COMPILE ERROR - LIBRARY CALCAREA.H DOES NOT EXIST
goddamnit you acid tripping LLM...
this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
344 points (91.0% liked)
Programmer Humor
19548 readers
1016 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
LLM costs $20 a month and needed only 60 hours of training, junior dev has been at it for years, costs as much for a half hour, and still needed me to repeatedly explain what a rectangle is
If you're paying someone $40 an hour who doesn't know what a rectangle is then I think you're the problem.
I’ve just worked for agencies that hire juniors and outsource. If you’ve seen what I’ve seen you’d change your tune
The problem is that he's paying $40 an hour and for that you only get someone who knows what a ਆਇਤਕਾਰ is.
One key point here is: While you actually can replace a bunch of junior developers with AI in some places, any replaced junior developer will never become a senior developer that cannot be replaced by the AI because he/she is basically experince on two legs.
So, corporations, don't complain about the lack of experienced, senior personnal because YOU have been the main reason they don't exist.
To all the decaf haters: If you drink decaf, you actually like the taste of coffee without needing the caffeine. That's someone with taste, in my book.
I think it's stilly for anyone to impose there way of coffee consumption onto anyone
I like my caffeine, mainly because I have a literal caffeine addiction
But I also keep around some decaf in case I have a random coffee craving at like midnight
There are many ways to decaffeinate a coffee bean... Some more gross than others... All of them blasphemy.
And yes most of them ruin the taste of coffee.
Also it's obvious you have seen this already. https://youtu.be/yYTSdlOdkn0?si=6Z1RlexQCt2I4OI9
Dude, you clearly didn't even watch the first 30 seconds of the video because it contradicts what you say from the start
How do you gather? You think there isn't many ways to decaffeinate beans or that some of them aren't gross? Or that most ways used to decaffeinate beans doesn't make the coffee taste bad?
These are the very points James makes in the first 2/3rds of the video.
The only point that he and I might delaminate on was that all decaf is blasphemous, and that's a stretch because he never talks about the religious criminality of drinking coffee?
Why do you think I would offer a video to people about decaf that I didn't watch? Hint: I don't hate decaf coffee.
I don't hate decaf coffee.
all of them blasphemy
Dude, pick one and stick with it. None of this hypocrite crap
Yeah, well for many of us it's decaf or no coffee due to health issues. You acting like it's a foolish, childish thing is just tribalism/elitism.
And for what it's worth, I'd put my decaf vs your coffee in a heartbeat. A good roaster with quality beans is great coffee, decaf or no. Just like Hoffman said.
That's some top shelf stretching there.
People needing to limit their caffeine intake because o health issues is a "stretch"? O.o
No no, that was the only reasonable part. Everything else wrapping that was absurd though.
Like I said, you didn't watch the video. Hoffmann clearly stated that decaf coffee can be made well. It is a documented fact that he said that, no subjectivity required.
So how is the other person "stretching" when they claimed he said it?
You sincerely think you have a better grasp on coffee than James Hoffmann?
Much more likely you haven't tried good decaf from a good roaster, tried a blind tasting, or your preparation is seriously flawed.
I'm a huge fan of James Hoffman... I don't think anyone alive understands coffee better than he does.
I live in a US Coffee Capital...
I make brilliant decaf for my pregnant wife.
My preparation is flawless in drip and espresso
You guys really don't understand subjectivity or sarcasm and are filling in a ton of the blanks.
You guys really don’t understand subjectivity or sarcasm and are filling in a ton of the blanks.
"Coming up tonight: Sarcasm is hard to convey in text form, if not clearly signposted. More at eleven." /s
You guys really don't understand subjectivity or sarcasm and are filling in a ton of the blanks.
No, you're just clearly either a compulsive lair or a troll. Either way, your input is not appreciated
You say "no one knows coffee better than he does", while blatantly disagreeing with his entirely empirical points in his video on decaf, that it can be made by several processes, all of them are fairly good, and the result can be masterful?
I live in a hockey capitol. That makes me nothing like an expert. Same for you.
Okay, so you make brilliant decaf. That means your point in this thread is moot?
Funny thing on that "subjectivity" is when you disagree with other people in this thread, you've plainly said they're just entirely wrong.
When someone disagrees with you, you hide behind "subjectivity".
I encourage you to introspect.
Yikes this is getting drawn out and silly, eh. I'll save us some time.
You win.
But one thing that I couldn't help but chuckle at is your interpretation of the coffee capitol point.
You live in a hockey capitol. That doesn't make you an expert, but I bet if you wanted to buy a hockey stick you would have a number of stores carrying top gear... If you wanted to see a game you probably have a number of hockey teams from pro to amateur you could go watch live.
I have direct access to three of the top 20 roasters in the country. I'm fortunate to have access to some of the best coffee in the world regardless if I'm an expert or not.
And this is sort of the point overall... You added so much of your own arguments to my position that you aren't even arguing with me or the points that I'm making.
I'm not hiding behind subjectivity, I was the one who posted the video "negating" my so called "opinions". You still think I did that as a mistake. Which I think is the second example that shows you are coming to this discussion in bad faith.
It's no wonder you recommend introspection, given you have been arguing only with your interpretation of my opinion.
It's funny, because you claim the opposite of what is said in the video.
That's the funny thing about subjectivity right?
"Blasphemy" is not really something I would consider a term that's commonly used to express subjective opinions.
That's because words on their own all have definitions. The subjectivity is created contextually. I swear it feels like I'm talking to a bot.
No need to get insulting, ma nude. Still not sure in what world your statement could be regarded as subjective in intend. Please, enlighten me.
Opinions, such as "all methods of decaffeinating coffee are blasphemy" are subjective in their very nature. What makes this more obvious is that the definition of blasphemy is entirely subjective and can't even begin to be assessed objectively until at very minimum a religious dogma is declared for the basis of evaluation.
the definition of blasphemy is entirely subjective
I disagree. IMHO, the accusation of blasphemy presupposes a dogma to actually make sense.
Okay... Which one? It's pretty clear that decaffeinated coffee violates no religions that I'm aware of... And in fact for some religions would be the only allowable way to drink coffee. And if you argue that I just meant in general that it is a slight on to any God then how would you interpret that as anything other than humor or sarcasm?
Do you always feel like a victim or is it just when you aren't caffeinated enough?
... Any dogma? It's like the claim "that's illegal" presupposes a body of law. No matter which one.
That's not how legal systems work... Plenty of things are legal in one place and illegal in another. No Christians are worried about blasphemy against Zeus or Jupiter. Like wise a Zoroastrian is only concerned about blasphemy against Ahura Mazda and not Allah.
I'm claiming that the accusation or blasphemy presupposes a frame or reference. In this frame of reference, you can make objective statements. Not that this frame of reference is absolute.
In your line o reasoning, velocity would be subjective.
Velocity is not suggestive because it is defined as speed in a direction.
In your example you are only taking speed, assuming direction and stating velocity.
Velocity needs a frame of reference, though, since there is no absolute frame of reference.
This is the silliest shit I've ever discussed on the Internet. I will say kudos to you for keeping things mostly amicable. It's been awhile since I've had an argument on topicality and it's been entertaining for me. Thanks my friend, best wishes.
You could say the same for a finite element model. A junior engineer with just 4 years of training can solve, explicitly, the deflection at the center of a slender, simple-simple beam of prismatic section and produce an exact (if slightly incorrect) answer. Building a FEM of the same can solve the problem and take longer (to make the model) with similar accuracy, both of which are good enough for design work.
Only a fool wouldn’t have a FEM around though, as it can solve problem that would take centuries for a human to solve. They may as well make a cartoon with the child digging a 3” hole in beach sand and then showing a backhoe making a jagged edged hole of the same size.
Part of the reason this is a great example is you can easily calculate the maximum stress of an I-beam IFF you know where to find the simple formula. Even a dense FEA mesh will always give an answer like 3x4=11.9974, it's worse. The education is how you know which formula to use.
view more: next ›