I really want to stop using Google maps but the issue I have with every other option is that I can never just search for the place I want to go to. 99% of the time, the place I am going to is a business, searching "<shop name> <city name>" on anything other than Google maps either gives me nothing (OsmAnd in this category) or might give me some the shops of that chain but in a random order and intermixed with towns a hundred miles away which have the same name. More generic queries like "petrol station" are even worse. The best solution I have come up with is to use Google maps to find the actual address and then copy that into the other app but at that point I might as well just use Google maps.
Could you elaborate more on what you find useful about it? I'm struggling to think of a time where an assistant would have been useful in any chat I've been in, but this seems like you've put a lot of effort into it so it must be doing something for you
Is this really the case? I feel like most windows users just bought a laptop with Windows already on it. Even if all home users were running pirated versions they would still become entrenched in the world of Windows/Office which would then lead to enterprise sales.
I think they define selling software as selling a file that people download. Which is a pretty reasonable definition to me. With SaaS you are selling access to your servers.
The article brushes over the idea of a binary open source/proprietary in favour of a range of openness. Talking about the different degrees of openness in open source is a valuable thing to do but it's important to keep the clear line as well.
I want more nuanced discussions but I don't want to end up in a situation where people cannot tell whether software is open/proprietary because the language has become so blurred (its already confusing enough as it is).
I feel that this conflicts with the definition of open source software. It's important that we maintain that definition.
It's also worth having and discussing this idea of a 'spectrum' of openness but that needs to be seperate as to not conflict with the term "open source".
It already annoys me how many projects describe themselves as "open source" when they are actually just source available.
I have tried plenty of times to get it to work. My colleages have done the same. It just doesn't work for the kind of coding we are doing I guess.
Maybe I am terrible at prompting. But I am using AI all the time in the form of chat (rather than it coding directly) and find it very useful for that. I have also used code gen in other contexts (making websites/apps) and been able to generate lots of great stuff quickly. I also compare my style of prompting to people who are claiming it writes all their code for them and don't see much difference. So while it's possible my prompts aren't perfect in my scenarios at work it doesn't seem likely that they are so bad that I could ever improve them enough to change the output from literally useless to taking my job.
To give some context to this, the core of my job that I am refering to here is basically taking documentation about Bluetooth and other wireless protocols and implementing code that parses all that and shows it in a GUI at runs on desktop and android.
There are a lot of immediate barriers for gen ai. Half of my debugging involves stuff like repeatedly pairing Bluetooth speakers to my phone or physical pluging stuff in and AI just can't do that.
Second, the documentation about how these protocols works is gnarly. Giving AI the raw PDFs and asking basic questions about them yields very poor results. I assume there isn't enough of these kinds of documents in their training data. Also lot of the information is not text based and is instead contained in diagrams which I don't think the AI parses at all. This is all assuming there is an actual document to work with. For the latest Bluetooth features what you actually have is a bunch of word documents with people arguing half in the tracked changes and the other half of the argument is in the email chain.
Maybe I could take all that information and condense it into a form that the AI can parse? Not really. The information is already very complex and specified and I don't see how I could explain it to an AI in a way that would be any less ambiguous than just writing the code myself. Also that would assume I actually understand the specification which I never do until I write the code.
Maybe I could just choose one specific little feature I need and get AI to do it? That works, but the feature was probably only 5 lines of code anyways so I spent more time writing the the prompt than I would have writing the prompt. It was the last 2 hours of reading the spec that would actually be useful to automate. Maybe AI could have written all the code in my 1k lines PR but when the PR took 4 months and me literally flying to another country to test it with other hardware, writing the code is not the bottleneck.
Maybe the AI models will get better and be able to do all this. But that isn't just a case of ai models continuing to get the kinds of incremental imrpoves we have been seeing. They would need a leap forward to something people might call AGI to be able to do all this. Maybe that will happen tommorow but it seems just as likely to happen in 5 years or 5 decades. I don't see anyone right now with an idea of how to get there.
And if I'm wrong and AI can do all this by next year? I'll just switch to writing FPGA code which my company desperately needs more people to do and which AI is another order of magnitude more useless at doing.
Micro QR codes are a thing however they cannot store enough data for even a basic URL (https://google.com)
All QR codes are using some amount of error correction plus the locating squares in the corners which uses up space but is needed for people to scan them quickly and reliably.
The fundamental issue is that you are displaying binary data in physical space. My Google url is 18 characters so 18 bytes ASCII and 144 bits. At minimum that's 12x12 already. Then add the location squares and error correction. Then realise that your link is probably longer than that. Then realise that a standard is going to need to support links that are longer than yours also.
Now the resulting code needs to be physically large enough that someone's with an old phone with a bad camera can see it in sufficient detail without needing to get so close that the camera cannot focus.
You could always just use an NFC tag instead if that works. Buy them for pennies, load the link onto the tag and then they just tap their phone.
Seems perfectly reasonable to retract the award when they admit to breaking the rules.
I think they need to define the rule better though for future years.
"Games developed using generative AI are strictly ineligible for nomination"
The strictest interpretation of this would mean that any single developer using chatgpt to ask how a C++ function works would make the game ineligible.
Clearly that's not the spirit of the rule (since I think that basically exclude all games at this pointso) so it should be better defined.
Anyone else cringe at this kind of swearing-filled stuff. I'm all for people expressing themselves however they like but I just personally cringe at it for some reason. I have no problem with swearing but I think it reminds me of when I was 8 and everyone at school used as many swear words as possible because they thought it made them sound cool. I really mean no insult to the people writing this stuff though
None of the models currently are able to make competent changes to the codebases I work on. This isn't about them "making mistakes" which I have to fix. They completely fail to the point where I cannot use any of their output except in the simplest of cases (even then it's faster to code it myself).
The great wall of china being visible from space is the one that always annoyed me by being so obviously wrong. Just because it's really long isn't going to make it more visible
Just started using OpenSCAD recently and love it. While most CAD tools have a million features to learn, OpenSCAD is completely described by a cheat sheet you could print on a piece of A4 (like most programming languages).
I would really recommend using the git master than the latest release though. The last release was 2021 but they are still actively working on it and it's much faster now.
I also have to recommend the BOSL2 library which means you don't have to implement all of those one million features from typical CAD software yourself. Its definitely got a bit of a learning curve but the fact that you can always default back to vanilla OpenSCAD and that you can actually see how stuff is implemented makes it much more satisfying to me to learn than learning what all the traditional CAD GUI buttons do.