True realism is often interesting though, which provides more long term engagement than fleeting shallow fun. Look at some of the hard core 3rd party addons for flight sims, for instance, which are so realistic they actually ship licensed versions of the real aircraft training manuals and checklists - because every switch and procedure works.
Fly out of SeaTac or Chicago O'Hare in most flight sims at sunrise, and you'll get a richly detailed airport, realistic traffic, realistic surrounding terrain, etc. with hopefully jaw-dropping views.
Pick a random airport at a random time with an obscure name or location in the US Midwest, and they all start to look the same (even with detailed, realistic geography): a mostly flat expanse with some hills, and either just the local city lights (if that) or a dull mid-day sun.
To be fair, those checklists are also largely there for so many pilots and those in training whom want to get the experience.
You haven’t seen either of the last two MSFS releases have you? They’re using high res satellite imagery of the entire globe. Even small towns are shockingly detailed.
I have had a daisy wheel printer project on the back burner for a while. They where never sold much where I live or are just very difficult to come by in usable condition. Figured it would be doable to create with a 3d printer and some simple electronics.
Inkjet is quite difficult but dot matrix printers are easier to find DIY projects of.
I used to print a lot of code from Geany, that has some nice support for printing line numbers and code highlights that I have a hard time replicating in other tools.
There is a reason why Snowden cuts the internal microphones and cameras out of his mobile phones. I suppose you can permanently turn off the TV's microphone(or microphones) in the same fashion.
Actually LG is not just a large corporation or even a oligarch, it is one of the major south korean chaebol groups and therefore has way more power in the legal and political space.
The problem is the ToS can be overruled by the law. But you can still put wild stuff in there without consequence, it just won't hold up in court of course. However this makes it so that companies use the ToS as a scare tactic to deter people going to court in the first place, "look you agreed to us being able to do something illegal, you will lose court against our expensive lawyers".
ToS from a lot of tech companies say the wildest shit that doesn't hold up in court and they should get a penalty for putting that into these documents, as it is misleading and misrepresenting the agreement that the customer has with them.
Until some responsibility for illegal statements in the ToS happens I will read most comments from a ToS with a grain of salt and a lot of skepticism.
What's even crazier is that companies doing this have a full team of lawyers, they know it won't hold up in court, but they also know there are no consequences for deliberately put things there that won't hold up in court.
A bit more crazy that they are gambling on the likelihood of winning in case they are actually challenged, cementing a twisted precedent just to keep the next quarter on trend.
Losing in court also represents such a ridiculously small portion of the profits they amassed because of such practices that it's actually illogical not to break the law.
I am (still) not a proponent for AI, however I hope AI might do to programming what the camera did to painting, and I hope that will be a good thing.
What we understand as painting today is very different then what painting meant pre-camera. Now it is mostly a leisure activity and creative outlet. Where back in the day it was a serious occupation for capturing reality, and therefore creativity was taking second stage.
I hope that coding will go that way and even though I might lose my current occupation. I feel like that might be what is needed to get out of the stagnation of current day software development (compared to early computer history). Take the money out of coding, bring the creativity in, take out the investors and keep the enthusiasts. I think that might be good for the activity that we call programming.
Also "software engineering" involves vastly more then programming or coding, so I doubt software engineering will disappear.
Half assed fun fact: there was this painter I can't recall his name, the one that painted that girl with the head scurf. He might have used camera obscura and traced the picture. To me it feels like our times. There's a new tool that can be used along with the tools we have been using for decades to create something magical.
Indeed that is one theory. He was also a master at his craft so this is exactly the transition period where the master of the old method is able to adapt a technology in a way later pupils likely can not, due to the experience without the tool at hand.
Sounds a lot like the AI transition we are making now.
There are certainly pieces of code that should be put on display, for example productions from the demoscene[1] and competitions like the underhanded C contest [2].
The code in these cases is usually wizardry understood by a select few, but the stories, optimizations, trickery and even formatting can be told to anyone who loves design.
Maybe not, but the process of creation and the final result will be of interest to other creators. Like any hobby it might seem strange to outsiders but it will be fascinating to those who are part of the scene.
one doesn't go to a gallery to watch the painting get made. Creative coding can still be enjoyed by appreciating the output.
The immediate rebuttal to that might be that "AI could just do it" but that's not entirely true - the sort of art that you (typically) see in a gallery isn't "an accurate representation of the world as viewed" just as a lot of "code as art" isn't "a problem solved with code". The camera captures (mostly accurate) images, and AI is usually writing "code that does a thing".
The expressiveness (can) come from a place that's deeply human, and can yield a product that is tangibly diifferent from what an efficient coding process would normally produce.
A few of us played a game when I was in batch at the Recurse Center - we called it Monstrosity. The game was to build a string in the absolutely least efficient way possible - using the largest stack, the most network hops, the most obfuscatory and difficult methods to create a character (bit-shifting algorithms to make ASCII, anyone?). It was beautiful, and it was the kind of thing that AI would never think to do (at least, not without significant cajoling and even then you'd be missing the point).
I think that is quite likely but it is going to be a painful transition. Especially for the people who were only attracted to the profession for the money.
Sure but I assume they can find money in other things also and will probably be attracted to that just as much. For example prompt crafting may be their new home.
The invention of photography had a major impact on painting. In the decades
after the first photograph was produced in 1829, photographic processes improved
and became more widely practiced, depriving painting of much of its historic
purpose to provide an accurate record of the observable world.
Additionally there is a huge historical precedence for capturing images, basically for money either through being a painter in someone's service, patronage or working for commission. These painters would work and follow the directions of the commissioner, even though they may not have agreed with it. This is one of the reasons for the English "rectangular livestock" paintings.
In dutch there is a word "broodschilder" (literally bread painter) witch means painter who paints for a living (commercial) / hack painter. In history these painters often where seen as doing a craft in the same way a carpenter works with requirements and requests for the picture, make it happen. Often the painters where not even not able to sign their work (for example religious commission).
Since always, it is often just not recognized. Perhaps the same way how a newspaper article has soul and a fingerprint of the author, though you may not recognize it while reading.
> problem solving, which isn't fundamentally artistic
I would argue that problem solving is actually what makes any art art. When making "traditional art" you are constantly solving problems. For example, how do I make this piece of rock look like a greek god, what parts to chip off, what tools to use etc.
Art is not always made for aesthetic value, most traditional art is probably created for profit. That doesn't make it not art.
I think you might have the (in my opinion wrong) notion that there is only one "correct" way to write code. This is not true, so much so that you can identify a programmer by their signature style. Similarly to how you may identify a writer by his writing style.
reply