing the leg work even by search engine and reasonable evaluation on a few sources is often quite valuable contribution. Sometimes even if it is done to discredit someone else.
"I googled this" usually means actually going into a page and seeing what it says, not just copy-pasting the search results page itself, which is the equivalent here.
In that case, the correct post here would be to say “here’s the stat” and cite the actual source (not “I googled it”), and then add some additional commentary.
The steam store used to burn CPU on Windows until at least up to 2017 (on fresh install it would a strong PC stutter on startup). It tries to kill your DNS resolver on linux when downloading games (~20 requests/sec when) which actually decreases your download speed by a bunch. This bug has been documented in 2014, and was still present last time I had to debug this a year or two ago.
You said developers have the knowledge and credentials (and thus the work) of managing your infra, and a moment later basically asserted you're saving money on the salary for the sysadmin. This is the actual lie you got sold on.
AWS isn't going to help you setup your security, you have to do it yourself. Previously a sysadmin would do this, now it's the devs. They aren't going to monitor your database performance. Previously a sysadmin would do this, now it's the devs. They aren't going to setup your networking. Previously a sysadmin would do this, ...
Managing hardware and updating hosts is maybe 10% of the work of a sysadmin. You can't buy much on 1/10th of a sysadmins salary, and even the things you can, the quality and response time are generally going to be shit compared to someone who cares about your company (been there).
Yes, please continue explaining the job I did in the past to me.
It doesn't change anything, especially as I did not blatantly argue cloud=good,hardware=bad. That is a completely different question.
My point is that given some circumstances, you need a lot less specialized deep knowledge if all your software just works[tm] on a certain level of the stack upwards. Everyone knows the top 1/3 of the stack and you pay for the bottom 2/3 part.
I didn't mean to say "let's replace a sysadmin with some AWS stuff", my point was "100k per year on AWS makes a lot of small companies run".
Also my experience was with having hardware in several DCs around the world, and we did not have people there (small company, but present in at least 4 countries) - so we had to pay for remote hands and the experience was mostly bad . Maybe my bosses chose bad DCs, or maybe I'd trust sysadmins at "product companies" more than those working as remote hands at a hoster...
> That is, unless the last UI element you've touched was the volume bar, in which case the side arrows will also change the volume, and you'll have to use the mouse to clear the focus away from that volume bar to be able to seek the video again
That is a feature (of the browser). The volume bar is selected so it takes up the controls for left/right (this is what a horizontal slider does I suppose). You can also select the volume button and mute/unmute with spacebar (spacebar does the action of the UI element, like click a button). You can tab around the buttons under the video to select options, etc. all with a keyboard. If a control doesn't support an action, it'll be propagated up to the parent, which leads to the jarring feeling that controls are inconsistent (and also the effects, left-right just adjusts the volume, up-down also plays an animation).
It's the usual low quality Google product, but it does make sense why it is so.
Oh, I know why it works that way. The point is that overriding parts of the normal focus behavior makes sense within video players - not only does every function already have a key shortcut (reducing the need for tabbing through every button), but some shortcuts can only work if the player understands what can and can't be overriden. Losing focus on the volume bar for the sake of keeping the arrow key assignments consistent is how it was done. Many other video platforms have figured it out, and so did YouTube many years ago, but then during one of their endless player redesigns, they seem to have simply forgotten about that basic behavior. I have no idea how they allowed it to remain this way for years, with all of them being extremely intelligent and well-paid engineers that are working on probably what is the world's most popular video player UI.
Ctrl + Right click, Show controls will bring up the classic controls (play, pause, volume, seek, full screen) on Firefox. I'm sure other browsers have something similar. Haven't found a way to turn this on permanently for all videos though :/
The author is completely ignoring that you didn't have to BUY these hats. For example, you could (and still can) craft the Milkman hat with 1 refined metal + 1 special delivery weapon.
> I'm sorry but linux gaming absolutely does not support "support everything from 90s to cutting edge modern games without hiccups"
Neither does Windows. W11 (or was it W10) famously broke a bunch of old games. Running Windows games from the 90s is easier on linux than on Windows at this point.
That's really nice but that still doesn't make Linux the better option, or even "easier" when PCGW has everything covered for Win. And most Windows issues is just slapping dgVoodoo or nGlide in and it's done anyway when solving a linux problem might be anything from picking a specific (arcanely divined) proton version to elaborate hacks and batches.
Same thing they do now: Get a nanny, ask the grandparents, playdates, ... Putting kids in front of a device is lazy, and unfortunately, most of us are lazy.
> Would it be better than trying to set up a call and discuss things, try to find some compromise
Are you serious? First, make a decision without consulting anyone, foist it on people that don't want it, then 'try to find a compromise'? If you care about people, you consult them before you make a decision, not after they've been burnt by it.
There many, many translating teams. When they designed this, it would be normal to consult with some of them. Not every single one. Maybe they sent some plans to every team and many of the teams never read them. Maybe the plans were hard to understand.
People aren't perfect. Setting up a call to discuss things is how you start to fix things.
reply