MudMan

Wait, who wins between scissors and wax tablet? Does that count as stone?

Yeah, I had to dig a bit further for this figure. They display the same data more prominently in percentage of the time devoted to each bug, which gives them smaller error bars, but also doesn't really answer the question that matters regarding where the time went.

Worth noting that this is a subset of the data, apparently. They recorded about a third of the bug fixes on video and cut out runs with cheating and other suspicious activity. Assuming each recording contains one bug they end up with a fourth of the data broken down this way.

Which is great, but... it does make you wonder why that data is good enough for the overall over/underestimate plot if it's not good enough for the task breakdown. Some of the stuff they're filtering out is outright not following the instructions or self-reporting times that are more than 20% off from what the recording shows. So we know some of those runs are so far off they didn't get counted for this, but presumably the rest of the data that just had no video would be even worse, since the timings are self-reported and they paid them to participate by the hour.

I'd definitely like to see this with more data, this is only 16 people, even if they are counting several hundred bugs. Better methodology, too. And I'd like to see other coder profiles in there. For now they are showing a very large discrepancy between estimate and results and at least this chart gives you some qualitative understanding of how that happened. I learned something from reading it. Plus, hey, it's not like AI research is a haven of clean, strict data.

Of course most people will just parrot the headline, because that's the world we live in.

Sounds about right.

I'd like to see numbers for inexperienced devs and devs working on somebody else's code, though.

EDIT: Oh, this is interesting. The full paper breaks down where the time goes. Turns out coders do in fact spend less time actually working on the code when using AI, but the time spent prompting, waiting on the output and processing the output eats up the difference. They also sit idle for longer with AI. So their forecasts aren't that crazy, they do work less/faster with AI, but the new extra tasks make them less productive overall.

That makes a lot of sense in retrospect, but it's not what I was expecting.

The Youtube version will give you a transcript.

Monkey's paw curling at its finest.

I'm gonna say if the OS of a public administration can run while not being updated that's the OS's fault and not fit for purpose.

Nothing keeping you from changing that if you manage the distro. But still.

Now that I'm done with my popcorn, I thought the video was fairly even handed.

No, it cannot.

They are confronting what is obvious, effective tools to undermine democracy with some weird experiment that is at best a niche effort to do online social engineering much more than it is social media.

Social media is a destructive force. By nature. Yes, Fedi as well.

You learn to manage in society, maybe. Like you do addiction and cancer and crime. The techno-optimism stuff is borderline delusional at this point.

Just going from the first couple of replies I'm going to go get the popcorn started to count how many people respond without watching the video first.

Cool. But that's not the conversation we're having an five-ish million people clearly don't share that concern.

Sure, and with the GPU sucking up a bunch of juice that's plenty to get toasty.

It's just I haven't been using laptops that do that in the past few years and coming from desktop world it feels so wrong now.

On a 1660 Ti (MaxQ, I presume)? I can believe it. It's the exact range of game that card is made for. At a glance I don't see Skyrim AE benchmarks, but notebookcheck has it running Monster Hunter World, MGS V and Rise of the Tomb Raider maxed out at 1080p60ish.

Maybe I'm spoiled by just assuming Windows and Linux benchmarks are comparable by default? I guess it's no longer a surprise now, so... congrats, everybody?

Also, man, is there something you can do about those CPU temps? It makes me nervous just to look at that 28% utilization at 90C. I've been away from gaming laptops since handhelds are a thing and I'm not used to that anymore.

I don't think I can agree. I mean, I'm sure being in Latin America and being at the tail end of support for less global products skews this a bit, but ultimately these are two big global publishers selling globally.

For what it's worth, Steam is willing to sell me any currently available Steam Deck in my region with 3-5 day delivery. There currently isn't any Switch 2 stock on Amazon or the local top specialty game retailer. Checking a couple other major retailers it sure seems to be sold out everywhere for now. You'd probably have a better shot at a physical retailer.

So I'm saying that Valve has stock of the Deck and has for ages, at least in the territories it supports through direct sales. Which is expected, the thing is not new anymore, but it suggests that if it needed to ramp up production it could, it just doesn't have to.

You could argue that this is not apples to apples, and it may not be, but the difference is so large it may not matter. The Switch 1 by itself was about as large as all of Steam combined, let alone the Deck by itself. The Switch 2 did in weeks what took the Deck years to do, crucially at the same price point (the Switch 2 is cheaper than the OLED but more expensive than the LCD). Considering how much of the marketing and the community focused on the Deck being a Switch killer based on the performance advantage it had, I'm going to say they are close enough competitors and the gulf between them is large enough that whatever differences you want to account for are accounted for.

Which, again, doesn't speak to the quality of either piece of hardware, but it does to the notion that the Deck has been a runaway success or that it has overwhelmed Valve's expectations.

I forget what wave I was on. I know I wasn't there day one, but it also wasn't that long of a wait.

My best guess is Valve was making very few of these. It's pretty impressive that Nintendo has been able to move this many consoles while keeping stock up, but Valve was clearly not operating at that volume for both cost reasons and to create some hype.

For the record, I do own both a Switch 2 and a Deck. It wasn't that hard to get either, but the Switch 2 was available on day one in a way the Deck was not.