This is why, as a software developer, I’m against designing any system that assumes what the user wants and tries to do it for them automatically. On the occasions where the assumption is right, it’s a mild convenience at best. When it’s wrong, it is always infuriating if not dangerous.
Yeah, I’m an embedded software developer myself and yeah, when we architect our code we have safety critical sections identified with software safety reviews and we always go with the assumption that we’re going to run into that one guy who’s the living embodiment of Murphy’s law and go from there with that design to minimize the potential for injury and death.
Can’t imagine who the hell is in charge of the software safety reviews there that let that pass.
Same in the medical devices industry. We have whole teams of non-developers whose job is to find out when and why a surgeon can be a moron. The code is more difficult to write, but it’s way better and more robust.
“Smart” may as well be synonymous with “unpredictable”. I don’t need my computer to be smart. I need it to be predictable, consistent, and undemanding.
And also every additional kind of complexity (which stacks BTW) makes you more dependent on the vendor (good for them, bad for you) and on doing things exactly as their imagined user (because it’s disproportionately your problem as laws don’t seem to work in making it theirs).
Distributism is actually a very good political ideology. Sad it’s associated with Catholic religion, because it correctly generalized the principles making democracies and markets and cultures work.
This is why, as a software developer, I’m against designing any system that assumes what the user wants and tries to do it for them automatically. On the occasions where the assumption is right, it’s a mild convenience at best. When it’s wrong, it is always infuriating if not dangerous.
Yeah, I’m an embedded software developer myself and yeah, when we architect our code we have safety critical sections identified with software safety reviews and we always go with the assumption that we’re going to run into that one guy who’s the living embodiment of Murphy’s law and go from there with that design to minimize the potential for injury and death.
Can’t imagine who the hell is in charge of the software safety reviews there that let that pass.
You think a company run by Elon has an extensive software safety review system?
They did, but Elon asked one of them for a latte and they brought him one with 2% instead of oatmilk so he gutted the whole department.
/s, because it might be to be specified.
Are you certain you’re wrong, though?
Not anymore they were all fired.
Whose company that sends a poop emoji as a response when the PR department is emailed? Hmm, this us a tough question. . .
Same in the medical devices industry. We have whole teams of non-developers whose job is to find out when and why a surgeon can be a moron. The code is more difficult to write, but it’s way better and more robust.
“Smart” may as well be synonymous with “unpredictable”. I don’t need my computer to be smart. I need it to be predictable, consistent, and undemanding.
“Oh my, the cake box/finger/dog was in the way, but thanks for automation, the door didn’t close!”
And also every additional kind of complexity (which stacks BTW) makes you more dependent on the vendor (good for them, bad for you) and on doing things exactly as their imagined user (because it’s disproportionately your problem as laws don’t seem to work in making it theirs).
Distributism is actually a very good political ideology. Sad it’s associated with Catholic religion, because it correctly generalized the principles making democracies and markets and cultures work.