So how can a QR code not supply the necessary data? Example:
payment://iban=XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX&amount=12.34EUR
Any bank app should be able to read this. What is so complicated? Right, nothing. Credit card companies are a hidden tax, worse, they are a tax on turnover, not profits.
But in EU you don't usually get credit... The cards are often debit only. Yes, credit cards do exist but they are not like the american cards, and things like chargebacks are not super simple. I for example haven't had a credit card over a decade now...
Chargebacks exists for (EU style) debit cards, too. It doesn't need to be simple just available, so if the merchant disappears with your money or someone uses your stolen card, there is a way you can get your money back. With bank transfers that's not possible (at least here).
> "I'll need to study the docs and code to answer these questions properly" is a perfectly fine (and very diplomatic) response to treatment like that.
By the time you said that, the AI could have given the 80% answer. So, no, this is no longer an adequate response. The right response would have been to take your tools and give an informed opinion on the AI answer, right there.
> So, no, this is no longer an adequate response. The right response would have been to take your tools and give an informed opinion on the AI answer, right there.
If the AI could answer the questions, why would they ask OP about it?
What are “your tools”? Many (most?) meaningful questions cannot be answered while you stall for time on a call. Or do you just mean ask an LLM the question and regurgitate its answer?
The comments here seem to suggest that the loyalty program funded with credit card margins are to blame for the difference.
It suggests we'd be better of eliminating the absurdly high hidden taxes paid to the credit card companies, that in turn act to gamify the business. In the end they raise the cost of doing business, for virtually no benefit at all. It's a monopoly extracting as much wealth they can get away with.
The question at the heart of this: How can "the shining light on a hill" be so stupid? It's digging its own demise.
I got a great I idea: let's turn this into a language, one that supports parallelism, so we can boot the system while maintaining full flexibility! /s
Now if we base this off the D programming language, the universe will remain at peace.. and who knows, something beautiful may blossom.
Nobody has made bold choices in Linux since it's inception. It's the same dated design, now supporting the latest hardware. Because, you know, backwards compatibility. What about compatibility with the future? Nah.
Windows is adding features nobody asked for, like scroll wheel zooming everywhere, like in cmd.exe. Wtf do you need zooming for in the terminal?? I get false positives, and no benefit, at all.
Another is Windows Explorer, loses focus all the time, no hint to where it went, preventing keyboard navigation. Basic UI conventions are being violated, for no reason than having no clue what Windows is.
Windows is apparently being infested by young hackers who think Linux is the best thing since sliced bread and who just want to add tacky features using sloppy AI.
Do you mean Ctrl + scroll wheel? I use that feature quite a lot, I like my font size small but it can be difficult to see for other people so being able to quickly scale it up is really useful
I use Ctrl + <number> to switch between different workspaces on Mac, and half of the time I come back to MS web pages or apps (like Teams) the font is either 9000+pt or then -3pt. Outlook takes the cake though, where for whatever reason they decided to support different font "zoom" levels in different parts. And everyone were dreaming of having the inbox menus in 1pt while having email with 1000pt, right?
The difficult bit isn't the core JavaScript support. There are a dozen engines packaged as libraries that can use for that. The difficult bit is supporting all of the hundreds of DOM APIs.
Also the "undefined behaviours" used for fingerprinting and denying access to non-mainstream UAs even if they have JS support. If I remember correctly, YouTube was doing something like that.
So funny to see all the cmake instructions. Really makes you want to go back in time. Turbo C or Pascal, hit F9 and you're up and running.
It does showcase our incompetence. In this age we should be able to point to some online compiler and run it. Or download it and run it on a folder. That should be the extent of our involvement with tools. But apparently they are not tools, but rituals we insist on.
GP most likely meant it was a solved problem from the user's perspective. Autotools might be "horrifying" for the programmer (IMO that is an exaggeration, AT isn't that bad, with the potential exception of libtool) but it provides by far the best UX for a user (that knows how to use a command line and what building from code is, not your average grandma :-P) compared to everything else out there.
However one important aspect here is that there is no reason for Autotools to be what provides the `./configure && make && make install` UX - the GNU standards (not sure the exact name) describe the UX itself without mentioning anything about Autotools so any other approach to implementing it would be just as valid. However in practice whenever you find a configure script in the wild it is either Autotools or a hand-made one (that more often that not misses some of the GNU standard stuff).
Autotools can be daunting if you plan to write code that’s portable to Ultrix, IRIX, Apollo’s UNIX whose name I forgot, NonStop, UNICOS, OpenVMS, z/OS, macOS, and modern Linux.
Nowadays we don’t bother supporting dozens of platforms. Even Windows is something we can push aside and suggest WSL if you really need to run it under Windows.
And I even try to make sure my code runs correctly on z/OS (which IS a UNIX).
reply