I think the constructive criticism is best directed at whatever process you are following. That process allowed a very visible user facing change in a widely used piece of software. How did this change make it to production without some process catching the impact of this change? Was there really no internal discussion from a code review at least? This seems hard for me to believe. I expect more from Microsoft.
> Was there really no internal discussion from a code review at least? This seems hard for me to believe.
The outlined story feels unfortunately very believable to me.
Teams need to push out the most number of features, and nobody stops even for a second to think about how a feature might affect other flows or other users not in the feature request.
It might have been quickly reviewed to check if the code does what it needs to do (add the coauthor note).
Do you think reviewers will think about unwanted effects, when they need get back to feeding their own poorly thought out and underspec’d features to their LLMs?
> Was there really no internal discussion from a code review at least? This seems hard for me to believe.
>The outlined story feels unfortunately very believable to me.
100% agree here - we seem to forget that most developers hate code reviews. I actually laughed out loud at the use of the word "discussion," it's so rare people want to get together and talk about changes. By the time the PR is up anything that stands in the way of merging and shipping is seen as a nuisance.
To my mind this whole debacle is not really the individuals fault or even the team's fault but the economic pressures that drive people into situations like this.
Fair point. We did catch it internally in testing (as we use VS Code for all our work, so some folks did stumble on it), but I think we underestimated the impact and should do a better job at that.
This is honestly the most concerning part of all of this. You're saying you knew that this exact bug was present up front and still decided to release it?
This basically invalidates the entire premise that it was an innocent mistake. It's impossible for me to believe that you actually thought that people wouldn't care about 100% of their commits being attributed to Copilot even when it was never used. Either you're misconstruing what you caught with the testing beforehand or your entire development process is tainted, because there's no way that a non-evil corporation would see this default behavior and think that people would be fine with it. It seems far more likely you just thought you could get away with it.
I think there is a "ship fast" component here that should be adjusted. Product Management introduced weekly "stable" releases in March, no matter the content.
I think so too, but my point is that even according to their own words about what happened, the best possible interpretation is that they didn't mean to do it but knowingly let it happen. I agree that a worse version is more likely, but it's pretty damning when even the ceiling for what they can plausibly claim is "we intentionally didn't bother stopping it once it happened accidentally".
A generous read of this comment might be that you did catch it internally in testing AFTER it shipped but shrugged it off as something you'd patch in the next release in a week or two. Is that what you meant here?
Or that it was caught but didn't surface fully before release?
A helpful governance policy here might be that anything that mutates user content without opt-in consent requires a distinct sign-off or a double sign-off. If the goal is to prevent this from happening in future.
I saw a lot of "they made a game I like (Halo), therefore they must not be that bad" from the gaming cloud that only experienced the console side of it
Also, who/what group is pushing for this change internally and what is the opinion of the team implementing it? What is the road map and vision for AI in VSCode?
I am a long time mac user and I agree with all of their points. I guess you disagree, but I am not sure why you are being dismissive. Each point is a legitimate criticism from many peoples' points of view.
I acknowledge the complaints, I love a good complaint! My issue is that these superficial, and in many cases, easily remediable annoyances add up to a "crappy OS". MacOS has to satisfy a very diverse userbase from Paris Hilton-types to grumpy Hacker News readers (but thankfully not Bank of America), and I think they do a better than decent job at it.
I don't consider the Mac's less-than-half-assed search facilities to be a superficial problem. I don't see how you can argue that a search that doesn't show WHERE it found hits is competent. Beyond that, it often just doesn't work. You can be sitting in a directory full of JPEGs and search for .jpg and get zero results. Zero.
And dismissing the asinine removal of the "get mail" button from Apple's default E-mail program because YOU don't happen to use it isn't exactly respectable, is it?
Mac OS DID satisfy a great many people; I've seen no credible (or even incredible) argument that the recent raft of faffing about with the UI has brought new users into the fold. That's the foundation of so many people's outrage over it: The changes offer no improvement and don't address any longstanding user requests. But it IS demonstrably regressive, and subjectively dated and tacky.
"Transparent" UI came and went 20 years ago for good reason.
I want to ask a dumb question: if it was known that this area was high traffic, why are archaeologists only just now discovering these wrecks? Is it not obvious to search this area for wrecks given its history? The article hints that climate change is increasing urgency. Is the case here that we knew there should be wrecks here, but climate change made the search happen?
I've actually had this conversation before with an archeologist with some naval archeology experience.
Shipwreck hunting is ridiculously expensive. The resources required to exhaustively explore 100 sqm of space is probably 1000x of the resources required to do it on land. There aren't any easy shortcuts: radar doesn't work underwater, sonar does but is extremely low resolution, lidar works pretty well but only if the water is very shallow and clear, underwater drones have extremely limited mobility and communication capability. A lot of funding in archeology tends to go to easier or higher probability wins, which has mostly been aerial lidar in heavy vegetation areas for the past 10-15 years.
The best shipwreck hunters rely almost entirely on probabilistic models for where they might find shipwrecks, and the most useful probabilistic models have all developed in the last 30-40 years. In fact, some of the best probabilistic models like Bayesian Search Theory actually originated as a formalization of heuristics that were already used in treasure/shipwreck hunting.
In that respect, I would argue that this find is actually the result of recent advances in probabilistic modeling (along with other advances in data engineering with respect to extremely messy historical data sources) that have just barely gotten accurate enough to start getting the funding it needs to do the harder work of actually working on the sea floor.
It's also worth remembering how little money goes into archaeology in general.
I can think of two nationally-significant archaeological sites in Central Europe - both were partially excavated about fifty years ago, to varying but fairly limited degrees, and then gently reburied, because there wasn't enough money to keep things going.
The site of one has a poorly-trafficked tourist centre today, the other is a clearing with nothing more than a tourist plaque. Both are likely candidates for previous capital cities, so they are obviously significant, but the money just isn't there to do anything about them. I seem to recall reading somewhere that over 90% of one of the sites remains unexcavated.
These are land sites, so relatively inexpensive compared to sea sites. If this is how willing we are to fund nationally-significant land digs, I imagine sea archaeology would be comparatively even more impossible to fund.
Yes exactly. I'll add that most shipwreck discoveries haven't actually been discovered by archeologists, they've been discovered either by amateur divers by accident, or by treasure hunters, who by default only seek after specific ships with known cargo. It's just too expensive for academic archeology organizations to pursue. Take away the quest for profit, and almost nothing gets discovered, no matter how historically significant.
I suppose this is an area where amateurs can help out. I live near the Great Lakes. Once in the while, amateur divers will discover a new shipwreck. It's like the way that amateur astronomers used to look for comets with the hope of being the first to report one.
You have to get the lidar down to the scan range, which they do with drones. The effective scan range of that particular lidar model is 1.5 to 15 meters. Compare that to 1000+m for aerial lidar. That means that they had to get the scanners to extremely low depths and were using very expensive drones, and the process was still extremely slow. They still had to target the search area using probabilistic models based off of available historical records, as a general search would have been way too expensive.
Another solution: train wild dolphins to recognize the goal (e.g. sunken ships), do the scan for you, and receive some compensation in exchange for the work they do (tasty food? play balls?). Should check the depth range of dolphins.
Somebody investing a zillion to hire people to train and feed dolphins most probably:
1) have enough money to buy robots instead and get rid of the legal and logistic trouble
2) would want to use the dolphins for activities that grant a better return of the investment like marine engineering or war (mining/demining).
Every major of a coastal city in California, or South-Africa (with a big beach visited by thousands of swimmers a day), would pay solid money for bay-watching and shark deterrent services that really work without the need of eyesore nets. People love to swim with dolphins too so would be another tourism resource in itself.
The time of your dolphins would be just too valuable and expensive to do Archaeology.
Definitely not an expert here, but I was always under the impression that dolphins can only be trained in captivity. If they aren't reliant on you for food, they have no need to perform for you.
SS Central America, sunk in 1857 with 14,000 kg of gold.."the old insurance companies who’d paid out when the original ship demanded, and were rewarded, in court a substantial amount of the gold recovered."
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/interviews/how-f...
That's the main reason. Also marine archeology is expensive. I once heard an archeologist saying that if the rests have passed centuries underwater, one more is less harmful than looters.
Underwater sites are particularly harder to protect from looters than above / underground sites. If the stakes are high enough, scuba diving is a reasonable option for the criminally minded.
It wasn’t long before Costa Concordia was looted for its treasures.
Passengers possessions - e.g. jewelry, watches. Technical equipment on the ship. Items from the on-ship shops. Interesting artefacts (ships bells are often a prized loot from wrecks).
The punishment was made to be a deterrent for all who might consider doing the same as Alex Jones. You have made a straw man about destroying him forever.
You can get a lot of mileage out of making the indica/sativa distinction. Regardless of strain, inidca heavy tends to chill people out, while sativa heavy strands give energy and more anxiety. Everyone is different and ymmv.
Because it can do both. That may not be valuable to everyone, but it is a beneficial feature for many people. Also, Apple's keyboard case has a fantastic keyboard and trackpad that is a pleasure to type on.
That is because in 1943 Josiah Samuels wrote an influential book called, "Into the Fortnite" that depicted characters who were involved in a long, protracted battle. Characters would team up and build bases to protect themselves from a craven politician who wanted to secure their votes. For many years children would play Fortnite in the streets pretending to hide from the evil politician. Eventually, this game became quite popular to the point of achieving household ubiquity. A lot of older folks get confused and think this game was a video game!
10 bibles for another example. I have seen bibles a lot of places, but never as trash. He describes his giant ashtray and the tale of the tens of thousands of other pieces of trash he picked up on his way to one million cigarette butts. I love this guy and his website. This is what we gray beards mean when we speak of the Internet of old.
I was surprised by the number of bibles too! I don't think I've ever seen one as litter (not counting those left in hotel rooms), but I've seen other kinds of religious literature like tracts, booklets, and watchtower magazines
That's the kind of thing that people like to hand out to people walking by. Many people, if handed a booklet they didn't actually want to read, will just toss it on the ground.
As someone who has been pressured to take a book by random (mostly religious) people on a college campus, I wouldn't put the blame entirely on the person taking it.
If you choose to accept a book because you are too uncomfortable to say the word "no" then you should accept that it is your responsibility to dispose of the book appropriately.
Don't blame other people for your own bad behavior.
Best thing, if you accepted the book but realize within a few steps (maybe immediately) that you didn't actually want it, would be to walk back to the person handing it out and say "Changed my mind, don't actually want it, why don't you give it to someone else?" I know some people who hand out religious tracts or other such materials, and every one of them that I know personally would accept the item back with good grace. They'd rather give it to someone who will actually read it.
And if they're the kind of person who won't take it back with good grace? Place it on the ground right next to them, and walk away. Make it their responsibility to deal with it. (If you don't want to go out of your way to find a trash can: some public spaces make them easy to find, but others not so much).
I didn’t say that I chose to accept the book and then threw it away. I said that I said no and the other person proceeded to drag out the interaction in a way that made everyone there uncomfortable.
Because lines of code interact with each other. Understanding what one line does in isolation does not always show the rough edges that are found when code interacts. The challenge is seeing the forest instead of individual trees.
reply