• 0 Posts
  • 21 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: February 13th, 2024

help-circle
  • Honestly, I think that this was a horrid read. It felt so unfocused, shallow and at times contradictory.

    For example, at the top it talked about how software implementation has the highest adoption rate while code review/acceptance has the lowest, yet it never really talks about why that is apart from some shallow arguments (which I will come back later), or how to integrate AI more there.

    And it never reached any depth, as any topic only gets grazed shortly before moving to the next, to the point where the pitfalls of overuse of AI (tech debt, security issues, etc.) are mentioned, twice, with no apparent acknowledgement of its former mention, and never mentioned how these issues get created nor show any examples.

    And what I think is the funniest contradiction is that from the start, including the title, the article pushes for speed, yet near the end of the article, it discourages this thinking, saying that pushing dev teams for faster development will lead to corner cutting, and that for a better AI adoption one shouldn’t focus on development speed. Make up your damn mind before writing the article!


  • Ich Stimme zu, dass das “einfachste” Indiz bei den Beispielen die Stimme ist. Hier kommt es oft zu Stimmverzerrungen, die stark nach Dekodierfehler klingen, aber nur die Stimme betreffen.

    Was auch auffällt sind Hintergrundcharakter. Ein gutes Beispiel ist die falsche Autoexpo. Wenn man die Szenen mit dem Mann mit dem Kinderwagen genauer ansieht, sind die Posen vom Mann und Kinderwagen immer sehr ähnlich. Des weiteren verhält sich der Mann sehr ungewöhnlich. Menschen verhalten sich sehr eigenartig wenn sie wissen, dass sie gefilmt werden, und man merkt dass sie oftmals achtsam die Kamera ignorieren während sie dennoch Aufmerksamkeit der Kamera geben. Teilweise schnelle Bewegungen durch die Anspannung, was die KI immer noch schlecht imitieren kann.

    Generell ist die beste Strategie skeptisch zu Medien zu sein und die Inhalte zu hinterfragen.












  • Based on what I heard it was mainly cost vs benefit. It was mainly an expensive gimmick, as not only you had to buy more expensive equipment that had its limitations (expensive glasses that had to synchronise with the TV or very narrow fields of 3D), but also had to have channels with 3D (which might’ve cost extra) or more expensive media that was capable of delivering 3D.

    While streaming could have been a contributing factor, due to it killing traditional TV channels and basically DVD sales, it seems that overall 3D cinema declined very fast as well. This is probably because how expensive it was for both cinemas and production companies, and production companies often resorted to cheaper alternatives rather than equipment that would actually film in 3D, leading to a much less satisfying effect. So as the 3D effects got shallower, the whole gimmick in theaters died, and probably the whole 3D fad.






  • I should have elaborated on it a bit more, my bad.

    While it’s true that DDoS is more of an active technology rather than a CYA thing. It does however also act as insurance when it comes to the “blame game”: if your site goes down it’s not your fault but the provider’s fault, meaning you might be able to recoup lost profits through a lawsuit.

    Of course the only way to avoid this for the provider is to provide better and stronger systems, which normally would grow homogenous through more customers and/or growing fees for all customers, which would pay for better capacity and stronger protection by itself.

    However here we have a client that is a high value target that others might want to take down at all costs. Even if they didn’t sue, a strong enough attack might, alongside naturally expected DDoS on other clients, not only take down this customer’s server, but others as well, which really isn’t something you want, for the reasons stated above. And rapidly increasing security could be not worth it, as it could devolve into an arms race by proxy with a high risk of the customer leaving if you raise their fees to much, leaving you with a system which’s maintenance will now dig into your profits due to a lost big income stream, or make other customers leave if you raise the general fee.



  • I think the main problem is that people try to shoehorn OOP mechanics into everything, leading to code that is hard to understand. Not to mention that this is basically encouraged by companies as well, to look “futuristic”. A great example of this approach going horribly wrong is FizzBuzz Enterprise Edition.

    OOP can be great to abstract complex concepts into a more human readable format, especially when it comes to states. But overall it should be used rarely, as it creates a giant code overhead, and only as far as actually needed.