My first thought is, does this mean that along with the burnout I'm feeling with talking to my own agents I now need to try and consume and understand my teammates conversations with agents? Why is this better than a good pr description that distills completed work and explains why it was required ?
Yes, but compared to seeing 3k lines of code in a PR with no history with vibes in the description, what is better? This definitely "feels" like something worth exploring.
Software Engineers avoid coding more than any other type of people I have ever met. It's clearly not better but much easier for the Engineers who just want the results without knowing anything about the solution.
Their software is so poor that it caused probably the biggest miscarriage of justice in history. Well that and Fujitsu staff colluding with post office executives to put innocent people in prison rather than admit there was a problem
The 'Fujitsu' that made the shitty software was a British consulting company that was acquired by Fujitsu [1] to farm public contracts. This is made by the Japanese parent company.
In a very specific legal sense, it isn't, we are talking about two entirely separate legal entities (and ultimately groups of people) which have a relation of ownership, not directorship.
You're right, but the scandal is so upsetting that I personally cannot ever look at Fujitsu the same way even. Also, I think you're neglecting that a large part of why it became so bad was that Fujitsu claimed there was no issue with their software. Even if it were built by a company they acquired, the response to the developing situation was something that the parent company should have stepped in to oversee.
Does mister work with kv260 boards "out of the box" or is the official mister target a de10 nano? (I love my mister, assembled oneba few years ago). I don't follow the project closely due to zero free time these days
You have to base your build around either the DE10-Nano or one of the clone boards from QMTech. If I were getting into MiSTer I would skip faffing around with dev board builds and just get a SuperStation One, and I say this as someone who has two MiSTer builds based on DE-10 boards. In my case I'm using a MiniITX motherboard that the DE-10 plugs into called the IronClad Plus. The SuperStation one is apparently awesome. Great IO options, reference quality analog video, and nice industrial design.
They will not get as safe as cars. They are inherently dangerous, it's like taking a car and removing every safety feature. Removing doors, windows and belts. There's a reason that there is a legal requirement in many countries to wear a helmet.
I spent some time in Vietnam back in 2005, after getting a few lifts on the the back of mopeds in both Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, I decided to look up some road traffic accident stats for those cities: I never took another lift like that again.
I just had a horrifying flashback to the Creative Labs driver download page... some wizard-style abomination three levels deep, nothing just a simple link.
Still, the archive was complete and you'd end up getting what you went there for, so still infinitely better than the average experience today.
Mechanical code review by something like sonar qube is much cheaper. Use that for low bar quality gate and AI after.
AI code review is startlingly effective. Continually finding things me and my colleagues never would. Well the decent models do. Maybe not so much the cheap ones.
My gut reaction to this is that there is something seriously wrong if special clauses are required. Why should open source get special treatment, to me that just highlights that the law is utterly ridiculous.
Technically opensource stays the same. The special treatment is for closed source OSes that get an additional legal protection for their datamining. We should not be passing laws that legalize the datamining of people.
One of the problems with the original law is that it failed to distinguish between open source projects and closed source products. If anything this amendment should make the law less objectionable, not more.
reply