The current leap in research and its byproduct like ChatGPT are impressive (in the sense that it can pick up human text/speech and return back answers). But its not in any way a replacement for good Software Engineers, your job is safe (what is being posted on social media and news is extreme hype).
Here's the funny thing, if you ask people who interact with chat bots in any given service industry (banks, online orders...etc) they'll tell you how bad these things are, there is just no replacement for actual human beings with real life intuition (this kind of AI break through hasn't happened yet).
For the time being if you take time to specialize in a domain knowledge skill (physics, math, economy, or even agriculture) you'll be able to use the skills you learn from your CS degree in that domain and prosper as a result.
Here is the thing about pursuing a degree, it is a tedious awful long task. It doesnt actually look like the actual job you'll be doing when you finish this degree.
I'll go against the common advice and say, stick to it, finish the degree because it will give you good social mobility (when trying to travel for work to any country in the world, you'll either need to be a specialist in your field with few years experience or have at minimum a bachelor degree).
None of the modern chatbots that banks and online orders use are LLM based they are basically all low tech pattern matchers where they are given phrases to match on (utterances) with placeholders for the variable parts (slots) and then match those to intents. It’s in no shape form or fashion AI and accept for the voice to text part is 1960s technology.
>I'll go against the common advice and say, stick to it, finish the degree because it will give you good social mobility (when trying to travel for work to any country in the world, you'll either need to be a specialist in your field with few years experience or have at minimum a bachelor degree).
I don't like being a salaried employee (nor do I plan to become one, long term), but I might just finish my degree because life happens and there may be a time when I'll have to search for a job like that one day. So, purely as a backup option and because the sheepskin effect is very real
Hexrays used to be difficult to deal with if you want to purchase IDA Pro for the first time, due to their software getting leaked online.
They have eased the procedure to buy from them, but from time to time they'll ask you to fill out your info with national ID/passport (they say its because they don't want to sell their software to individuals under sanctions). This is despite them being based in Belgium (not the US).
For any serious work IDA Pro is highly suitable (the customization and scripting, loader examples and processor plugins...etc), on the other hand for side projects and basic security research Binary ninja and ghidra can go along way.
Given that this is an open source project and sniffing bluetooth can be fun but expensive (only some specialized tools can offer the best results or features), I feel that this project is much appreciated, came close to help those doing any research of bluetooth devices.
Video of the project's author introducing the tool and pros/cons of sniffing bluetooth traffic.
happy you found it to be useful. I also wanted to write an implementation for sometime. The only things I could find were ready-made packages (python/Golang...etc).
The part I'd also like to know about is error correction, if you have anything useful related to QR codes for that.
Although the date is included in the article, it is located at the very bottom of the page, which is unlikely to be easily found. It reads: "Last updated: 2018-11-05"
“So, your kids must love the iPad?” I asked Mr. [Steve] Jobs, trying to change the subject. The company’s first tablet was just hitting the shelves. “They haven’t used it,” he told me. “We limit how much technology our kids use at home.” (NYtimes article, Sept. 10, 2014)” ― Nick Bilton
“Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards.” ― Aldous Huxley
"When we started Apple, Steve Jobs and I talked about how we wanted to make blind people as equal and capable as sighted people, and you'd have to say we succeeded when you look at all the people walking down the sidewalk looking down at something in their hands and totally oblivious to everything around them!" - Steve Wozniak
>“Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards.” ― Aldous Huxley
Interestingly, though he didn't intend it (he thought he was writing dystopian fiction), Aldous Huxley actually predicted humanity's best possible future with "Brave New World".
Without traditional (basically pre-technological) societies where women are essentially slaves, people earnestly believe in ridiculous supernatural religious claims, and couples are basically stuck together no matter how miserable they are, it's simply not mathematically possible for birthrates to be kept high enough to sustain the human population. Huxley brilliantly predicted a future society that could use technology to solve this problem which we're now seeing in developed nations. Societies should be looking at it as a blueprint, not something to avoid, though the constant drug-use should probably not be emulated.
Is sustaining the human population at its current levels an ideal to strive towards? Fewer people means fewer goods, but also less demand; automation has taken over so much already it’s hard to see the point of having so many people.
Fewer people means less insurance in case of natural disaster, less innovation, less of everything really. Of course, that has to be balanced with resource consumption, environmental effects, etc.
Also, a declining population doesn't just mean "go back to a more sustainable level". It's not like people are suddenly going to start having babies again when the population gets to, say, 1B, and things will carry on sustainably. Instead, there'll barely be anyone who can have babies, because everyone will be elderly (i.e. inverted population pyramid), so the population will just keep collapsing. And with so many old people needing care, and no young people around to do it, things are going to get really bad quickly.
People seem to think we're going to invent some super-advanced humanoid care-giving robots "any day now", and I suppose also invent some way of people being able to have more kids over a longer lifespan or something, but betting your society's future on uninvented technology is not good planning I think.
If we can survive population decline at all (fwiw I think is still an open question on a planetary scale), we shouldn't worry about rebounding for a long time yet. So many problems we face that would be easier to solve at 1B people than 10B would also be even easier with 100M. The "market" will clear and human population long term will settle into something that can be sustained with available resources and biosphere services. Getting there via "attrition" is preferable to getting there via apocalyptic wars, famines, genocides, and diseases.
>Getting there via "attrition" is preferable to getting there via apocalyptic wars, famines, genocides, and diseases.
How do you think wars are going to be avoided when there's a demographic collapse? With so many old people and so few young people to support them, something's going to break. People don't normally just put up with failed economies; wars are a frequent result. Famine is also a strong possibility: the elderly people probably aren't going to be doing all the farming, but they still need to eat.
People who talk about population reduction as a good thing always seem to assume that the demographics will be similar to today, with plenty of young people to balance the old people, and that's absolutely not what's in store.
Right, hence my parenthetical. If we can do it at all, we should keep going. If we can't, then there's no good outcome available and we only get to choose between demographic collapse or biosphere collapse.
Yes, I think it was; the second quote (from Huxley) had nothing directly to do with BNW at all. I merely brought that up because of the Huxley connection and because I thought it was an interesting tangent.
>“Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards.” ― Aldous Huxley
It may have provided us with the largely unused means to more easily go backwards if we want to (for example, via nuclear or massive biological war), but the idea that it's made us worse off from some ideal previous state of lower technology is popular, fashionably nihilistic nonsense with no bearing on concrete reality. It was also just as stupid an idea in Huxley's time.
Anybody who thinks such a thing should really read more carefully on how nearly every aspect of life was in the past, even fairly recently, or if they have the means, go visit a society that today genuinely lives without using modern technology.
(pseudo-hippie communes of "like-minded" individuals that back up their cute experiments with modern industrial products, modern medicine and the ability to go back to civilization at any time, don't count)
This is an over statement. I, too, have read Slouching Towards Utopia and Steven Pinker. But (a) technology is not a monolith, it's clearly nice to have enough food and modern medicine while it's also terrible that we're destroying our biome or facing increased illiteracy due to social media. Also (b) technology, like beer, is both the cause of AND the solution to all problems. Harari and James C. Scott make compelling arguments about how agriculture, among the first widely adopted technologies, deprived us of a utopia that we're scrambling to recover with more technology ever since. I call this the Operation Cat Drop problem. See also Under a White Sky.
Here's the funny thing, if you ask people who interact with chat bots in any given service industry (banks, online orders...etc) they'll tell you how bad these things are, there is just no replacement for actual human beings with real life intuition (this kind of AI break through hasn't happened yet).
For the time being if you take time to specialize in a domain knowledge skill (physics, math, economy, or even agriculture) you'll be able to use the skills you learn from your CS degree in that domain and prosper as a result.
Here is the thing about pursuing a degree, it is a tedious awful long task. It doesnt actually look like the actual job you'll be doing when you finish this degree.
I'll go against the common advice and say, stick to it, finish the degree because it will give you good social mobility (when trying to travel for work to any country in the world, you'll either need to be a specialist in your field with few years experience or have at minimum a bachelor degree).