nocman

> Perl 4 specifically of course though.

Not in 2005. Perl 5 all the way, baby!

> Great, another project with an asinine and backwards-thinking AI policy

Nothing asinine about it. Just because many in the industry have decided they are willing to accept the downsides of using output generated by LLMs in their product doesn't mean that everyone in the industry has to. People are still free to do things differently than you do.

I think you misread and/or misunderstood my reply.

I think you meant "Podman", but yes, Postman almost entirely sidesteps docker.

:D

"cult", what the heck are you talking about? That's just ridiculous.

A person studying photography is infinitely more sophisticated than a machine training on photographic information. Photographic art is much more than just taking pictures.

> And it's trained on more art critics than any photographer has read.

Your argument seems to be that because of this training, the result will be better art than the human photographer could produce. I'd say there's at least as good a chance that the training will make the photography worse art than the human photographer could produce.

Interesting. It looks fine to me. What's the part that bothers your eyes? (genuinely curious).

> - 42% are hopeful or excited about the tech industry

doesn't that ignore the overlap?

  1102 of 4694 (23%) respondents said they were hopeful 
   897 of 4694 (19%) respondents said they were excited

So, for example, if all of the ones who were excited also said they were hopeful, then only 23% of respondents are "hopeful or excited about the tech industry".

(on that question they could submit more than one answer)

jasonvorhe should apply for a job at the NFL - the "no fun league".

Nope. I work with virtualization on Linux every day, and have done so for many years (and many varieties of virtualization). I didn't recognize it by the name, and I don't remember hearing about it before.

Licensing is not a substitute for hiring competent people that actually care about the quality of their work, and then giving them the time, resources, and support they actually need to do it.

Government involvement almost always just makes the problem worse, not better. There is a place for control in some areas (medical, military applications, etc), but I think broad-sweeping regulation would do far more damage than good.

> an expensive interview process where the candidate has to be onsite

I'm sorry, but if I'm doing the hiring, the person who isn't willing to come on site to do an interview will be one of the first people off the list to hire (I mean, unless it is a remote job, and the person is nowhere near the employer, obvious exceptions would apply).

In-person interviewing can be extremely valuable. Will it filter out every bad candidate? No, some people excel at faking it. However it can be a big help in finding a good candidate.