The endless prattle about "you must embrace AI now or be locked out forever" is much more tiresome. If AI is really going to be so ubiquitous (and also replace all current skill categories), then I can just wait a year or two for AI to improve and go learn it then, right?
As someone who's said something like that several times, I'm fine with never saying it again. I did it because I really do believe the bottom of the job market is going to fall out for engineers that aren't capable with AI and I was trying to be helpful, but if the people hand coding are aware of the risks and accept them, shrug you do you.
They're not really for many people (and, personally, I don't go to any extremes to keep it a secret). But sharing info like that from an HR record without permission feels a bit wrong even if others here obviously disagree.
The basic ingredients are also lower quality and less nutritious. For example, vegetables and fruits these days (at least for the U.S. market) are grown almost entirely for size and appearance, not for the amount of trace nutrients they contain or other quality measures.
Basically, serving a small business whose key app they use got sold to private equity, has been turned into a subscription, support is now tickets they never get fixed, and the subscription goes up 20% a year.
I fear the day when someone figures out that a well-crafted Show HN post is a great way to get "engagement", and starts marketing to others how to do so or doing it for them.
I will be very surprised if people are not already optimizing their HN posts for marketing purposes.
It's not uncommon to see people showing off their website traffic graph on Twitter after hitting HN. You can also find people asking for advice on how to use HN to market their shitty SaaS on places like reddit.
Another kind of marketing you see quite often is people replying with a post that starts off reasonable, until the third paragraph where the commentator says "this is why we built blah" and makes you feel you are staring at an half eaten Apple with half a worm in it.
IMX, the people submitting LLM slop projects are also, overwhelmingly, making LLM slop Show HN posts. And come across as unlikely to change, or even recognize the faults of the slop they submit.
Which is really not any different from what I've seen on Stack Overflow, or GitHub, or many other places.
A modern PC can most certainly run Flight Simulator. Most PCs still have an EFI that provides a CSM. And most GPUs default to running a program that provides VGA (and thus CGA) compatibility.
What's even more surprising is that it functions properly, other than a timing issue with the World War I Ace mode.
If you want to run FS 2.11 or earlier, you will need to get a cracked copy, since its copy protection requires using a diskette version. But "PC compatible" has never required diskette drives - the original IBM PC included an edition with no diskette drives at all.
(I'm personally more on your side of the argument than not, but need to point out literal details of the "standard" that is under dispute)
the article says if we transported back to the early 80's people would have said "it doesn't run Flight Simulator", so what that would have meant?
the original Flight Simulator for the IBM PC--first independently produced, then purchased by Microsoft--booted itself directly from the floppy; meaning, you had to reboot in order to run it; and it had its own "custom operating system" or really no operating system at all, something more like a kernel, or just an app.
yes modern "PC compatibles" do have some means of running that old software, but it won't work out of the box atm.
You would presumably supply usb floppy drives on the way back in time, and then you'd be alright. And an ethernet NIC with 10base2 and AUI for thicknet, cause twisted pair wasn't typical that early.
Network booting PCs happened a lot later, but if the booter used bios calls to access the disk, you could probably netboot that too.
reply