Yeah right. Destroying cameras owned by a HOA in a wealthy area is one thing, destroying people's private cameras is another. A good way to get in a fight, though, if you're into that.
I agree that the work culture promoting this is bad, but being sick is still simply not an excuse to fabricate quotes with AI. It's still just journalistic malfeasance, and if Ars actually cares about the quality of their journalism, he should be fired for it.
If anyone who makes a mistake rarely and owns it completely shall be fired, everyone would be homeless.
To err is human, so owning what you did. This is the first time I have seen Ars to make a mistake of this kind in any size, so I think this is a good corrective bump given Ars' track report on these matters.
Maybe we should learn to be a bit flexible and understanding sometimes. If you live by the sword, you die by the sword, and we don't need more of that right now.
I agree, I think this should be taken in context and his past work should be reviewed by Ars to ensure this isn’t a pattern. If he made a mistake one time this is a learning experience and I doubt he would ever make it again. You don’t need to fire someone every time they make a mistake. Especially if the mistake was made in good faith.
I don't know about that - I'd say it's the managers responsibility to make sure employees don't feel pressured to work when they're to ill to function.
And also brings to mind the IBM one million dollars story:
(...)
A very large government bid, approaching a million dollars, was on the table. The IBM Corporation—no, Thomas J. Watson Sr.—needed every deal. Unfortunately, the salesman failed. IBM lost the bid. That day, the sales rep showed up at Mr. Watson’s office. He sat down and rested an envelope with his resignation on the CEO’s desk. Without looking, Mr. Watson knew what it was. He was expecting it.
He asked, “What happened?”
The sales rep outlined every step of the deal. He highlighted where mistakes had been made and what he could have done differently. Finally he said, “Thank you, Mr. Watson, for giving me a chance to explain. I know we needed this deal. I know what it meant to us.” He rose to leave.
Tom Watson met him at the door, looked him in the eye and handed the envelope back to him saying, “Why would I accept this when I have just invested one million dollars in your education?”
Should he? Where does that mindset come from? The author has owned up to his mistake. Unless there is a pattern here, why would we not prefer to let him learn and grow from this? We all get to accidentally drop the prod DB once, since that’s what teaches us not to do it again.
He's not some junior developer with his first job, he's the senior editor. If a senior editor plagiarized an article, he would rightly be fired because it's a serious violation of journalistic ethics. He knew using AI tools like that was against company policy and he did it anyway. That's well beyond just making a mistake.
There are degrees of plagiarism and you could argue this is not really plagiarism at all. Paraphrasing instead of directly quoting is probably about as mild as it can get. Most publications wouldn’t even note the mistake.
This wasn't paraphrasing either. The tool couldn't access the subject's website and instead fabricated quotes, which Benj nor anyone in the editorial process bothered to vet.
Dating apps would go out of business if they did their job, because success means leaving the platform. They make more money if they hold out a carrot and make it difficult to succeed.
This is also true of those services that "delete" your data from data brokers. Their entire business model relies on them failing to do their job.
Even considering that one can personally control their own chat service is already a pretty big leap in technical knowledge. Many, many average users don't even know that's an option, nevermind how it's even done.
Every single website on the internet just says "whoopsie doodle, me made an oopsie" instead of just telling me what the problem is. This so-called mistake is so widespread that it has been the standard for at least a decade.
I agree it's a mistake, but I don't believe that it's viewed that way by anyone making the decision to do it.
I understand not exposing a full stack trace, but I don't see any excuse to not even expose a googleable error code. If me having an error code makes your product insecure, then you have a much bigger problem.
Streaming as defacto metaphor for file access goes back to tape drives. Random Access patterns make more sense with today’s media yet we’re all still fscanf-ing
Of course there are alternatives but the resource-as-stream metaphor is so ubiquitous in Unix, it’s hard to avoid.
A: and B: were both for floppies, dual floppy systems were around and common, both with and without hard disks, long before Zip disks existed, and Zip disks came around far too late (1994!) to influence the MS-DOS naming standard.
No, A: and B: were for floppies, when having 2 floppy readers was the norm.
But anyway ignoring the sarcasm my question was implying: if this is totally customizable in Windows, why Microsoft still ships C: (or whatever other letter) as the default name for the first user partition? Show it to legacy programs with hardcoded values to maintain compatibility, but at least in Explorer and MS controlled software, use some more modern/legible name.
Zip disks presented themselves with drive letters higher than B (usually D: assuming you had a single hard disk). However, some (all?) Zip drives could also accept legacy 3.5" floppies, and those would show up as B.
You're confused and you're thinking of the LS-120 SuperDisk. On some machines, it could be setup to appear as A: or B: when a 3.5" floppy was inserted.
Zip drives were never compatible with 3.5" floppies, and always were enumerated using the first available external storage letter (ie, D: in typical machines).
I've had a lot of fun training Markov chains using Simple English Wikipedia. I'm guessing the restricted vocabulary leads to more overlapping sentences in the training data. Anything too advanced or technical has too many unique phrases and the output degrades almost immediately.
