Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #93793 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-10-16 03:26 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-10-18 10:59 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 259 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 03:26 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 00:00 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 04:33 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Peyton" <peyton@solacium.us> - 2026-10-15 21:53 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 01:31 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 06:08 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 04:39 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 08:49 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 08:53 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 05:26 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 09:29 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 09:31 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 19:16 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-16 19:42 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 09:44 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 09:55 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 09:20 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 11:20 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 11:09 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 12:54 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 12:15 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 15:05 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 14:54 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 16:46 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 16:57 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 19:01 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:11 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 14:48 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Harold Stevens <wookie@bookworm.localdomain> - 2026-10-17 08:26 -0500
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 15:01 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 22:11 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 08:52 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 11:30 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-17 22:17 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 02:30 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:54 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 19:56 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 04:32 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:30 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:13 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 14:19 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:38 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 15:10 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 14:58 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 16:04 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-18 15:33 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 14:23 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 20:37 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 20:11 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-18 21:53 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 13:00 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 15:12 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 13:26 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 15:35 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 14:04 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 16:24 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 14:50 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 20:19 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 09:39 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 05:58 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:55 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:43 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:19 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 03:48 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:33 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 02:20 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-17 06:37 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 11:59 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:33 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-17 22:20 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 22:50 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:48 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:25 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:15 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:36 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 14:57 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Peyton" <peyton@solacium.us> - 2026-10-15 23:16 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 07:45 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Peyton" <peyton@solacium.us> - 2026-10-16 08:41 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 18:27 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 21:55 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 23:43 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-17 22:31 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 05:00 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 03:56 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:09 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:58 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 13:33 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:08 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 20:11 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-18 18:52 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-18 21:58 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 20:07 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 13:13 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:27 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 14:50 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 04:15 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 04:41 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 11:00 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 09:57 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 09:26 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 09:42 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 10:56 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 11:14 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 13:07 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 12:20 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 15:26 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 19:32 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:21 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 04:04 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 09:24 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 19:27 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:20 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 01:13 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 02:32 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:33 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 03:04 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:41 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 12:45 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 19:24 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:16 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-17 22:53 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 06:02 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Peyton" <peyton@solacium.us> - 2026-10-15 23:26 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 06:42 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 07:41 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 06:39 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 04:22 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 10:54 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 09:19 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 08:40 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 09:52 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:47 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-17 23:29 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 05:29 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 10:07 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 09:28 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 11:26 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 10:56 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 12:40 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 11:46 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 13:39 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 12:48 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 09:16 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 08:51 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 11:04 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 11:13 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 13:03 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 12:26 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 15:21 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 15:07 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 21:26 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-17 01:55 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-17 01:07 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 09:28 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 12:35 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:09 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-10-16 16:37 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 19:51 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-16 11:44 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 16:14 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-16 17:10 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 17:56 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-16 18:10 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 18:32 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 21:52 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:19 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 02:28 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-17 01:52 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 09:11 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 21:50 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-16 19:39 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 09:43 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 15:02 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 15:06 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 17:15 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 19:55 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:33 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:38 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 12:08 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 19:51 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 17:36 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 17:12 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 20:05 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 22:35 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 09:12 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 16:46 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 19:01 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 19:08 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 12:07 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 09:22 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:29 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 09:33 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 12:09 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:42 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 01:54 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 12:11 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 12:38 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 20:01 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:33 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 19:42 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:36 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-17 15:47 -0600
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 23:11 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-17 18:07 -0600
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-18 03:05 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 11:31 -0600
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 09:57 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 20:05 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 02:49 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 12:14 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-17 07:20 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 07:43 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-17 12:17 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 20:18 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 08:16 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:18 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 04:47 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-17 17:26 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 19:47 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 07:25 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:45 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:26 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 22:50 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 22:51 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 04:58 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 07:43 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 12:15 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 07:13 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 20:14 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 08:01 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 05:55 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 14:09 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 19:28 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 12:12 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 02:42 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 08:53 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 05:06 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:32 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 12:20 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:22 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-16 19:36 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-16 19:35 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 09:18 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-17 06:32 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 11:55 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 12:12 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 13:43 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 20:37 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 09:07 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-17 13:30 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 20:08 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 12:04 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Nick Charles <none@none.none> - 2026-10-16 23:19 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 02:29 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-17 01:54 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 08:58 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 11:25 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "De ongekruisigde ds." <ongekruisigde-ds@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 10:59 +0000
Page 1 of 13 [1] 2 3 … 13 Next page →
| From | Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 03:26 +0000 |
| Subject | Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI |
| Message-ID | <18dee4b6cab427fa$865$2574533$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com> |
It is amazing how knowledge of basic CS is absent in most
programmers, both professional and amateur alike. While
"vibe coding" is all the rage, a silent disaster is also
creeping.
What GNU/Linux requires urgently is a Decimal Floating
Point library that implements IEEE754-2008, but mention this
to most programmers and one will receive only blank stares
and gaping mouths.
The only GNU/Linux project for IEEE754-2008 is closing
its doors:
<https://github.com/libdfp/libdfp/pull/238>
Disagree?
Compile and run the following C code (libdfp must be
installed) and check the results. It merely adds
a small increment 10 million times:
[~]# ./fp-compare 10000000
Binary Expected: 100000.000000
Binary Got: 95680.945312
Decimal Expected: 100000.000000
Decimal Got: 100000.000000
Whew! Using standard binary FP the result is in error
by TENS OF THOUSANDS!
GNU/Linux needs Decimal FP.
======================================
Begin C Code
(libdfp must be installed)
(link: https://github.com/libdfp/libdfp)
======================================
/*********************************************
gcc -std=gnu99 $CFLAGS -Wall -Wextra -I/usr/local/include/dfp -o fp-compare fp-compare.c -ldfp
./fp-compare 10000000
Compares an identical computation using both float and _Decimal32
variables.
**********************************************/
#define _GNU_SOURCE
#define __STDC_WANT_DEC_FP__
#include <fenv.h>
#include <math.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
_Decimal32 dec_meters, dec_inc, dec_iterations;
float bin_meters, bin_inc;
int i, iterations;
// set dec rounding mode to round half up
fe_dec_setround(FE_DEC_TONEARESTFROMZERO);
iterations = atoi(argv[1]);
dec_iterations = strtod32(argv[1],'\0');
dec_meters = 0.0DF;
bin_meters = 0.0;
dec_inc = 0.01DF;
bin_inc = 0.01;
for (i = 0; i < iterations; i++) {
bin_meters = bin_meters + bin_inc;
dec_meters = dec_meters + dec_inc;
}
fprintf(stdout, "Binary Expected: %f\n", bin_inc * (float)iterations);
fprintf(stdout, "Binary Got: %f\n\n", bin_meters);
fprintf(stdout, "Decimal Expected: %Hf\n", dec_inc * dec_iterations);
fprintf(stdout, "Decimal Got: %Hf\n", dec_meters);
}
================================
End C Code
================================
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 00:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <POycnb0WPpTmPEz3nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #93793 |
On 10/15/26 23:26, Leroy H wrote: > It is amazing how knowledge of basic CS is absent in most > programmers, both professional and amateur alike. While > "vibe coding" is all the rage, a silent disaster is also > creeping. 99+ percent of us got by just fine without any "computer science" crapola. CS is all math/stats. Has almost nothing to do with the real-world these days. Maybe in the 1940s ....... Might, MAYBE, produce a useful idea, every, very, once in awhile.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 04:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18dee8662e7d2082$1499$1722273$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com> |
| In reply to | #93794 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 00:00:58 -0400, c186282 wrote: > > 99+ percent of us got by just fine without > any "computer science" crapola. > > CS is all math/stats. Has almost nothing to > do with the real-world these days. > Ha, ha, ha! That's why I _love_ floating point examples. Even though FP calculations underpin absolutely EVERYTHING that occurs in modern-day computing, 99+ percent of programmers are totally ignorant of this highly important area. A technically minor, but nonetheless critical, example occurred with the Patriot missile debacle: <https://www.cs.unc.edu/~smp/COMP205/LECTURES/ERROR/lec23/node4.html> Whew! Twenty-eight soldiers died because of the incompetent programmers. But why bother? The C "double" type includes enough precision for 99+ percent of the incompetent programming workforce to easily, and ignorantly, get by. Should universities and technical colleges flunk en masse all those who cannot master FP principles? Ha, ha! Universities are now awarding degrees to those who can barely read and write and FP competency is surely very low on their list. 99+ percent of programmers are blundering idiots. But it is the 1- percent that will always make the difference.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Peyton" <peyton@solacium.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-15 21:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87ik32455m.fsf@solcaium.us> |
| In reply to | #93794 |
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes: > On 10/15/26 23:26, Leroy H wrote: >> It is amazing how knowledge of basic CS is absent in most >> programmers, both professional and amateur alike. While >> "vibe coding" is all the rage, a silent disaster is also >> creeping. > > 99+ percent of us got by just fine without > any "computer science" crapola. > > CS is all math/stats. Has almost nothing to > do with the real-world these days. Maybe in > the 1940s ....... > > Might, MAYBE, produce a useful idea, every, > very, once in awhile. > I one time worked with a colleague who did not understand why a C# binary executable was running significantly faster than a Python script. Not having basic CS fundamentals does have real implications in everyday software. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 01:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uhydnY7kc7YCK0z3nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #93798 |
On 10/16/26 00:53, Peyton wrote: > c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes: > >> On 10/15/26 23:26, Leroy H wrote: >>> It is amazing how knowledge of basic CS is absent in most >>> programmers, both professional and amateur alike. While >>> "vibe coding" is all the rage, a silent disaster is also >>> creeping. >> >> 99+ percent of us got by just fine without >> any "computer science" crapola. >> >> CS is all math/stats. Has almost nothing to >> do with the real-world these days. Maybe in >> the 1940s ....... >> >> Might, MAYBE, produce a useful idea, every, >> very, once in awhile. >> > I one time worked with a colleague who did not understand why a C# > binary executable was running significantly faster than a Python > script. Worrisome. However do note that MOST of the Python functions are writ in 'C'. > Not having basic CS fundamentals does have real implications in > everyday software. Not so much. Yer guy didn't need a CS degree - just someone to TELL him the diff between compiled and interpreted. That's all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 06:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11asf08$31lan$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93801 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 01:31:01 -0400, c186282 wrote: >> Not having basic CS fundamentals does have real implications in >> everyday software. > > Not so much. > > Yer guy didn't need a CS degree - just someone to TELL him the diff > between compiled and interpreted. That's all. Yes, that's usually what they TELL you at some point during your freshman year :-) They TELL you a bunch of other stuff that is required to function professionally. I don't understand the rabid anti-intellectualism that's going around here. Sure, you don't need a mechanical engineering degree to drive your car around (duh!), but if you were working in the field it would generally help, and I am very, very happy that my car was designed by people with an actual degree. Of course, most people working as "programmers" are the equivalent of a car mechanic or skilled labourer in plant, and don't need the full degree. In Italy or Germany we have such things, vocational schools etc where you learn how to cobble together some Perl and be happy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 04:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <YIucnXCZp-pVf0z3nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #93803 |
On 10/16/26 02:08, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 01:31:01 -0400, c186282 wrote: > > >>> Not having basic CS fundamentals does have real implications in >>> everyday software. >> >> Not so much. >> >> Yer guy didn't need a CS degree - just someone to TELL him the diff >> between compiled and interpreted. That's all. > > Yes, that's usually what they TELL you at some point during your freshman > year :-) > > They TELL you a bunch of other stuff that is required to function > professionally. > > I don't understand the rabid anti-intellectualism that's going around > here. I do. The "intellectualism" is a kind of Cloud-9 thing all in all. As said, it had SOME uses in the 40s and 50s ... but beyond then it, and real-world programming, DIVERGED rather sharply. Frankly 99.9% of us just don't NEED the "theory" shit ... we just get ON with it. > Sure, you don't need a mechanical engineering degree to drive your car > around (duh!), but if you were working in the field it would generally > help, and I am very, very happy that my car was designed by people with an > actual degree. > > Of course, most people working as "programmers" are the equivalent of a > car mechanic or skilled labourer in plant, and don't need the full degree. > > In Italy or Germany we have such things, vocational schools etc where you > learn how to cobble together some Perl and be happy. OK, cobble-together some Perl or 'C' or Python or whatever, make it WORK, GET it to work quickly. More than Good Enough. The bosses pay for PRODUCT in the least TIME. That's the real world. That is NOT going to change. Note "AI" can deliver largely-finished product REALLY FAST these days. I've done some experiments the past few days. Got a b-tree mini database in FORTRAN just for the asking. Wow ! Practical, you'd just have to add a few tweaks. BIG time-saver. How long before AI doesn't NEED us to put in the tweaks ? ONE year ? TWO years ??? How long before we don't even KNOW how/what it's thinking ? Three years ? Sooner ? I warned about this big paradigm shift a few years ago. Most everyone pooped on it. Now ....... Three to five years, all of the Linux kernel and more will be all AI generated. You WON'T be able to follow it, the code will be too obscure, not meant for humans. The BSDs may hang on a BIT longer. BTW, I despise PERL. 'C', Pascal or Python is what I like. Keep trying to find a Modula-3 compiler that'll work right in Linux without a zillion little adjustments ...... CHAT might have found me what I want, stay tuned. M2 was pretty good, but M3 had a number of good fixes/extensions - then got eclipsed by all the 'new and better' langs. DO love the Dr. Wurth way of thinking ..... 'art' ........
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 08:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11asofd$31lan$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93814 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 04:39:25 -0400, c186282 wrote: > As said, it had SOME uses in the 40s and 50s ... but beyond then it, > and real-world programming, DIVERGED rather sharply. Yes, because "programming" is a menial activity, akin to changing tyres on a car but somewhat less entertaining. Not a scientific endeavour. On the other hand, good luck if you plan to "just get ON" with designing AWS, ChatGPT, a Tesla, IntelliJ or just a plain old compiler without having skimmed some recent papers from the fields of (respectively) AI, ML, distributed computing, compilers, static analysis. Of course, the Transformer paper from 2017 is "just stats" and most static analysis is "just logic"... just like all chemistry is physics and all physics is math, and [left as exercise] :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 08:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11asomn$31lan$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93814 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 04:39:25 -0400, c186282 wrote: > How long before AI doesn't NEED us to put in the tweaks ? ONE year ? > TWO years ??? > > How long before we don't even KNOW how/what it's thinking ? Three > years ? Sooner ? You do realize that this, if true (probably not, because of economics), would essentially mean that "the CS guys" have automated your job... ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 05:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <m-SdndprWbdXcEz3nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #93818 |
On 10/16/26 04:53, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 04:39:25 -0400, c186282 wrote: > > >> How long before AI doesn't NEED us to put in the tweaks ? ONE year ? >> TWO years ??? >> >> How long before we don't even KNOW how/what it's thinking ? Three >> years ? Sooner ? > > You do realize that this, if true (probably not, because of economics), > would essentially mean that "the CS guys" have automated your job... ;-) I think the job HAS pretty much been 'automated'. Give it a year or two to be complete. And it wasn't the 'CS guys' but a whole different kind of techs/minds. "AI" is a whole different branch of 'computing'. Note the "AI" guys will themselves be obsoleted within five years - the AIs can now teach/improve their own systems. We have created SOME kind of unconventional lifeform here. And LLMs aren't even the BEST for doing so. Wait for the next-gen neural network hardware to become prolific .....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 09:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11asqpt$31lan$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93827 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 05:26:41 -0400, c186282 wrote: > And it wasn't the 'CS guys' but a whole different kind of > techs/minds. "AI" is a whole different branch of 'computing'. Last time I checked, it's a subfield of "computer science" with a long and illustrious history. At least, the relevant science _is_ published in computer science venues, including the Google Transformer paper that started it all...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 09:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11asqud$31lan$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93829 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 09:29:33 -0000 (UTC), Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: > At least, the relevant science _is_ published in computer science > venues, > including the Google Transformer paper that started it all... Correction: "the paper that started the current AI spring", of course :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 19:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <njfbgsFit4rU22@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #93831 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 09:31:57 -0000 (UTC), Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 09:29:33 -0000 (UTC), Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: > > >> At least, the relevant science _is_ published in computer science >> venues, >> including the Google Transformer paper that started it all... > > Correction: "the paper that started the current AI spring", of course > :-) Thank you for clarifying. Arguably the Perceptron started it all after McCulloch and Pitts paper. That was several AI winters ago. Like in 'Game of Thrones' I think winter is coming again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 19:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <11aucoq$3o8ih$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93911 |
rbowman wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS (fixed):
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 09:31:57 -0000 (UTC), Tapiro Ubriaco wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 09:29:33 -0000 (UTC), Tapiro Ubriaco wrote:
>>
>>
>>> At least, the relevant science _is_ published in computer science
>>> venues,
>>> including the Google Transformer paper that started it all...
>>
>> Correction: "the paper that started the current AI spring", of course
>> :-)
>
> Thank you for clarifying. Arguably the Perceptron started it all after
> McCulloch and Pitts paper. That was several AI winters ago. Like in 'Game
> of Thrones' I think winter is coming again.
This book is worthy reading:
<https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/195888801-why-machines-learn>
--
Bucy's Law:
Nothing is ever accomplished by a reasonable man.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 09:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11asrm2$31lan$11@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93827 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 05:26:41 -0400, c186282 wrote: > Note the "AI" guys will themselves be obsoleted within five years - > the AIs can now teach/improve their own systems. We have created SOME > kind of unconventional lifeform here. I'm just saying... the main reason to learn the science is _not_ to build things, but to know what's possible and what's not [economically, realistically] possible :-) Anyway... how much OpenAI stock do you own? If none, what are you waiting for? :o)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 09:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11asopt$33n8m$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93803 |
On 16/10/2026 07:08, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: > I don't understand the rabid anti-intellectualism that's going around > here. > I am a fully qualified degree possessing engineer, in both general and electrical engineering. And in this case I fully concur with c186272 There is a place for theory, but its a very much smaller place than most third rate intellectuals would have you believe, and reliance on theory rather than practice and common sense is the reason why the Left makes such a fuckup of things. > Sure, you don't need a mechanical engineering degree to drive your car > around (duh!), but if you were working in the field it would generally > help, and I am very, very happy that my car was designed by people with an > actual degree. Such faith. It almost certainly was not. In fact almost all design is done by draughtsmen Or technicians. I learnt this at my first company - a military and aerospace company. Boffins were very thin on the ground. What there were, were enormous quantities of low paid technicians, who understood enough to take something someone else had designed, often from another project, and fiddle with it till it met the spec. There is an instructive video somewhere on the development of the Cosworth racing engine. Most of it is 'subtract metal, till it breaks, and then put it back again' The point being that that was quicker than the sort of complex stress analysis calculations that you can now do with a computer. Not a degree engineer, A computer And that was how aircraft used to be designed too. serried ranks of chaps with slide rules doing calculations, and then the thing still didn't fly right and had to be modified. In general as a practising engineer, you don't do calculations. Either you look the answer up in a book of tables, or you take someone else's actual test results. Or use a computer these days Rather than being able to answer the question from first principles, which is what degree level engineering is, it is so much more important to be able to ask the right question...Like what will happen to my suspension bridge under the aerodynamic load of a 90mph gale...or my skyscraper if someone flies an airliner into it...Bin Laden was (according to one source) a civil engineering graduate. He probably DID calculate it. People love to think - and te marketing bullcrap from car makers ram it down their throats - that a car is some kind of miracle designed by bespectacled geniuses from to technical universities in white coats in spotless laboratories. The reality is always different. Frank Whittle designed and patented the jet engine as an engineer in around 1925, That, in a sense, was the easy part. Leaving aside the political and financial issues, the reason it didn't fly until 1941 was the practical difficulty of building it, It ran too hot for most materials, It spun too fast for most lubrications systems and balancing it was not trivial either. So one painstaking test after another, until something that could last for maybe 100 hours and not fail under combat conditions was arrived at. Then it went into a test airframe. 16 years of work. It flew. A colleague said "Frank, it flies!" His weary retort is alleged to have been "Well that's what it's fucking well supposed to do, isn't it?" That is REAL engineering. Not 'Vorsprung durch technik" -- Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 09:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11asq8f$31lan$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93819 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 09:55:25 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 16/10/2026 07:08, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: >> I don't understand the rabid anti-intellectualism that's going around >> here. >> > I am a fully qualified degree possessing engineer, in both general and > electrical engineering. Which makes you a different beast than a _scientist_, surely :-) > There is a place for theory, but its a very much smaller place than most > third rate intellectuals would have you believe Where are these third rate intellectuals? > and reliance on theory > rather than practice and common sense is the reason why the Left makes > such a fuckup of things. I thought we were talking about the relationship between science and engineering, not socialism, but eh. >> Sure, you don't need a mechanical engineering degree to drive your car >> around (duh!), but if you were working in the field it would generally >> help, and I am very, very happy that my car was designed by people with >> an actual degree. > > Such faith. It almost certainly was not. > > In fact almost all design is done by draughtsmen > > Or technicians. I wonder what my friends with degrees in "automotive engineering" at Stellantis are actually doing, then... > The point being that that was quicker than the sort of complex stress > analysis calculations that you can now do with a computer. Not a degree > engineer, A computer Gee, I wonder who wrote the software for that computer! And, in fact, who designed the computer. > Rather than being able to answer the question from first principles, > which is what degree level engineering is, it is so much more important > to be able to ask the right question...Like what will happen to my > suspension bridge under the aerodynamic load of a 90mph gale...or my > skyscraper if someone flies an airliner into it...Bin Laden was > (according to one source) a civil engineering graduate. He probably DID > calculate it. Important for... which profession, exactly? If it's the profession of cobbling together bits, sure. If it's the profession of publishing papers, maybe less so. If it's the profession of being principal architect at a Tier 1 company... well, maybe you spend your days with PowerPoint, but your underlings ought to know a thing or two about the chosen field (e.g. distributed computing for cloud companies). If you have an arbitrary definition of "important", you can reach arbitrary conclusions. > That is REAL engineering. Not 'Vorsprung durch technik" Yes, don't mean to be a snob, but that is my understanding of "engineering" too :-P
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 11:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11astpf$33n8m$23@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93825 |
On 16/10/2026 10:20, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 09:55:25 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> On 16/10/2026 07:08, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: >>> I don't understand the rabid anti-intellectualism that's going around >>> here. >>> >> I am a fully qualified degree possessing engineer, in both general and >> electrical engineering. > > Which makes you a different beast than a _scientist_, surely :-) > >> There is a place for theory, but its a very much smaller place than most >> third rate intellectuals would have you believe > > Where are these third rate intellectuals? > All over this NG and every other place where people like to pontificate but not practice. Armchair experts. >> and reliance on theory >> rather than practice and common sense is the reason why the Left makes >> such a fuckup of things. > > I thought we were talking about the relationship between science and > engineering, not socialism, but eh. The general case is theory - especially 'academic' theory - versus the practice > >>> Sure, you don't need a mechanical engineering degree to drive your car >>> around (duh!), but if you were working in the field it would generally >>> help, and I am very, very happy that my car was designed by people with >>> an actual degree. >> >> Such faith. It almost certainly was not. >> >> In fact almost all design is done by draughtsmen >> >> Or technicians. > > I wonder what my friends with degrees in "automotive engineering" at > Stellantis are actually doing, then... > Probably working on some absolutely obscure new feature that will take a team of 100 technicians and 5 years of production engineering to actually make work, before the company decides it's not worth having >> The point being that that was quicker than the sort of complex stress >> analysis calculations that you can now do with a computer. Not a degree >> engineer, A computer > > Gee, I wonder who wrote the software for that computer! > And, in fact, who designed the computer. > Not computer scientists for sure. Look, you are deliberately missing te point, which is that for the vast majority of technical development not only is the graduate [CS] not required, it is positively counter productive, since you need a completely different way of thinking to solve practical problems. That was the hard lesson I learnt as just such a graduate engineer. Theory is a small and sometimes barely necessary part of the process of design. >> Rather than being able to answer the question from first principles, >> which is what degree level engineering is, it is so much more important >> to be able to ask the right question...Like what will happen to my >> suspension bridge under the aerodynamic load of a 90mph gale...or my >> skyscraper if someone flies an airliner into it...Bin Laden was >> (according to one source) a civil engineering graduate. He probably DID >> calculate it. > > Important for... which profession, exactly? Building StuffThatWorks™. From a computer, to a school curriculum. Theory is extremely dangerous in the hands of those who understand it the least. > > If it's the profession of cobbling together bits, sure. > > If it's the profession of publishing papers, maybe less so. > > If it's the profession of being principal architect at a Tier 1 company... > well, maybe you spend your days with PowerPoint, but your underlings ought > to know a thing or two about the chosen field (e.g. distributed computing > for cloud companies). > Thats engineering, not CS And that is te point CS peole are so precious they refuse to learn engineering discipline, but engineers regard CS as just another tool in the tool box. Ocassionally useful but rarely so. > If you have an arbitrary definition of "important", you can reach > arbitrary conclusions. > Well if wring random pares on arbitrary and obscure subjects is 'important to you, jah, well, no fine... ...I have a frined who now retired from writing compilers and large sofware projects is doing just that . Constructing enormously CPU and GPU gobbling code to explore obscure varieties of mathematical matrices. It is ground breaking mathematical research, But it doesnt help me get the grass cut though I am using 'important' in the way that CS advocates are using it. To write better code. It doesn't do that. Software engineering dies that. CS does something else. Important om a niche way, but not the way its advocates think it is >> That is REAL engineering. Not 'Vorsprung durch technik" > > Yes, don't mean to be a snob, but that is my understanding of > "engineering" too :-P -- "A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight and understanding". Marshall McLuhan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 11:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11at0ld$31lan$13@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93842 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 11:20:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> I wonder what my friends with degrees in "automotive engineering" at >> Stellantis are actually doing, then... >> > Probably working on some absolutely obscure new feature that will take a > team of 100 technicians and 5 years of production engineering to > actually make work, before the company decides it's not worth having You don't have to _sell_ me on the relative uselessness of present-day automotive trends. I ride an air-cooled bike which only has an electric starter as a concession to modernity. Still, the latest gizmos _are_ something they pour money on. ABS (soon: inertial ABS and other ADAS) is mandatory in pretty much all first world countries, and I'm sure there was a few PhDs attached to the project at Bosch, from R&D to market. > Not computer scientists for sure. > Look, you are deliberately missing te point, which is that for the vast > majority of technical development not only is the graduate [CS] not > required, it is positively counter productive, since you need a > completely different way of thinking to solve practical problems. But I absolutely agree on that, in general. One is SCIENCE, i.e. is concerned with producing papers and theory FOR ITS OWN SAKE, the other is at the other extreme end of the spectrum, i.e. BUILDING THINGS. Halfway in between you got engineering, i.e. applied science. But if, and I say if, you try to build a compiler, you'll appreciate having read the dragon book. And if you buy one from Borland or Microsoft, the basic science is still tricking down to you... >> Important for... which profession, exactly? > > Building StuffThatWorks™. See above. > And that is te point CS peole are so precious they refuse to learn > engineering discipline, but engineers regard CS as just another tool in > the tool box. Ocassionally useful but rarely so. That describes me to a T, funnily. I passionately hate building things in practice and I only do it because they pay me to. I would be pursuing a PhD in philosophy or in music, if I didn't have to pay rent. Were I born posh, I would have made a fine candidate for philosophy at Oxbridge -- hell, Christ, I would have made a magnificient Pope! > I am using 'important' in the way that CS advocates are using it. To > write better code. Where are these "CS advocates"? Do biologist think that the point of their field is to have better sex?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 12:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11at39s$33n8m$36@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93847 |
On 16/10/2026 12:09, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 11:20:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > > >>> I wonder what my friends with degrees in "automotive engineering" at >>> Stellantis are actually doing, then... >>> >> Probably working on some absolutely obscure new feature that will take a >> team of 100 technicians and 5 years of production engineering to >> actually make work, before the company decides it's not worth having > > You don't have to _sell_ me on the relative uselessness of present-day > automotive trends. > > I ride an air-cooled bike which only has an electric starter as a > concession to modernity. > > Still, the latest gizmos _are_ something they pour money on. > > ABS (soon: inertial ABS and other ADAS) is mandatory in pretty much all > first world countries, and I'm sure there was a few PhDs attached to the > project at Bosch, from R&D to market. > WERE a few phDs. But of course there weren't, You don't normally do a PhD unless you want to become an academic. Or impress people with how clever you are. >> Not computer scientists for sure. >> Look, you are deliberately missing te point, which is that for the vast >> majority of technical development not only is the graduate [CS] not >> required, it is positively counter productive, since you need a >> completely different way of thinking to solve practical problems. > > But I absolutely agree on that, in general. > > One is SCIENCE, i.e. is concerned with producing papers and theory FOR ITS > OWN SAKE, the other is at the other extreme end of the spectrum, i.e. > BUILDING THINGS. > Eaxcly, And building things is what we are concerned with here. Code that works. Code that doesn't crash aeroplanes. Banking software that doesnt loss the odd million here and there. > Halfway in between you got engineering, i.e. applied science. > Engineering is not applied science. Only a CS would think it was There is very little science in engineering. You dont need a [CS ] degree or PHD to make a cart wheel, Or a flint knife, or a bow and arrow Engineering has been going on thousands of years before either science, or a degree > But if, and I say if, you try to build a compiler, you'll appreciate > having read the dragon book. > I never did. My compiler worked OK. It was very basic. There isn't much to a compiler at the basic level, and the sort of optimisations at the advanced level wont be in any CS course. My maths degree man wrote compilers once > And if you buy one from Borland or Microsoft, the basic science is still > tricking down to you... > Basic engineering you mean >>> Important for... which profession, exactly? >> >> Building StuffThatWorks™. > > See above. > >> And that is te point CS peole are so precious they refuse to learn >> engineering discipline, but engineers regard CS as just another tool in >> the tool box. Ocassionally useful but rarely so. > > That describes me to a T, funnily. > Occasionally useful? Yes. > I passionately hate building things in practice and I only do it because > they pay me to. > > I would be pursuing a PhD in philosophy or in music, if I didn't have to > pay rent. > I do study sophistry since engineering made me enough money I don't have to pay rent > Were I born posh, I would have made a fine candidate for philosophy at > Oxbridge -- hell, Christ, I would have made a magnificient Pope! > I was born poor and went to Cambridge >> I am using 'important' in the way that CS advocates are using it. To >> write better code. > > Where are these "CS advocates"? > Do biologist think that the point of their field is to have better sex? You had better ask them. I never found it helped much in that field. I did read one book on the subject my sister had, all about 'how to make marriage work' It was very instructive. But as with all engineering, you just keep trying till it works, and the ladies come back for more. That's as near as you will ever get ... -- The difference bweteen a psychopath and a saint is that the psychpoath takes what he can and gives only what he must, but the saint gives everything he can and takes only what he needs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 13 [1] 2 3 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web