I feel this is going to be a short war. The war will be settled long before the November elections. The way I see it, there's going to be a "deal" and the administration will call it a win, "THE BIGGEST WIN EVER!" But I'm an optimist at heart. Keep calm. Think hard before you make a move.
It's going to be a short time until we see the newest version of the "Mission Accomplished" banner, I'll give you that. But the length of the war depends more on the power groups that rise up in Iran's wreckage. We don't seem to be helping up any friendly group, so that's not giving me much hope.
Why do you feel this way? Did you also feel Iraq would be a short war? After all it was really no trouble gaining air superiority and replacing any nominal authority with our own.
I’m totally open to theories of how America and the world at large will recognize a new Iranian leadership, but as is the strategy seems to be “create a power vacuum and pray”
The administration has said that they don't want regime change so that leaves just about anything as a win for the US. I see a big push to destroy the nuclear weapons material and capabilities. Once that's done, the US is out. It's a hard goal but it's the shortest way out.
Well, the news is reporting that the US is going to deploy a third carrier to the Middle East. Will it really be a short war? Or will it take a long time to destroy the remaining elements of the regime on the ground?
No, I don't see it. Current COBOL is running and meeting the needs. Rewriting the code would be a massive venture but even if Claude is able to map and rewrite the code there is 0 chance it can be trusted without major and expensive testing. Additionally, dealing with the new hardware that will be needed would be a major point of pain. Claude will help but why break something that's working. The better path will be to do a new needs analysis and then use Claude as one of the tools to make the transition. But the biggest block is getting management to pay for new code when the old code is not broken plus there is a chance of making things worse by doing the rewrite. Why would management take that risk?
Yup, my experience has been that vibe-coding is very time-consuming. It reminds me very much of how LLMs are great at creating mind-blowing images, but you get what you get. Once you decide that you need to modify the image you get, it becomes a time sink. You might be able to change it and get what you need, but there is no guarantee and it's a never ending task.
The same thing happens with code; you may get great results from your prompt, but trying to customize it will drive you nuts and you may never get what you want.
Maintenance is another hurdle. How do you maintain code you might not have the skills to maintain?
Vibe-coding may reduce software creation time, but it's not taking over software engineering. The SaaS business is going nowhere. Most people, by far, will continue to rely on someone else for their software needs. But be very aware that the software business will change. We are seeing that already.
True, it's the reason why most items aren't recycled. By far most items are buried or burnt rather than recycled. Our economic system is setup to minimize the manufacturing costs without considering disposal cost unless it's mandated. I don't think recycling will every be a real thing unless disposal costs become part of the overall price of manufacturing an item. Something that's mostly impossible unless it's mandated and people decide that trash is unacceptable or at least needs to be greatly minimized. Thinking about it, maybe at some point disposal cost will become so expensive that people won't buy new items unless sellers pay for trashing them.
I wrote a script that set an X countdown time to shutdown. The script gave a warning at five minutes and 1 minute until shutdown. Once I set it I could not stop it. It would load automatically at boot time. It worked rather well until I decided to stop using it. I don't have a solution for giving up. :)
Yeah I don't think any tool can fully solve this – it's ultimately a willpower thing.
the tool's job is to add friction, not to be unbreakable. Even if you bypass it sometimes, if it stops you from staying up late a few more times per month, that's a win
Intereting that Taipei 101 is used. The 101 is reminiscent of an introductory college course. So Taipei 101 is just the beginning. There should be more challenging climbs to come in the future.
A new definition of object oriented software should be around the corner. Imagine having a few thousand objects that fit together but need AI tweeking for the system to work. Imagine people puting the blocks in place and have LLMs glue them together. We will have bug free software in no time. We will go from script type code to full custom OSes in days. It's bound to happen.
Computer Science education has always seem like a luxury to me. You go to college and get a very high view of the computer field but never enough to be able to get a job without additional training. That has changed CS graduates will have enough know how to be useful out of college. Their role now is to figure out how to turn spects into a usable system using AI.
My question now is: given that that there are only a limited number of types of system, why not have templates for the know how for most of these system? LLM can just fill in the blanks and have a working system in no time for most of the use cases.
The only thing I can think of that will happen is that we will have new creative systems for use cases we have never even thought about. I doubt AI will take over. Human creativity has no bounds so we will see an explosion of new ideas that only humans can solve not a capitulation to AI.
I'm tired of this naive view that college is for training people for jobs.
College is for growing individuals that can handle the complexities required in a field. That is the real value.
You don't do CS or SE because you have to get out of college with knowledge of the latest hype, but you get out of college armed with the tools that make you able to learn and handle any of the that latest hype for decades to come.
This field especially moves way too fast for anything to be actual by the time you graduate. That's why you focus on the fundamentals and problem solving and in some exams here and there you get some touch of different fields (data, machine learning, etc).
Keep in mind the idea that "Some people are profoundly broken." There are those you can help. There are also those who you will never be able to help. Know your limit. Know when to say enough and let them live with their choices. You can't fix everyone even if you wish you could.
Being familiar with tech is important, but being a 'tech head' is not. A CEO needs to be familiar with the product, marketing, sales, HR, and all the other parts of a company. If you are highly focused on one aspect, it can be disastrous for the business. Your job is to get the right people in the right positions and use their knowledge to make the right decisions. A CEO's superpower is making the right choice with the information available, which means you must get the right information from your staff.
I can see a tech head being very important at a technology-based startup. However, once you have a product you can sell to investors or users, you need to let go and determine how to survive and thrive as a company. Tech is just one more thing you need to know as a CEO, but it is by no means the most important.
reply