That is true, but it also isn’t a counter argument to what I said.
Just because the right-wing people are crazy and do not argue based on logic, but on confirmation-bias and personal preconceptions, doesn’t mean that the reality itself has liberal bias. There are other ideologies that argue based on logic and observable facts, but are not ‘liberal’, many social-democrates (or democratic-socialists) for instance, IMO.
Good code documentation describes why something is done, and no just what or how.
To answer why you have to understand the context, and often, you have to be there when the code was written and went through the various iterations.
LLMs might be able to explain what is done, with some margin of error, but why something is done, I would be very surprised.
Nah, reality doesn’t have a liberal bias. “Liberal” is something that humans invented, and not something that comes from reality or some intrinsic part of nature.
LLMs are trained on past written stuff by humans, and humans for a long time have not been ridiculously right wing as the current political climate of the US.
If you train a model on only right wing propaganda, it will not miraculously turn “liberal”, it will be right wing. LLMs also argue not more logical than any propagandist, if they were fed by only propaganda.
I dislike it immensely when people argue that LLMs are truthful, unbiased, or somehow “know” or can create more that what was put into them. And connecting them with fundamental reality seems even more tech-bro-brained.
Arguing that “reality” is this or that is also very annoying, because reality doesn’t have any intrisic morales or politics that can be measured by logic or science. So many people argue that their morales are better then someone else’s, because they where given by god, or by science, this is bullshit. They are all derived by human society, and the same is true by whatever “liberal” means.
And lastly, assuming that some system somehow is “built into reality” shuts down any critique of the system. And critiquing any system in order to improve it is essential for any improvements, which should be part of any progressive thought.
I would agree about getting buying the cheaper version, if it doesn’t also might mean buying an EOL product.
If Nintendo stops providing updates and new games of the old switch (soonish) then (what I suspect from console gaming) then suggesting to buy the old product from Nindendo looks like they just want to empty their Switch 1 stockpile.
If Nintendo just treats the Switch 1 and 2 as the same console, with just different performance and price, but get the same support period and games, then I am fully with you.
Am I the only one that thinks PoE stands for Pillars of Eternity (and Power over Ethernet) and gets confused?
I think you are mixing up SFP and optical fiber. SFP modules with copper wires exist, and are common. (e.g. SFP 1000base-T modules)
You can also use optical fiber without SFP, like the toslink connection.
Optical fiber also has issues with requiring a larger minimal bend radius, because they easily break. So you have to handle them more carefully.
SFP? You mean the every device has slots to plug in different transceiver modules? I guess that would make it more future proof, but I think that will raise the cost, and might confuse ordinary people.
You have to think about the slot-transceiver compatibility and transceiver-medium compatibility then. Hmm… but I guess that would make it more transparent what is going on than having those chips embedded inside the cables, but not sure if we can leave them out, and require the end users to take care of thinking of all these compatibilities themselves or risk fire hazards.
Reparability? Robustness? Software support? Community support?
It isn’t all about comparing performance numbers.
You might likely run into issues with GPU (and other) windows drivers, which might stop supporting old windows 10 versions. At least that happened already with LTSC/LTSB. I expect this to happen especially when ordinary windows 10 EOL is reached.