I can’t understand how anyone looked at JavaScript, worked with it for a bit, then decided they wanted to use it to build full applications.

Check out the behind the bastards episodes on Gates. Even his charity foundation is just another way to exert control.

My guess is what’s going on is there’s tons of psuedo code out there that looks like it’s a real language but has functions that don’t exist as placeholders and the LLM noticed the pattern to the point where it just makes up functions, not realizing they need to be implemented (because LLMs don’t realize things but just pattern match very complex patterns).

Don’t get me wrong, it’s decent entertainment. It’s just disconnected from any kind of scientific or technical reality and a part of me is rolling my eyes for a lot of it. And maybe a bit frustrated because I like thinking about things and analyzing and problem solving. I prefer hard magic systems over soft magic ones because there’s no point in thinking about soft magic systems because they just do whatever the plot calls for when it calls for it while hard magic systems have to build up to it and need to be clever to surprise viewers.

Tony uses a soft technology system that defies thought.

Yeah, Tony was capable of doing whatever the writers wrote him to be capable of, just like every other fictional character. And the writers wrote him doing it in a manner similar to the “programming” in Swordfish or the tech work in NCIS (or whatever show it was that had multiple people typing on one keyboard at the same time). As in difficult to tell if they had any understanding of it at all, sensationalised it for entertainment purposes, deliberately made it unlike any real programming to troll people who do understand programming, or some combination of all those.

MCU science might as well just be another school of magic. Especially when Tony’s suit could shapeshift and convert between matter and energy because of some quantum mumbo jumbo. He just cast a quantum spell on it.

Also every movie had multiple impacts in that iron suit that should have been worse for him than most car crashes.

Unless it’s java.

I don’t have the patience to keep it up for a long time but I barely get any scam calls after pushing the button to talk to someone and then just asking about the plot holes in their script. Like the one claiming there’s going to be a warrant for me, why does the guy need to ask for my name and other information? Why would revenue Canada (of anyone who isn’t a scammer of some sort) ever want any kind of payment in gift cards? I’ll use a tone of voice on the verge of laughter, too.

One time, after I asked, the guy just asked me why I even pressed the button to talk to a person and then hung up. Most of the time they just hang up. Sometimes the English option seems to only be there to make it seem more realistic for those who would pick the Chinese option because the call disconnects right after picking English.

Though more recently I’ve just been hanging up early in the recording when I do get the odd scam call. They might filter that, too, because even the volume of those calls stays low. Which makes sense because even just making the calls probably costs them something, even if it’s just pennies.

It will also give an error if you try to add a return value anyways.

That’s the worst when your cycle time is very long. You fix a bug in the code, start your test running again and come back to check the next day only to see the exact same bug again and might think that your fix didn’t work and something more esoteric is going on (“maybe it’s a compiler or hardware bug!” (It almost never is)).

Then you add a bunch of debug prints to really get a good idea of what’s going on and rerun the test. Either you remembered to save and suddenly the mystery bug is gone because the fix is still in the code. Or maybe you forgot to save again and now it looks like it’s not even reaching any of the code you added the prints to.

Thing is, if it just guesses what you meant instead of sticking to the standard, you can end up with ambiguous meanings. Like what if you forgot a character that wasn’t a semicolon but inserting a semicolon would turn it into valid code?

Like:

x = y z++;

Inserting a semicolon would turn that into set x to the value of y and then increment z. But maybe the line is missing a plus instead of a semicolon and the intent was to set x to y plus z and then increment z.

It’s a pain but strict syntax helps avoid frustrating to debug bugs.

Taking it a step even further, you can make your code more robust by treating warnings similarly to errors. Even though the general cases usually still work despite warnings, they are great for avoiding edge cases that can also be difficult to debug. At least if you take the time to understand what the warning is really about and don’t just google “how to get rid of warning x” and add some casts or something you don’t understand to make the message go away.

The important bit is to power one on first before the swap, then you’ll have one setup where the pi was recently powered on and another setup where the connected devices were recently powered on. You might see the issue on only one of the devices, at which point you can say if it’s the pi being off for a while or the devices that triggers the issue.

Impressive engineering, but it comes with a curse.

Where it gets messy is you’d need to supply power on the PCIe rail as well as any extra plugs the GPU needs without powering on the system itself. And then even messier if someone powers on that system. Mad scientist shit.

Just made that one up but it was based on another Frankenstein-like setup another user in a beta testing group was using that I don’t remember the specifics of. His issues started getting mostly ignored until he upgraded his system to something more normal lol.

Ah that’s interesting. If you can swap the devices from one pi to another, try powering it all up on machine A, then swap the devices to machine B and power that on. Might tell you if the issue is with on the pi side or with the devices.

Is latency higher on the first boot than on subsequent ones? I’d be looking into race conditions if you’re seeing a bit of lag cascade out into bigger problems. Race conditions are the worst, especially when the race most often goes the right way and just occasionally goes the wrong way. Though you can force the wrong way by adding delays in your code, if you have an idea of where the race is happening.

Or, after weeks of debugging an issue the user has logs proving they are having weird performance issues despite having a strong GPU, it turns out their parents wouldn’t let them take that GPU out of the family PC so they rigged up a PCIe to USB to wireless transmitter that hooks up to a wireless to USB to serial port that exploits a signal leaking from serial port to PCIe bus bug on the family PC motherboard to act as if the GPU is on their own machine, which both impresses and horrifies you.

And when you try to get approval to drop the issue as unsupported, your manager gives you shit and it takes another week to convince him that it isn’t a use case that you should support. And they only agreed in the end because a more senior technical person happened to overhear you pleading with your manager one day and only had to say, “that’s crazy!” for your manager to 180 immediately on the issue. But it’s still cited as a negative on your next performance review (“you spent weeks working on something we don’t even support!”).

Another angle to try is to set the date one day ahead and see if the bug shows up then. Might need to disconnect from network and set it in the BIOS for the test to work properly.

I could be wrong, but I figure after being off for an hour, all capacitors should have discharged by then, so it’s probably not based on how long the hardware has been unpowered.

Though one other angle I just thought of, if you have something that runs periodically, maybe the bug is related to that period being missed once or n times. Or it could be related to something that is meant to wake the computer to run some job and then go back to sleep but instead just sets it in a bad state.

Yeah that’s fair, though it doesn’t help with the frustration. Especially when it’s management getting in the way of things. Like with all the enshitification, my guess is that there’s a dev or team of devs that hate themselves for going along with it.

Yeah, that’s something a shitty developer who is bad at debug would say.

Bugs frustrate me more because I can often guess at why they are happening and how to fix them but can’t just apply the fix myself. Even more frustrating when there’s an update and I’ll think, “oooh maybe they finally fixed that annoying bug!” and then see it again shortly after installing the update.

That uninstalling python2 bit reminds me of stories of users deleting their system32 folder to free up disk space.

I disagree that that warning is reasonably clear. Even the comment that included it has the line of thought, where the user, not knowing what terms git uses thinks that they just did an action that is going to change each of their files. It makes sense that they’d want to discard those changes. That user then goes on with some snark about not wanting to learn any more about what they are playing with and that other programs would do the same, but “discard changes” seems like it would have a clear meaning to someone who doesn’t know git.

The warning says it isn’t undoable but also doesn’t clarify that the files themselves are the changes. Should probably have a special case for if someone hits discard changes on a brand new repository with no files ever checked in and hits discard on a large number of files instead of checking them in. Even a “(This deletes all of the local files!)” would make it clear enough to say what the warning is really about.