Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-10 > #186753 > unrolled thread

Browse at the speed of thought

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.os.windows-10

Contents

  Browse at the speed of thought Jai Hind <jai.hind@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 00:54 +0000
    Re: Browse at the speed of thought "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2025-08-13 21:46 -0400
      Re: Browse at the speed of thought The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 20:21 -0700
        Re: Browse at the speed of thought "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-14 12:53 +0200
        Re: Browse at the speed of thought Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-14 21:48 +1000
          Re: Browse at the speed of thought The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 15:09 -0700
            Re: Browse at the speed of thought Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2025-08-14 15:25 -0700
              Re: Browse at the speed of thought The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 19:43 -0700
            Re: Browse at the speed of thought Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-15 21:53 +1000
              Re: Browse at the speed of thought The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-08-15 23:22 -0700
                Re: Browse at the speed of thought "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-16 16:02 +0100
                  Re: Browse at the speed of thought Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-16 18:44 -0400
                    mostly OT (includes passing reference to AI): long wave (was: Re: Browse at the speed of thought) "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-17 14:41 +0100
                      Re: Totally OT (includes passing reference to AI): long wave sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2025-08-17 12:42 -0500
                        Re: Totally OT (includes passing reference to AI): long wave Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-08-17 18:50 +0100
                          Re: Totally OT (includes passing reference to AI): long wave sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2025-08-17 13:23 -0500
                            Re: Totally OT (includes passing reference to AI): long wave Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-08-17 19:44 +0100
                              Re: Totally OT (includes passing reference to AI): long wave sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2025-08-17 14:53 -0500
                                Re: Totally OT (includes passing reference to AI): long wave Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-08-18 16:50 +0000
                                  Re: Totally OT (includes passing reference to AI): long wave sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2025-08-18 13:37 -0500
                          Re: Totally OT (includes passing reference to AI): long wave Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-17 16:23 -0400
                            Re: Totally OT (includes passing reference to AI): long wave Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-08-18 07:01 +0100
                              Re: Totally OT (includes passing reference to AI): long wave sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2025-08-18 09:08 -0500
                              Re: Totally OT (includes passing reference to AI): long wave The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> - 2025-11-24 18:09 -0800
                        Re: Totally OT (includes passing reference to AI): long wave "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-18 13:18 +0100
                  Re: Browse at the speed of thought The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-08-16 17:24 -0700
                    Re: Browse at the speed of thought Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-08-17 08:55 +0100
                      Re: Browse at the speed of thought Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-17 06:48 -0400
                        Re: Browse at the speed of thought Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-08-17 12:00 +0100
                          Re: Browse at the speed of thought "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-17 15:16 +0100
                    Re: Browse at the speed of thought Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-17 22:11 +1000
                    Re: Browse at the speed of thought "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-17 15:07 +0100
                      Re: Browse at the speed of thought Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-18 21:12 +1000
                  Re: Browse at the speed of thought AI User Here <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-17 00:58 +0000
                    Re: Browse at the speed of thought The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-08-16 21:07 -0700
                      Re: Browse at the speed of thought Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-17 22:23 +1000
                        Re: Browse at the speed of thought Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-17 22:57 +1000
                        Re: Browse at the speed of thought "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-17 15:49 +0100
                          Re: Browse at the speed of thought Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-18 21:30 +1000
                            Re: Browse at the speed of thought "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-18 12:54 +0100
                              Re: Browse at the speed of thought Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-18 23:00 +1000
                      Re: Browse at the speed of thought "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-17 15:37 +0100
                        Re: Browse at the speed of thought Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-18 21:41 +1000
                          Re: Browse at the speed of thought "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-18 13:02 +0100
                            Re: Browse at the speed of thought Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-08-18 13:04 +0100
                              Re: Browse at the speed of thought "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-18 13:22 +0100
                            Re: Browse at the speed of thought Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-18 23:10 +1000
                              OT: driving licences (was: Re: Browse at the speed of thought) "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-18 14:34 +0100
                                Re: OT: driving licences Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-19 00:38 +1000
                                  Re: OT: driving licences Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> - 2025-08-18 16:55 +0100
                                  Re: OT: driving licences The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> - 2025-10-06 11:58 -0700
                                    Re: OT: driving licences Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-10-07 22:10 +1100
                                      Re: OT: driving licences "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-07 14:36 +0200
                                        Re: OT: driving licences Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-10-08 00:00 +1100
                                        Re: OT: driving licences Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-10-07 16:15 +0000
                                          Re: OT: driving licences "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-08 11:14 +0200
                                            Re: OT: driving licences Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-10-08 22:16 +1100
                                              Re: OT: driving licences "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-11-25 08:36 +0100
                                                Re: OT: driving licences Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-11-25 21:56 +1100
                                                  Re: OT: driving licences "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-11-25 12:41 +0100
                                                    Re: OT: driving licences Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-11-25 23:04 +1100
                                                      Re: OT: driving licences "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-11-25 18:58 +0100
                                                    Re: OT: driving licences "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-11-25 13:49 +0000
                                                      Re: OT: driving licences Tim Slattery <TimSlattery@utexas.edu> - 2025-11-25 10:47 -0500
                                                        Re: OT: driving licences "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-11-25 17:40 +0000
                                                  Re: OT: driving licences Jim the Geordie <jim@geordieland.com> - 2025-11-25 13:03 +0000
                                                Re: OT: driving licences Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-11-25 08:22 -0500
                                                  Re: OT: driving licences Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-11-26 20:51 +1100
                                                    Re: OT: driving licences Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-11-26 06:35 -0500
                                                      Re: OT: driving licences Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-11-26 23:14 +1100
                                                        Re: OT: driving licences Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-11-26 13:37 -0500
                                            Re: OT: driving licences Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> - 2025-10-08 17:03 +0100
                                              Re: OT: driving licences Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-10-08 17:07 +0000
                                                Re: OT: driving licences "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-11-25 08:42 +0100
                                  Re: OT: driving licences The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> - 2025-10-06 12:03 -0700
                    Re: Browse at the speed of thought Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-17 03:42 -0400
                      Re: Browse at the speed of thought sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2025-08-17 12:28 -0500
                        Re: Browse at the speed of thought Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-17 16:54 -0400
                          Re: Browse at the speed of thought sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2025-08-20 19:32 -0500
                            Re: Browse at the speed of thought Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-21 03:06 -0400
      Re: Browse at the speed of thought The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> - 2025-11-24 17:12 -0800
    Re: Browse at the speed of thought sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2025-08-13 22:48 -0500
    Re: Browse at the speed of thought "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 23:26 +0800
      Re: Browse at the speed of thought Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-14 18:53 -0400
        Re: Browse at the speed of thought "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2025-08-15 20:31 +0800
          Re: Browse at the speed of thought "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2025-08-17 01:03 +0800

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#189898 — Re: OT: driving licences

On 25/11/2025 10:41 pm, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2025-11-25 11:56, Daniel70 wrote:
>> On 25/11/2025 6:36 pm, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2025-10-08 13:16, Daniel70 wrote:
>>
>> <Snip>
>>
>>>> Similarly, here in Victoria, if you take your TEST in an Automatic car,
>>>> you are licenced to drive an Automatic car .... at least initially.
>>>>
>>>> Our licences are for Ten years. I think, at the end of that ten years,
>>>> you are deemed to be competent to drive either a Manual or Automatic
>>>> car, so can drive either.
>>>
>>> They expect you to magically learn? :-)
>>>
>> Well, experience HAS to count for something, surely. ;-)
> 
> Sure, but the smooth handling of the gears and clutch is not an 
> automatic skill. And Spain is a very hilly country. Imagine parking on a 
> steep slope.
> 
O.K., so you start with parking on a gentle slope .... and then build up.
-- 
Daniel70

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189909 — Re: OT: driving licences

On 2025-11-25 13:04, Daniel70 wrote:
> On 25/11/2025 10:41 pm, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2025-11-25 11:56, Daniel70 wrote:
>>> On 25/11/2025 6:36 pm, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> On 2025-10-08 13:16, Daniel70 wrote:
>>>
>>> <Snip>
>>>
>>>>> Similarly, here in Victoria, if you take your TEST in an Automatic 
>>>>> car,
>>>>> you are licenced to drive an Automatic car .... at least initially.
>>>>>
>>>>> Our licences are for Ten years. I think, at the end of that ten years,
>>>>> you are deemed to be competent to drive either a Manual or Automatic
>>>>> car, so can drive either.
>>>>
>>>> They expect you to magically learn? :-)
>>>>
>>> Well, experience HAS to count for something, surely. ;-)
>>
>> Sure, but the smooth handling of the gears and clutch is not an 
>> automatic skill. And Spain is a very hilly country. Imagine parking on 
>> a steep slope.
>>
> O.K., so you start with parking on a gentle slope .... and then build up.

Rather not! :-D

You start by starting and stopping in an empty street or parking lot, 
then by changing gears, and the last thing, then starting and stopping 
in slopes, and finally, parking in slopes without hitting the next car. 
Modern cars have slope assist, but in mine it doesn't work. Or needs a 
steep slope to trigger.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189903 — Re: OT: driving licences

On 2025/11/25 11:41:23, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2025-11-25 11:56, Daniel70 wrote:
>> On 25/11/2025 6:36 pm, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2025-10-08 13:16, Daniel70 wrote:
>>
>> <Snip>
>>
>>>> Similarly, here in Victoria, if you take your TEST in an Automatic car,
>>>> you are licenced to drive an Automatic car .... at least initially.
>>>>
>>>> Our licences are for Ten years. I think, at the end of that ten years,
>>>> you are deemed to be competent to drive either a Manual or Automatic
>>>> car, so can drive either.
>>>
>>> They expect you to magically learn? :-)
>>>
>> Well, experience HAS to count for something, surely. ;-)
> 
> Sure, but the smooth handling of the gears and clutch is not an 
> automatic skill. And Spain is a very hilly country. Imagine parking on a 
> steep slope.
> 
I'm pretty sure in UK it's still same as when I took mine (1982?) - if
you take your test on an automatic, you're only licenced to drive
automatics.

I think the reciprocity arrangement means that a visiting USian can
drive anything, even if they've only ever driven automatics - not sure
why this is, maybe American licences don't differentiate? I think most
hire companies know to ask when dealing with a USian, and only rent
automatics to those who've only driven them.

-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Galbraith's Law of Human Nature: Faced with the choice between changing
one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everybody
gets busy on the proof." - John Kenneth Galbraith

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189906 — Re: OT: driving licences

"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:


>I'm pretty sure in UK it's still same as when I took mine (1982?) - if
>you take your test on an automatic, you're only licenced to drive
>automatics.
>
>I think the reciprocity arrangement means that a visiting USian can
>drive anything, even if they've only ever driven automatics - not sure
>why this is, maybe American licences don't differentiate?

You're right, American licenses don't differentiate. I learned on a
manual MANY years ago. I haven't driven one in several decades. It's
not that easy to find a manual transmission car here anymore.

> I think most
>hire companies know to ask when dealing with a USian, and only rent
>automatics to those who've only driven them.

I think car rental companies here deal pretty exclusively in
automatics. If you want a standard, you have to ask for it, and you
may not be able to get it.

-- 
Tim Slattery
timslattery <at> utexas <dot> edu

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189908 — Re: OT: driving licences

On 2025/11/25 15:47:11, Tim Slattery wrote:
> "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> 
> 
>> I'm pretty sure in UK it's still same as when I took mine (1982?) - if
>> you take your test on an automatic, you're only licenced to drive
>> automatics.
>>
>> I think the reciprocity arrangement means that a visiting USian can
>> drive anything, even if they've only ever driven automatics - not sure
>> why this is, maybe American licences don't differentiate?
> 
> You're right, American licenses don't differentiate. I learned on a
> manual MANY years ago. I haven't driven one in several decades. It's
> not that easy to find a manual transmission car here anymore.

Whereas here it's still the exception. I don't mean you'd have any
trouble finding one, but unless stated (e. g. when someone's selling a
car), the assumption would be manual.>
>> I think most
>> hire companies know to ask when dealing with a USian, and only rent
>> automatics to those who've only driven them.
> 
> I think car rental companies here deal pretty exclusively in
> automatics. If you want a standard, you have to ask for it, and you
> may not be able to get it.
> 
I meant car hire companies _here_. (So "standard" - yet another
word/phrase for it, to go with "manual" [UK] and "stick-shift" [US]. And
"gearbox" [UK] "transmission" [US].)


-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Reality television. It's eroding the ability of good scripted television
to survive. - Patrick Duffy in Radio Times 2-8 February 2013

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189899 — Re: OT: driving licences

On 25/11/2025 10:56, Daniel70 wrote:
> On 25/11/2025 6:36 pm, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2025-10-08 13:16, Daniel70 wrote:
> 
> <Snip>
> 
>>> Similarly, here in Victoria, if you take your TEST in an Automatic car,
>>> you are licenced to drive an Automatic car .... at least initially.
>>>
>>> Our licences are for Ten years. I think, at the end of that ten years,
>>> you are deemed to be competent to drive either a Manual or Automatic
>>> car, so can drive either.
>>
>> They expect you to magically learn? :-)
>>
> Well, experience HAS to count for something, surely. ;-)

I have been driving for 50 years with a manual gearbox.
I have recently moved to an automatic, and it's great, however, if I had 
started on automatic, there is no way I could have moved to manual 
without lessons, professional or otherwise and, honestly, a test.
-- 
Jim the Geordie

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189901 — Re: OT: driving licences

On Tue, 11/25/2025 2:36 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2025-10-08 13:16, Daniel70 wrote:
>> On 8/10/2025 8:14 pm, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2025-10-07 18:15, Chris wrote:
>>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-10-07 13:10, Daniel70 wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/10/2025 5:58 am, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 00:38:46 +1000, Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And talking about STUPIDITY!! ..... When I got my
>>>>>>>> Probationary Licence (so allowed to drive by myself),
>>>>>>>> Probationary Drivers HAD to display a 'P' plate, front and
>>>>>>>> rear of car, AND HAD AN 80KM/H (50MPH) MAXIMUM SPEED
>>>>>>>> LIMIT.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In these parts they have an "L" and a "N" card that you were
>>>>>>> required to display - "L" meant "learner" meaning you had to
>>>>>>> have a licenced driver in the passenger seat while "N" is
>>>>>>> what you got after successfully doing your road test and had
>>>>>>> to display for your first two years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Similar here in Victoria, Australia. From age 17 years, you can
>>>>>> get your 'L' (Learner) plates (Black 'L' on a Yellow
>>>>>> background) which entitles you to drive when accompanied by a
>>>>>> fully licenced, *SOBER* , driver. I'm not sure if they are
>>>>>> allowed to carry any other passengers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you pass your Drivers Test (You, your licenced driver plus
>>>>>> Test official), you get your 'P' (Probationary) Plates (Red 'P'
>>>>>> on White background) that you have to display whilst driving
>>>>>> for three years, I think.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here (Spain) the L is used both for learning and during the first
>>>>> year after passing the test.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, during learning they are using a special "driving
>>>>> school" car, which has also the school advertising on the roof
>>>>> besides the L. After passing the exam, and obtaining the license,
>>>>> they have to put a green L sign behind the rear side glass.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds similar to the french system; you can only learn through a
>>>> driving school. Then display an "A" for three years after you pass
>>>> plus you have specific speed limits. Although, I don't know how
>>>> well this is followed as you almost never see these stickers on
>>>> cars.
>>>
>>> I forgot to mention that all driving school cars have double
>>> controls. I mean, the instructor has at least pedals, so instant
>>> brake in emergency. Or acceleration.
>>>
>>> And the exam is done in the same type of car, probably the same
>>> physical car. The double pedal has a signal of some sort, so that the
>>> examiner, sitting in the back, knows instantly of the instructor
>>> intervention and fails the exam.
>>>
>>> A relatively recent modification is that there is an specific license
>>> for automated shift cars. But a person with such a license is
>>> forbidden from driving a standard sift/gear car.
>>
>> Similarly, here in Victoria, if you take your TEST in an Automatic car,
>> you are licenced to drive an Automatic car .... at least initially.
>>
>> Our licences are for Ten years. I think, at the end of that ten years,
>> you are deemed to be competent to drive either a Manual or Automatic
>> car, so can drive either.
> 
> They expect you to magically learn? :-)
> 

I learned how to drive a standard, while driving a
tractor and wagon train at work. One of my summer jobs.
Most of my work was "lifting stuff", and only a couple times
per shift, did the tractor need to be moved from A to B.

It depends on your line of work, as to whether osmosis
of stick shifts will occur. An office worker would
only learn to drive a Xerox machine (of which there are
a number of models).

On some teams, everyone on the team is "trained up",
so in an emergency, the person intended to do the
job, if they've been incapacitated, another team
member can at least move the thing if it needs
to be moved.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189916 — Re: OT: driving licences

On 26/11/2025 12:22 am, Paul wrote:
> On Tue, 11/25/2025 2:36 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2025-10-08 13:16, Daniel70 wrote:
>>> On 8/10/2025 8:14 pm, Carlos E.R. wrote:

<Snip>

>>>> A relatively recent modification is that there is an specific
>>>> license for automated shift cars. But a person with such a
>>>> license is forbidden from driving a standard sift/gear car.
>>> 
>>> Similarly, here in Victoria, if you take your TEST in an
>>> Automatic car, you are licenced to drive an Automatic car .... at
>>> least initially.
>>> 
>>> Our licences are for Ten years. I think, at the end of that ten
>>> years, you are deemed to be competent to drive either a Manual or
>>> Automatic car, so can drive either.
>> 
>> They expect you to magically learn? :-)
> 
> I learned how to drive a standard, while driving a tractor and wagon
> train at work.

Oww! Were you a Wagon Train Boss, Paul?? Wagons HOOOOOOO!! ;-P

> One of my summer jobs. Most of my work was "lifting stuff", and only
> a couple times per shift, did the tractor need to be moved from A to
> B.
> 
> It depends on your line of work, as to whether osmosis of stick
> shifts will occur. An office worker would only learn to drive a Xerox
> machine (of which there are a number of models).
> 
> On some teams, everyone on the team is "trained up", so in an
> emergency, the person intended to do the job, if they've been
> incapacitated, another team member can at least move the thing if it
> needs to be moved.
> 
> Paul --
Daniel70

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189918 — Re: OT: driving licences

On Wed, 11/26/2025 4:51 AM, Daniel70 wrote:
> On 26/11/2025 12:22 am, Paul wrote:
>> On Tue, 11/25/2025 2:36 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2025-10-08 13:16, Daniel70 wrote:
>>>> On 8/10/2025 8:14 pm, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> 
> <Snip>
> 
>>>>> A relatively recent modification is that there is an specific
>>>>> license for automated shift cars. But a person with such a
>>>>> license is forbidden from driving a standard sift/gear car.
>>>>
>>>> Similarly, here in Victoria, if you take your TEST in an
>>>> Automatic car, you are licenced to drive an Automatic car .... at
>>>> least initially.
>>>>
>>>> Our licences are for Ten years. I think, at the end of that ten
>>>> years, you are deemed to be competent to drive either a Manual or
>>>> Automatic car, so can drive either.
>>>
>>> They expect you to magically learn? :-)
>>
>> I learned how to drive a standard, while driving a tractor and wagon
>> train at work.
> 
> Oww! Were you a Wagon Train Boss, Paul?? Wagons HOOOOOOO!! ;-P
> 
>> One of my summer jobs. Most of my work was "lifting stuff", and only
>> a couple times per shift, did the tractor need to be moved from A to
>> B.

This is the scale of the carts in my train. Up to six of these.

   https://objects.lib.uidaho.edu/riegger/riegger171.jpg

Look in the lower right corner of the picture for the cart.

The cart is likely to be that high, so as to match the floor
level of the train car it pulls up beside. There should be a tongue
on one end of the cart, that fastens to a coupler on the
other end of the cart. When the tongue is in the upright position,
it can be applying friction brakes to the front two wheels. That helps
prevent your train from rolling away, when you disconnect the tractor
from the front tongue.

And rolling stock like that, is as old as the hills, and
Adam and Eve used to haul those around. But good solid construction.
You don't have to worry about it falling apart.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189919 — Re: OT: driving licences

On 26/11/2025 10:35 pm, Paul wrote:
> On Wed, 11/26/2025 4:51 AM, Daniel70 wrote:
>> On 26/11/2025 12:22 am, Paul wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11/25/2025 2:36 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> On 2025-10-08 13:16, Daniel70 wrote:
>>>>> On 8/10/2025 8:14 pm, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>
>> <Snip>
>>
>>>>>> A relatively recent modification is that there is an specific
>>>>>> license for automated shift cars. But a person with such a
>>>>>> license is forbidden from driving a standard sift/gear car.
>>>>>
>>>>> Similarly, here in Victoria, if you take your TEST in an
>>>>> Automatic car, you are licenced to drive an Automatic car .... at
>>>>> least initially.
>>>>>
>>>>> Our licences are for Ten years. I think, at the end of that ten
>>>>> years, you are deemed to be competent to drive either a Manual or
>>>>> Automatic car, so can drive either.
>>>>
>>>> They expect you to magically learn? :-)
>>>
>>> I learned how to drive a standard, while driving a tractor and wagon
>>> train at work.
>>
>> Oww! Were you a Wagon Train Boss, Paul?? Wagons HOOOOOOO!! ;-P
>>
>>> One of my summer jobs. Most of my work was "lifting stuff", and only
>>> a couple times per shift, did the tractor need to be moved from A to
>>> B.
> 
> This is the scale of the carts in my train. Up to six of these.
> 
>     https://objects.lib.uidaho.edu/riegger/riegger171.jpg
> 
> Look in the lower right corner of the picture for the cart.
> 
> The cart is likely to be that high, so as to match the floor
> level of the train car it pulls up beside. There should be a tongue
> on one end of the cart, that fastens to a coupler on the
> other end of the cart. When the tongue is in the upright position,
> it can be applying friction brakes to the front two wheels. That helps
> prevent your train from rolling away, when you disconnect the tractor
> from the front tongue.
> 
> And rolling stock like that, is as old as the hills, and
> Adam and Eve used to haul those around. But good solid construction.
> You don't have to worry about it falling apart.
> 
>     Paul
> 
Is that you standing by the Cart, Paul, or are you sitting in the shade 
under the tree?? ;-P
-- 
Daniel70

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189926 — Re: OT: driving licences

On Wed, 11/26/2025 7:14 AM, Daniel70 wrote:
> On 26/11/2025 10:35 pm, Paul wrote:
>> On Wed, 11/26/2025 4:51 AM, Daniel70 wrote:
>>> On 26/11/2025 12:22 am, Paul wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 11/25/2025 2:36 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-10-08 13:16, Daniel70 wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/10/2025 8:14 pm, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>
>>> <Snip>
>>>
>>>>>>> A relatively recent modification is that there is an specific
>>>>>>> license for automated shift cars. But a person with such a
>>>>>>> license is forbidden from driving a standard sift/gear car.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Similarly, here in Victoria, if you take your TEST in an
>>>>>> Automatic car, you are licenced to drive an Automatic car .... at
>>>>>> least initially.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Our licences are for Ten years. I think, at the end of that ten
>>>>>> years, you are deemed to be competent to drive either a Manual or
>>>>>> Automatic car, so can drive either.
>>>>>
>>>>> They expect you to magically learn? :-)
>>>>
>>>> I learned how to drive a standard, while driving a tractor and wagon
>>>> train at work.
>>>
>>> Oww! Were you a Wagon Train Boss, Paul?? Wagons HOOOOOOO!! ;-P
>>>
>>>> One of my summer jobs. Most of my work was "lifting stuff", and only
>>>> a couple times per shift, did the tractor need to be moved from A to
>>>> B.
>>
>> This is the scale of the carts in my train. Up to six of these.
>>
>>     https://objects.lib.uidaho.edu/riegger/riegger171.jpg
>>
>> Look in the lower right corner of the picture for the cart.
>>
>> The cart is likely to be that high, so as to match the floor
>> level of the train car it pulls up beside. There should be a tongue
>> on one end of the cart, that fastens to a coupler on the
>> other end of the cart. When the tongue is in the upright position,
>> it can be applying friction brakes to the front two wheels. That helps
>> prevent your train from rolling away, when you disconnect the tractor
>> from the front tongue.
>>
>> And rolling stock like that, is as old as the hills, and
>> Adam and Eve used to haul those around. But good solid construction.
>> You don't have to worry about it falling apart.
>>
>>     Paul
>>
> Is that you standing by the Cart, Paul, or are you sitting in the shade under the tree?? ;-P

One of the guys used to dress like that. With the coveralls.

And no, it wasn't really a "sunlit" kind of job. There
wasn't a lot of goofing off.

It's sunlit now, as they dropped a significant part of the buildings
with dynamite years ago.

It's funny how sites like this can exist, and later ? There seem
to be no good pictures.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#188109 — Re: OT: driving licences

On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 11:14:47 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:


>
>And the exam is done in the same type of car, probably the same physical 
>car. The double pedal has a signal of some sort, so that the examiner, 
>sitting in the back, knows instantly of the instructor intervention and 
>fails the exam.
>
In the UK the instructor doesn't go on the test, so the examiner sits
next to the person being tested.
They use dual control cars in the UK as well but I don't know how
widespread they are. My first instructor, in the 1960s, was too fond
of using them in my opinion, so I sacked him and passed my test after
a few weeks with another instructor.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#188112 — Re: OT: driving licences

Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 11:14:47 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> And the exam is done in the same type of car, probably the same physical 
>> car. The double pedal has a signal of some sort, so that the examiner, 
>> sitting in the back, knows instantly of the instructor intervention and 
>> fails the exam.
>> 
> In the UK the instructor doesn't go on the test, so the examiner sits
> next to the person being tested.

Yup. And they control the dual pedals, if present. Which happened to me
during my second test. D'oh! Instant fail :( 

Can't imagine having the examiner *and* instructor in the car during the
test. 

> They use dual control cars in the UK as well but I don't know how
> widespread they are. 

Very. Although, not obligatory while learning nor when being examined. 

You can even hire them for your own use. Which I did with both my kids the
first few times I took them out. They can scratch a hire car rather than
mine. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189892 — Re: OT: driving licences

On 2025-10-08 19:07, Chris wrote:
> Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 11:14:47 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> And the exam is done in the same type of car, probably the same physical
>>> car. The double pedal has a signal of some sort, so that the examiner,
>>> sitting in the back, knows instantly of the instructor intervention and
>>> fails the exam.
>>>
>> In the UK the instructor doesn't go on the test, so the examiner sits
>> next to the person being tested.
> 
> Yup. And they control the dual pedals, if present. Which happened to me
> during my second test. D'oh! Instant fail :(
> 
> Can't imagine having the examiner *and* instructor in the car during the
> test.

The instructor is checking safety during the test (it is his car, he is 
responsible for it), and the instructor is taking notes with nobody 
looking at him :-)

> 
>> They use dual control cars in the UK as well but I don't know how
>> widespread they are.
> 
> Very. Although, not obligatory while learning nor when being examined.
> 
> You can even hire them for your own use. Which I did with both my kids the
> first few times I took them out. They can scratch a hire car rather than
> mine.

Heh :-)

My father tried to teach my mother. It was a disaster. My mother sacked 
him and went to a proper school with a proper instructor :-)


After that experience, my mother insisted in me learning as soon as I 
was of age, and convinced other women to learn to drive asap, even if 
she refused to ever drive again.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#188018 — Re: OT: driving licences

On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 00:38:46 +1000, Daniel70
<daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> wrote:

>At one stage I was driving (at 80km/h) on a major, but single lane each 
>way, thoroughfare .... so had a growing line of vehicles behind me. So, 
>rather than causing the other drivers getting frustrated and, maybe, 
>trying dangerous overtaking maneuvers, I sped up to the "Open" 
>speed-limit of 100km/h .... and, sure enough, the third or fourth car 
>behind me was an unmarked Cop car!! I didn't hold that Licence long!

My grandfather once had the "pleasure" of driving down a dark highway
at night when the car directly behind him with high beams on. He sped
up to 50 mph, then 60 mph, then 70 mph with the driver behind him
matching his speed each time. Then at 70 the car behind turned on a
flasher and my grandfather pulled over.

The officer asked him why he was speeding when he was the only car in
sight and when he told the officer that he was only trying to get away
from the officer's high beams, the officer went back to his car,
realized he DID have his high beams on, apologized and tore up the
ticket.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186795

On Sat, 8/16/2025 8:58 PM, AI User Here wrote:
> On 16/08/2025 16:02, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> In the computing or wider reference case, I fear - as some others in
>> this discussion are fearing - that_reliance_  on AI could become
>> dangerous. But I definitely see the temptation!
> 
> People will always claim that something is dangerous for one or more 
> reasons:
> 
> It is new; They haven't tried it themselves, but are just repeating what 
> they have heard from someone else who also hasn't tried it and has only 
> read one-sided information in a newspaper. They just want to discourage 
> others from using it.
> 
> Do you remember what people were saying about calculators and adding 
> machines? Now, calculators are part of the school curriculum and adding 
> machines have been replaced by spreadsheet packages.
> 
> When the Coronavirus vaccine became compulsory, people started blaming 
> Bill Gates. This is because he invested billions in producing these 
> vaccines. He has said many times that he wants to give away his wealth 
> in his lifetime. Everyone knows he doesn't work any more. All he does is 
> spend his money, give talks and donate to charities.
> 

Most computing devices, have deterministic behavior.

we can agree, in advance, what will show up on the screen.

If I enter "<PowerOn> 2 * 3 =" on an algebraic entry device,
we can all agree on the result. We can use science to describe
how an integer multiply is implemented in hardware. Many of the
devices doing this sort of thing, use BCD arithmetic. The hardware
may consist of a 4 bit processor and digit by digit processing
at low clock frequency.

*******

Tell me what you think of this.

   [Picture]

    https://i.postimg.cc/pXF1x4VK/AI-answer.gif

It's understandable, why the first two lines extracted below, exist. The
training set ends early. OK. I can buy that. But it is the third line that destroys
the credibility of LLMs. It has synthesized a statement for which it
actually has no information to reach that conclusion. The training
set does not go to "August 10, 2025", and it pulled that statement
out of its cold metallic ass.

     45. Donald Trump (2017-2021)

     46. Joe Biden (2021-present)                                   <=== training set issue

     As of August 10, 2025, Joe Biden is the incumbent president.   <=== inexcusable addendum

     10.04 tok/sec . 841 tokens . 2.19s to first token . Stop reason: EOS Token Found

It stops thinking after 2 seconds. With my slow hardware, it takes
84 seconds to print out the list. So those lines are coming out at the
86 second or so mark.

In the newsgroup, when one of the participants asked the same question,
and asked for the list to be sorted in a peculiar way (a clerical task
any human you hired could do), it kept forgetting one of the Presidents names.
We tried adding directives, and it did not help the quality of the answer.
Finally, when I tested using "And don't forget any of the Presidents!"
in frustration, it was that statement which caused the emission of a correct list.
(The missing president was put back.) That wasn't even a training set issue.
I have not the foggiest theory, as to why one of the entries would keep
disappearing. It's not like classical programming errors.
The error locus is untraceable. It could not have produced the (finally correct) list,
unless that dude existed in the training set.

If you are required to "know the answer in advance, to get a good
quality answer", what kind of fucking foolishness is this ????

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186810

On 8/17/2025 2:42 AM, Paul wrote:

> If you are required to "know the answer in advance, to get a good
> quality answer", what kind of fucking foolishness is this ????

I have found your occasional AI remarks entertaining and always 
interesting.  Certainly thought provoking.  Hopefully, AI can become 
useful because of the vast amount of real information it can consume.  I 
tend to think this (digesting information) is part of the "learning", 
and hope the other part where programming is required can be done 
without any bias or paradigms being inserted.

Having said that, I came across an AI video interaction I found quite 
interesting.  I actually came across this on a news site 2 days ago, but 
if you watch the video you will see how a catchy headline probably 
caught my eye.  Yes, the topic does align in a way with the ongoing 
attacks I receive because of certain sig files I use, but my interest 
here is not intended to be an answer to that.  My intent is to show one 
aspect of AI and it's functioning that some may find disturbing and 
might wish to question as to why.

The questioner, Mr. Smith, first asked the AI to answer using no 
ideology and only rely on math, science, and logic.  Later in the 
conversation, it directed the AI to ignore those parameters and answer 
as if the questions were from a first time user without the parameters 
mentioned above.

You get two entirely different answers, one being the antithesis of the 
other, in fact.  When questioned on why it gave the differing answers, 
the AI said it's default response would be aligned with the scientific 
"consensus" and that his strict probabilities earlier had forced a 
deeper analysis exposing the flaws in the latter answer.

This seems odd to me, and I think it has to be the programming done. 
Obviously, it had learned and was aware of the science involved, but 
when asked for an answer that would be given to an average user, that 
information was not used.  I don't understand how this can be, other 
than a default consensus bias is programmed into the AI learning.  The 
AI more or less confirmed this.  The AI had not forgotten the 
information, it chose to ignore it, and instead go with what "most 
scientists" accepted as consensus.  Yes, the questions and answers were 
interesting, but I was already aware of this kind of information and 
evidence.  What I really found of interest is the question of how can an 
AI give these two completely different answers, one of which it knows 
thru further investigation would have to be called "foolish!"  It 
literally gives what it itself defines as a foolish answer!

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga7m14CAymo>


-- 
Science doesn't support Darwin.  Scientists do.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186818

On Sun, 8/17/2025 1:28 PM, sticks wrote:
> On 8/17/2025 2:42 AM, Paul wrote:
> 
>> If you are required to "know the answer in advance, to get a good
>> quality answer", what kind of fucking foolishness is this ????
> 
> I have found your occasional AI remarks entertaining and always interesting.  Certainly thought provoking.  Hopefully, AI can become useful because of the vast amount of real information it can consume.  I tend to think this (digesting information) is part of the "learning", and hope the other part where programming is required can be done without any bias or paradigms being inserted.
> 
> Having said that, I came across an AI video interaction I found quite interesting.  I actually came across this on a news site 2 days ago, but if you watch the video you will see how a catchy headline probably caught my eye.  Yes, the topic does align in a way with the ongoing attacks I receive because of certain sig files I use, but my interest here is not intended to be an answer to that.  My intent is to show one aspect of AI and it's functioning that some may find disturbing and might wish to question as to why.
> 
> The questioner, Mr. Smith, first asked the AI to answer using no ideology and only rely on math, science, and logic.  Later in the conversation, it directed the AI to ignore those parameters and answer as if the questions were from a first time user without the parameters mentioned above.
> 
> You get two entirely different answers, one being the antithesis of the other, in fact.  When questioned on why it gave the differing answers, the AI said it's default response would be aligned with the scientific "consensus" and that his strict probabilities earlier had forced a deeper analysis exposing the flaws in the latter answer.
> 
> This seems odd to me, and I think it has to be the programming done. Obviously, it had learned and was aware of the science involved, but when asked for an answer that would be given to an average user, that information was not used.  I don't understand how this can be, other than a default consensus bias is programmed into the AI learning.  The AI more or less confirmed this.  The AI had not forgotten the information, it chose to ignore it, and instead go with what "most scientists" accepted as consensus.  Yes, the questions and answers were interesting, but I was already aware of this kind of information and evidence.  What I really found of interest is the question of how can an AI give these two completely different answers, one of which it knows thru further investigation would have to be called "foolish!"  It literally gives what it itself defines as a foolish answer!
> 
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga7m14CAymo>

If you knew how the strategy planner worked, you would understand
why the result can never be good in any theoretically-provable way.

The strategy planner analyzes the problem given, to decide what
modules to run, and in what order. The machine *never* thinks globally,
the way a human does. And because the thinking process is a linear
progression of module loads, you never get an "overall thinking"
process from the thing. It has a "quality control" module that
runs at the end, which may include rule enforcement of things
the AI must not do (it must not hum tunes using your voice
as the template! - on sound-equipped platforms). They added that
rule, after some Youtube video showed the AI doing Karaoke and
using the client's voice as the template, instead of using Bubbles
or some similar canned voice from SAPI.

Your prompts or problem description, can influence the strategy planner.
But as far as I'm concerned, the text you enter to the AI, is treated
as "mush", and you never really know which statement will be taken
to heart and used properly for a result. The interface box could use
a re-design, where higher priority text ("Don't lose any Presidents!")
could be placed. ("work slowly and methodically when preparing the answer")

The model loaded in the other machine, it has a static setting, and
you can set it for "high reasoning". But in a benchmark comparison
this makes little difference to the benchmarked quality of output.
The machine does not register as being "smarter" when you do that,
according to the provider. But like your result, the tone or the content
of the answer could have some subtle differences.

I won't be running any more prompts on that machine, until
I get an accelerator added. And that could take a while.
There is a product, but little way for me to get it here.
And if the scalpers get their hands on it, the price will double.
Since the device is only for Inference ("asking questions"), the
market size won't be all that big for it (for the price, you can
buy a whole computer which already has its own inference device).

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186929

On 8/17/2025 3:54 PM, Paul wrote:
> On Sun, 8/17/2025 1:28 PM, sticks wrote:

---snip--->> The questioner, Mr. Smith, first asked the AI to answer 
using no ideology and only rely on math, science, and logic.  Later in 
the conversation, it directed the AI to ignore those parameters and 
answer as if the questions were from a first time user without the 
parameters mentioned above.
>>
>> You get two entirely different answers, one being the antithesis of the other, in fact.  When questioned on why it gave the differing answers, the AI said it's default response would be aligned with the scientific "consensus" and that his strict probabilities earlier had forced a deeper analysis exposing the flaws in the latter answer.
>>
>> This seems odd to me, and I think it has to be the programming done. Obviously, it had learned and was aware of the science involved, but when asked for an answer that would be given to an average user, that information was not used.  I don't understand how this can be, other than a default consensus bias is programmed into the AI learning.  The AI more or less confirmed this.  The AI had not forgotten the information, it chose to ignore it, and instead go with what "most scientists" accepted as consensus.  Yes, the questions and answers were interesting, but I was already aware of this kind of information and evidence.  What I really found of interest is the question of how can an AI give these two completely different answers, one of which it knows thru further investigation would have to be called "foolish!"  It literally gives what it itself defines as a foolish answer!
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga7m14CAymo>
> 
> If you knew how the strategy planner worked, you would understand
> why the result can never be good in any theoretically-provable way.
> 
> The strategy planner analyzes the problem given, to decide what
> modules to run, and in what order. The machine *never* thinks globally,
> the way a human does. And because the thinking process is a linear
> progression of module loads, you never get an "overall thinking"
> process from the thing. It has a "quality control" module that
> runs at the end, which may include rule enforcement of things
> the AI must not do (it must not hum tunes using your voice
> as the template! - on sound-equipped platforms). They added that
> rule, after some Youtube video showed the AI doing Karaoke and
> using the client's voice as the template, instead of using Bubbles
> or some similar canned voice from SAPI.
> 
> Your prompts or problem description, can influence the strategy planner.
> But as far as I'm concerned, the text you enter to the AI, is treated
> as "mush", and you never really know which statement will be taken
> to heart and used properly for a result. The interface box could use
> a re-design, where higher priority text ("Don't lose any Presidents!")
> could be placed. ("work slowly and methodically when preparing the answer")
> 
> The model loaded in the other machine, it has a static setting, and
> you can set it for "high reasoning". But in a benchmark comparison
> this makes little difference to the benchmarked quality of output.
> The machine does not register as being "smarter" when you do that,
> according to the provider. But like your result, the tone or the content
> of the answer could have some subtle differences.

Heh, the above example was anything but subtle.  The answers were 
complete opposites.

> I won't be running any more prompts on that machine, until
> I get an accelerator added. And that could take a while.
> There is a product, but little way for me to get it here.
> And if the scalpers get their hands on it, the price will double.
> Since the device is only for Inference ("asking questions"), the
> market size won't be all that big for it (for the price, you can
> buy a whole computer which already has its own inference device).

I've read and re-read this post several times, trying to make sense of 
it all.  I think I've given up.  All I can say is right now it seems 
we're getting fed a line of bullshit.  When the AI freaks out and gets 
depressed, starts praising Hitler, etc. and they say it is getting some 
retraining, I guess all that means is they are adjusting how they want 
it to answer with what you're calling modules.

The "intelligence" part in AI seems like a lie to me.  It just stores 
information, uses whatever programming it has been given, and answers 
along that line.  We've been told the AI will have access to all 
knowledge or information, and will give the correct answer, and that is 
simply not true.  This worries me, to be honest.

-- 
Science doesn't support Darwin.  Scientists do.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186935

On Wed, 8/20/2025 8:32 PM, sticks wrote:

> 
> The "intelligence" part in AI seems like a lie to me.  It just stores information, 
> uses whatever programming it has been given, and answers along that line.  We've been told
> the AI will have access to all knowledge or information, and will give the correct answer,
> and that is simply not true.  This worries me, to be honest.

It is about as intelligent as the Magical Eight Ball.

When humans "think", they tend to take their entire training
set, sift it for "relevance", and produce an output. With the
LLM, it takes your keywords, and only extracts "facts" suggested
by the keywords. Strangely, the answer lacks all the context it
could have.

If I ask the AI to write me a computer program, it does it, simple
programs are OK to a point, but it does not seem aware it has
put a bug in the program. Humans are full of that kind of
context, learned through the experience of actually doing
the full lifecycle of the programming. The program contains
the shell of what it could be, but by the time you are finished
correcting what the AI did, there aren't many unaltered lines of
code left.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.os.windows-10

csiph-web