I was curious about this from another video in relation to this case. I have no legal training, but I think there's no reason the witness would refuse to answer when counsel objects. There's no judge in the room as far as I know. The court handles the objections after the fact, I think, which could potentially have implications on how the trial proceeds.
Again, I have never practiced law, so I may be entirely incorrect. Also, I am not defending the witness or their actions.
I wrote a fix for node that got upstreamed a few years ago on a Lenovo Thinkpad 3 Chromebook. I'm actually commenting from it now. It's not a workhorse by any means, but for $99, it's not bad. A 1.1GHz Celeron processor with 4GB of memory is able to compile projects like node, python, Erlang, etc. without much hassle. It just takes a lunch break :)
Any modern Mac is more than capable. I had the baseline M1 Macbook Air that I did work on as well, just to see how that fared. Much better than this machine - 10x the price, but more than 10x the performance. This one is great as a "I don't mind if I break it or lose it" device.
The aspect of "potentially secure/stable code" is very interesting to me. There's an enormous amount of code that aren't secure or stable already (I'd argue virtually all of the code in existence).
This has already been a problem. There's no real ramifications for it. Even for something like Cloudflare stopping a significant amount of Internet traffic for any amount of time is not (as far as I know) investigated in an independent way. There's nobody that is potentially facing charges. However, with other civil engineering endeavors, there absolutely is. Regular checks, government agencies to audit systems, penalties for causing harm, etc. are expected in those areas.
LLM-generated code is the continuation of the bastardization of software "engineering." Now the situation is not only that nobody is accountable, but a black box cluster of computers is not even reasonably accountable. If someone makes a tragic mistake today, it can be understood who caused it. If "Cloudflare2" comes about which is all (or significantly) generated, whoever is in charge can just throw their hands up and say "hey, I don't know why it did this, and the people that made the system that made this mistake don't know why it did this." It has been and will continue to be very concerning.
Testing is not a proof a software system is correct. Also, if tests are generated as well, there's no trust in how anything works or if the tests are covering important aspects.
I genuinely don't know how any of these companies can make extreme profit for this reason. If a company makes a significantly better model, shouldn't it be able to explain how it's better to any competitor?
Google succeeded because it understood the web better than its competitors. I don't see how any of the players in this space could be so much better that they could take over the market. It seems like these companies will create commodities, which can be profitable, but also incredibly risky for early investors and don't make the profits that would be necessary to justify the evaluations of today.
That's my point. Anything that could exist that's significantly "better" would be able to share more about its creation. And anything that could be significantly better would have to be capable of "understanding" things it wasn't trained on.
That's not true. There are a million ways to be "significantly better" that don't involve knowledge about the model's creation. It can be 10x or 100x or 1000x more accurate at coding, for example, without knowing a single thing more about its own internal training methodology.
Could you share anything about your creation, without having been to school where we taught you what the answers were? Can you deduce the existence of your hippocampus just by thinking really hard?
Should flour, yeast, water, and ovens be banned, and only commercial bakeries be allowed to make bread?
I know guns are different. There are also an enormous amount of ways to cause harm. I personally think that, ideally, nobody should have guns. That's not the world we live in, though. A political government body should not infringe on privacy of individuals because some small percentage may cause harm.
I can make a sword, grow poisonous plants, isolate toxins, or stab someone with a pencil. I do not. I shouldn't be punished for the idea that other people may.
You can buy a thing for your fingernails, a thing for your hair, and a thing for your drains, and put them together to hurt a lot of people (though likely and ideally only yourself), but those things are not banned.
For what it's worth, the ICE agent who shot Good, Jonathan Ross, worked for US Border Patrol for eight years and has been working for ICE for a decade. Further, "Ross testified in December that he was 'a firearms instructor, an active shooter instructor ... a field intelligence officer, and ... a member of the SWAT team, the St. Paul Special Response Team'."[0]
And yet he put himself in front of a vehicle that had a driver and a running engine, and partnered up with other agents who acted as a group with zero cohesion, issuing conflicting instructions, escalating the tension of a traffic infringement they had no actual legal authority to engage with.
Every trained professional I've communicated with in regard to this incident has effectively shaken their head and referred to it as a clown show of epic proportions, a textbook example of how not to engage with the public, an example of how authoritarian states deal with people they have no regard for.
Let's be honest, a great many US enforcement types come to firearms use with an any excuse approach coupled with an absence of ability to de-escalate situations. They act like walking cans of petrol looking for a tinder to throw themselves on.
Just to be clear, I think the situation is disgusting, entirely unprofessional, and intentionally violent. Maybe the shooter didn't make those mistakes to have a reason for murder, but the idea that someone of his experience would make such a completely foolish mistake is absurd.
Nobody, as far as I know, has any intention of hitting me with their car. Yet, for about a dozen simple reasons, if I'm crossing a walkway, driveway, or whatever with a car also trying to enter the road by driving through the area I'm walking, I often will walk behind the vehicle. People make mistakes. There are blind spots. Maybe they're having an emergency. Maybe they're intoxicated. Or maybe they do want to hit someone with their car.
It's just absurd to think this was appropriate behavior by a seasoned professional. It's not even the appropriate behavior for a reasonably developed child.
But if you compare google trends you will find that the crossover point of react vs jQuery was somewhere around 2018.
In other terms, jQuery usage was much more widespread but it is not used for new projects anymore.
The trends of Google search doesn't imply anything by itself, just that less people search Google for jQuery than React. Which isn't entirely surprising in my view - people use search engines to learn about something they're unfamiliar with. That doesn't necessarily correlate with increased usage. I've searched for React (although not on Google) but never used it.
It wouldn't be too much work to understand a bit more about the comparative usage. Looking at recent commits of projects on GitHub would be a good start, but also skewed towards open source projects which doesn't represent all actual usage of course.
Another way would be to look through historic changes to websites to see if there's any changes to the source. It'd be a bit complicated because content changes don't necessarily mean anyone is touching jQuery or React pieces.
This also ignores any sort of private usage, which you won't get any reliable data on, and may represent a significant amount of actual usage.
At the end of the day, there's only so much accurate data available to make accurate conclusions about usage of software libraries that don't phone home. The best data available, as far as I'm concerned, is what I posted earlier - and it's still not perfect and doesn't support any claims other than what the data shows.
As a side note, I don't have any dog in this race. I do think it's interesting to get a better understanding of what pieces of software are being used, by whom, in what amount, etc. but it's difficult.
No, you see the trends. You see that people have been looking less and less for jQuery and more and more for React.
But React hasn't reached the height of jQuery at its peak.
I would not be surprised if you're right in your assertion of what's used more for new projects. I still don't think the evidence you provided is enough to be so certain.
If I want to look up documentation for jQuery, I don't google the term "jquery" to find their docs. I just go straight to the docs directly. For a lot of situations, people's IDEs do enough work to not google something.
But that wouldn't still explain why searches for the term has decreased.
Besides, people in general do look up to the online documentation or links to the documentation from stack overflow.
Again, I have never practiced law, so I may be entirely incorrect. Also, I am not defending the witness or their actions.