Yes, they are used as air raid shelters, but they were designed like that in the first place. Some of them lie really deep - especially the ones in the city center.
Kyiv metro is one of the deepest in the world. We have one station that is 105 meters deep. So even with fast escalators, it feels like an eternity to go up and down there.
Sadly, the hype is real and that's what's happening in many places. Businesses are eager to bet on AI cause they'd been promised x100 productivity = fire 99 or 100 devs = huge profit.
I expect one day some slopware will succumb to one of these weird production bugs, no LLM will be able to fix it, and when the biz guys ask me for a fix estimate, I'm going to say "3 years".
I went all in on it about a year ago, and I've gotten the hype out of my system now. It's now officially a love/hate relationship. Like everything else that is a mainstay in my life.
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a cakewalk compared to what is going on today. 15k dead in 10 years, and the USSR was twice as big as modern ruzzia, so it is more like 7k dead for ruzzia alone. Now compare that to 4.5 years of the invasion of Ukraine - these wars are on a totally different scale. The Afghan affair was a remote low-profile endeavour; ports and oil refineries weren't burning all over the Soviet Union.
Have we delegated writing code to "AGIs" so we can write code to proof that the slop code works?
I have a vague memory of pre-AGI era, when we wrote things called "tests" to verify that our code did what it claimed to do.
I consider Logo an undeservedly forgotten technology that showed the world a glimpse of what computerized education really is, and Seymour Papert is a misunderstood genius ahead of his time.
The whole point was a very visual way of learning with immediate feedback, where you build stuff in order to understand it.
Papert based his own ideas of constructionism on children's cognitive development theories of Jean Piaget, a famous Swiss psychologist with whom he worked in the 50s - early 60s.
Logo pioneered a whole class of tools and languages built around constructivist ideas (e.g. Ozobot, Scratch, EToy, Processing, Design by Numbers...) and I hope these ideas will not be totally forgotten in the era of slop, when people prize ignorance and no longer seem to appreciate the concept of "build to understand".
Do you think the ideas behind LOGO has been forgotten as well? As you've mentioned, it has spawned many learning tools since.
My question is, do you think anything new has superseded LOGO in achieving its goals? Or is LOGO still the best embodiment of the ideas set out by Seymour?
Well, it's certainly not completely dead - there are many tools out there trying to implement visual learning from first principles. But I feel the "constructivist" core has been lost over time. Like we forgot the "why" of the equation while still keeping on building things.
Maybe it is not even about the tools themselves, but how they are used. It is like a cargo cult of constructivism that praises mechanical results instead of celebrating creativity, inspiration, spirit of exploration, and confidence that it is possible to build something new.
When I worked at Triple-A studio, we used Alienbrain, which is specifically tailored for huge binary versioning with previews and stuff. We had terabytes of assets, and Alienbrain handled it well, including seamless integration into pipelines - something a stock git or Perforce would never achieve.
Not Blizzard. A French game developer and publisher that has been defunct for many years now. But even then, I remember talking to colleagues from other studios and many used Alienbrain - primarily for art assets. We used SVN and later git/mercurial for code.
Since Alienbrain was quite popular back then, I assume they are still around now. Given that git still has no out-of-the-box facilities to handle large binaries and asset previews conveniently.
Kyiv metro is one of the deepest in the world. We have one station that is 105 meters deep. So even with fast escalators, it feels like an eternity to go up and down there.
reply