Calm down Satan.

Random alphanumeric.

Should have tested for #^%_@()

What a great point to make about language in situations that are not technical! Like how theory is used differently outside of scientific contexts, which is language naturally evolving.

But this is like someone trying to use the lay definition of theory, which is the equivalent of a hypothesis in acience, in a scientific context. A scientist saying “that is just a theory” to dismiss the theory of relativity in a scientific context would be rightfully corrected by their peers.

Using legacy software wrong is like using API to describe something other than an API.

Techical terms with specific meanings don’t vary significantly based on context, because consistency is important in technical usage.

The author is complaining about how guthub is being poorly modernized, which is the opposite of legacy software. If she means ‘something we choose use out of tradition’ that isn’t what legacy software means.

That isn’t what legacy means.

Drainstorming!

I used to google onions, because it was the style at the time

It explains what it does, it does not confirm that it is what was intended.

The user is always right about what they are willing to spend money on. That doesn’t mean they know what they want, although a lot of people don’t want to change.

That doesn’t mean all change is good, and it isn’t like any UI will ever meet everyone’s preferences. For example, I hate adaptive design interfaces that are significantly different in confusing ways on different resolutions. Like I understand switching a static menu to an expandable menu, but not moving the relative location of certain buttons from the bottom of the screen to the top or vise versa. But that might make sense for some use case that isn’t how I interact with it.

Pretty busy at the moment, I’ll get back to this later when I have sone free time.

Huh, my first thought was that they went to the farm upstate where everyone’s pets end up.

Same setup and no issues.

Note they left the “…and improved” off the (New) title.

Like the startups that ‘disrupt’ the established system by ignoring laws and breaking the parts that worked and selling it like an improvement.

‘Ride sharing’ (unregulated cabs) was only cheaper because of investor funding allowing them to undercut on pricing, abusing the concept of contract workers, and the companies ignoring laws. That isn’t ‘disruptive’ by being innovative, that is cheating the system.

Like all sayings, there is context for moving fast and breaking things.

The saying means that when creating something new for profit, don’t worry too much about trying to figure out all the details beforehand and figure it out as you go. This will inevitably cause things to break, but being able to quickly fix that when it happens is the same skills needed to create new features as you go.

The saying does not work with large and complex established systems where breaking things wreak havoc.

I think the biggest problem is that ai for now is not an exact tool that gets everything right.

The biggest problem is that it isn’t an exact tool, but is being presented as if it was and implemented as a replacement for people instead of a tool they can use to make themselves more efficient.

Whereas the “real” hover board that exists has wheels.

Hovercraft have existed for decades and actually hover which makes everyone just accepting Hoverboards as wheeled infuriating.

Then some hackers get in and reprogram the AI CEOs to value long term profit and employee training and productivity. The company grows and is massively profitable until some venture capitalists swoop in and kill the company to feed from the carcass.

Tech CEOs or AI?

Just kidding, I know it is both.