ActiveSheet? Please no

Ah yeah, that seems to have Anticheat issues.

Still, I like to term it “System inertia” - moving systems is work, and unless something applies force, getting yourself to switch is hard.

Laziness most definitely is a thing. I didn’t switch until I had to.

What’s TOF? I’m only finding answers about flight instruments and cardiac issues

Bribe them with snacks. Source: Am IT. Have been bribed with snacks. You can bet that user got priority treatment from that day on.

If it’s real, I’m confident he had some competent assistant hire a competent crew for that photo-op. I’m guessing a competent PR consultant suggested a good photo-op in the first place, hit the right buttons to appeal to his wannabe cool image.

If it’s fake, some competent developer created a good tool, fed with competently selected data to create a rather convincing image.

What I’m trying to say is that there most certainly were several competent people involved in the making of this picture.

Just not the subject.

Playing games in general or specific games? Because just about every game I like to play runs just fine on Linux now. The only one I ever missed was Destiny2, but then I moved on.

Both Medieval Europe and Antiquity were defined by wealthy landowners and poor workers. We don’t always see a whole lot of that in the writings that have survived until our time, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t exist.

Most of the ancient sources we have were written by people with the both leisure to learn, travel around and write stuff down and the connections to have their writings be considered worth duplicating and preserving. In a word: the elites.

The issue here is that the poor and destitute didn’t exist in a vacuum just because resources were scarce. Even in bad years for the peasantry, the elites generally did fine.

These ancient sources don’t always spell that out, because it isn’t worth spelling out to them: this is just how they and their peers live. Most of these elite members owned property or the workshop and tools with which their workers labored.

By and large, they were rich. Whether that richness is defined in numbers on some net worth estimate or just in the amount of things they owned, the result is the same.

And even in Ancient Greece, the rich had to make some contributions back to the community (except for Sparta, but they’re a whole different beast of exploitation). Philanthropy has its roots there, even if it is a far cry from what we would term Philantropy today: The wealthy either voluntarily or out of obligation funded buildings, artworks etc. for the general public.

What changed with Industrial Capitalism and later Globalisation was mostly the scale of exploitation. But the principle - an owner class exploiting a labour class - has been around forever.

Let’s hope - and try to achieve - that this is a shock to action, a wake-up call for “a-political” centrists (actual centrists, not the right-wing sock puppets pretending to be) and those left-of-centre that didn’t take matters too seriously up until now. The fight is on, but it’s far from lost.

I recently went and replayed the DLCs of AC3 and Odyssey, which I’d quit for various reasons. Particularly in the case of Odyssey, Open World Fatigue played a role: I couldn’t be arsed to explore everything anymore, but neither could I bear to leave anything open.

I decided to just go for the missions, to not worry about over optimising my choices, to not worry about cleaning out every little question mark and chest and finishing every location. I finished them, enjoyed my time and found new freedom in not having to draw out the maximum amount of game time for my money.

I’ve twice now gotten a position without prior knowledge of the tools in question. I think a lot is just taking a gamble on your ability to learn as you go - which clearly worked out in your case.

I had my start with Python, albeit as a kid and I didn’t actually understand too much about the principles at the time. Still, I think that was a good place to start learning about the concepts of instructions and variables.

I learned more about the ideas underpinning it all later, and most of my understanding came when actually working in software development on a live and in-development codebase. I think that’s a good progression: start small, then learn some theory just so you’ve heard the terms once, then try to make sense of actual code using that.

Edit: definitely work on some goal though. Don’t code in a vacuum, think of something small you want to achieve and learn to do that.

You can recommend all you want, the decision is far removed from me

Ooh that’s a good one

Idk how that person’s IT works, but in mine, that would probably warrant a lot of paperwork. The techs would have to pitch the change to client management, client management would have to pitch it to change management and provide test results to show it has no side effects, then deal with the techs complaining about the uptick in tickets about slow boot times or people justifying never shutting down or restarting with it taking so long to boot.

Not that they’re actually slow, our users are just super entitled. I got to observe the rollout of automatic screen lock for security reasons, and the ensuing pushback. The audacity of having to reenter your password if you’ve spent more than ten minutes doing nothing!

Security even managed to push for reducing it to five minutes after some unfortunate incident… but it got reverted for reasons you can probably guess. Hint: shit always flows downward.

I work in our service department myself (not as support tech though), but obviously, all tickets are supposed to go through 1st level. I don’t wanna be the dick skipping queue, so I did then one time I had an issue.

There’s a unique feeling of satisfaction to submitting a ticket with basically all the 1st level troubleshooting in the notes, allowing the tech to immediately escalate it to a 2nd level team. One quick call, one check I didn’t know about, already prepared the escalation notes while it ran. Never have I heard our support sound so cheerful.

Cognitive disabilities are a thing. Accommodating for them would be a good thing.

Not that that’s the intended purpose of that AI, probably, but if it can simplify the form without twisting the content*, it could be a great tool to make complex works more approachable. It’s not necessarily a question of “can they understand it” as much as “can they be arsed to read it”. I know plenty of people that just straight up didn’t read one of the books relevant for our finals and just skirted through with guides laying out the things you were supposed to know. The book wasn’t necessarily impossible to understand, but so tedious to dig into they just couldn’t muster the motivation.

I don’t know how many books worth reading for their point remain unread by people who didn’t find the wrapping around that point appealing. Simplification may help them, even if it butchers the artful use of language others enjoy.

*The issue I’m concerned about is that the content may be inadvertently twisted in the process of being parsed and rephrased by an AI with no actual sense for the semantics. Who would notice? Would you have someone proof-read it? What about repeat queries of the same book? Would you assemble a library of simplified books?

At that point you might as well make manually supervised “translations” into simpler language that take care to preserve the point, can be written once and revised when language shifts. You’d still get the benefits, but also be less dependent on an AI doing a good job.

Me no word good 😄
Nah, you’ve got a point, my brain is just fried these days. I definitely need a vacation.

I was supporting your point. I forget that comments are seen as counterargument by default.

But you’re right, my comment would have been more useful in reply to the other person.

Reduce
Reuse <- You are here
Recycle

Not using it at all would be better, sure, but if you don’t have that option for whatever reason, reusing it is the next best thing. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.

That would be rather pathetic then, to resort to anticompetitive practices and still not prevail.