VSCode? Even if some peeps don't like it out of principle because it's an Electron app, it's undeniable that it is extremely popular (...and is actually a lot more lightweight and snappier than 'real' IDEs like VStudio or Xcode, or the various Java-based IDEs).
> Nah, if windows stayed with OpenGL instead of inventing its own, gaming on linux would be far easier for decades.
The problem with OpenGL is that it is a complete mess compared to the D3D APIs (D3D was the better designed API since at least D3D9, arguably even D3D7). Also DirectX wasn't just about rendering, it also covered sound, input and networking - although most of that has been dissolved into regular Windows APIs since quite a while).
Also, Vulkan repeats some of the same problems that OpenGL had, but at least Vulkan is an uptodate mess, not a deprecated mess like GL.
Well they've been making improvements to Notepad, like now it has tabs, and you can close it without saving a single one, sort of how I used Sublime Text for note tracking.
I meet with enterprise clients who explore things like Copilot Studio.
Microsoft platforms move too slowly too keep up with innovation pace, and suffer from classic platform restriction in regards to building useful, relevant, and *reliable* integrations into business systems.
My advise is to always start from scratch with AI, e.g. "build your own agent" and focus intimately on the rules/guardrails and custom tools you need for that agent to create value. A platform can't do that for you in current day.
MSFT needs to stay focused on O365 and coding tools with very simple UX wins. Not introduce custom agent platforms and auto-embed intrusive agents where no one asked for them.
Microsoft's Power Platform should be a big advantage. If you already have your data in Outlook/SharePoint, the PowerPlatform makes it easy to access. Unfortunately I've encountered several roadblocks deploying CoPilot Studio & Power Platform for my enterprise. Note: I'm using GCC, so everything is worse than normal.
1) Incomplete integration. Often I just want to write a prompt to create structured data from unstructured data. e.g. read an email and create a structured contact record. There's a block for this in Power Platform, but I can't access it. Studio can do this pretty well, but...
2) CoPilot Studio sucks at determinism. You really need to create higher level tools in Power Automate and call them from Studio. Because of (1) this makes it hard to compose complex systems.
3) Permissions. We haven't been able to figure out a secure way for people to share Copilot Studio agents. This means you need to log into studio and use the debug chat instead of turning the agent on in the main Copilot interface.
4) IDE. Copilot Studio bogs down real fast. The UI gets super laggy, creating a terrible DX. There should be a way to write agents in VScode, push the definitions to source control, and deploy to Copilot, but it isn't obvious.
5) Dumb By Default. The Power Platform has hooks into Outlook and Active Directory. Copilot has access to the latest OpenAI models. CoPIlot Studio has an MCP server for Calendar. Out of the box I should be able to tell CoPilot "schedule a 30min meeting with Joe and Larry next week." Nope. Maybe if I struggle through CoPilot Studio to create an agent? Still no. WTF Microsoft.
I guess I'll stop there. I really wanted to like Copilot studio, but it just didn't deliver. Maybe I'll circle back in a couple months, but for now I'm exploring other platforms.
PS don't even get me started on how we were so excited to retire our home-grown chat front end for the Azure OpenAI Service in favor of Copilot, only to have our users complain that Copilot was a downgrade.
PPS also don't talk to me about how CoPilot is now integrated into Windows and SIGNS YOU INTO THE FREE COMMERCIAL SERVICE BY DEFAULT. Do you know how hard it is to get people to use the official corporate AI tools instead of shadow AI? Do you know how important it is to keep our proprietary data out of AI training sets? Apparently not.
Suppose you were running a computation that requires doing 33,000 multiplies. Later you find a way to do the same computation using only 1,000 multiples
You've been here 15 years and made hardly any comments. Why do you feel so strongly about this now? Wasn't there a way you could have at least made it more constructive?
How do you make something "33 times smaller"? Maybe break it down, starting with making something 1 time smaller, then 2 times smaller, and we can see where it goes.
"Reduce 33x" and "make 33x smaller" are ambiguous, unclear, and inaccurate. Is something that's "33x smaller" or "reduced 33x" 1/33 of the original total or is it 1/34? The question can't be answered in the absence of more information.
These are common expressions, sure. They're also awful, belonging to the same category of error as:
* The price is expensive
* It's a good-quality piece
* All but one of my friends speaks like this.
* Here's an author whom we know cares about language.
* As well, this is how some people write.
That is, they're the errors of a normal native speaker.
I gather you don't particularly care (that's essentially your point), but in case you really do want to know how it could be 1/34, and why some weirdo would insist that it does or can, I wrote up the following. :)
Is "1x smaller" equivalent to "1x larger?" If it is, then 'it's 1/33' and "2x larger/more" means the same thing as "double the size/amount." But if you have two times more than I have, then you have what I have, plus 2x that amount. So you don't have two times as much as I have. You have three times as much. "2x larger," to my ear, clearly does not mean the same thing as "2x as much." "2x larger" should mean "3x as much." That's why "33x smaller" can be read as "1 part of 34."
When we're even stricter with sense, the expression "33x smaller" becomes completely incoherent, because 1x should represent the original quantity. A 33x reduction should give us a result of -32x.
Obviously that's not what the article means. It's what the words mean, though, when you read them literally mean, rather than reading past their literal meaning to the intentions of the speaker/writer.
Most people don't care whether someone means one thing or the other, because, as you wrote, it's close enough to give the general idea.
The problem that fussy people like me and the commenter above me have is that we want people to say what they mean. And I'd wager that most of us fussy people have to do more mental work in order to get to the result that other people reach intuitively. Having to ignore literal sense in order to read someone's intended meaning is harder for us/me than it is for most people. That's our/my problem. As a matter of sociolinguistics and pragmatics, we're wrong, because literal meaning takes a back seat to idiomatic usage. (It probably does even in this comment that I'm writing.)
That's why I said these are the errors of a normal, native speaker.
Sorry but your explanation is not self consistent. It works for "2x more" but not "2x larger". Those are two different words that mean two different things
Yes, those are two different words, and like many sets of two words, their meanings aren't identical. High five.
If you believe "2x more" and "2x larger" represent two different arithmetic expressions, such that (I assume) one of them means "3x" and the other means "2x," then you must have a much more advanced understanding or the language and of arithmetic than I have. Go with God, and good luck.
The moia service in Hamburg Germany offers virtual stops which is the next step I would argue. The bus follows a different route and stops every time based on the need of current passengers
What does that mean? The links doesn't help explain it much?
In the UK/London there are some bus routes where you just stick your arm out and the bus will stop to get you where you stand ("hail and ride") and equally you can just ring a bell when onboard and the driver stops as soon as there is somewhere convenient to let you off. The route is fixed though.
So there are virtual stops all over the city. You book a ride let's say city center to your home. The service integrates this route into existing rides or create a new ride. It might stop 5 times on the way to your home and pick up people and drop them. And you as a passenger won't know the route in advance. And it will not be the fastest to your place in most cases.
I guess this is what you call "ride sharing". It is like your parents picking you up from football and realizing the kid from the other part of the town also needs a ride so they make a huge detour
Many routes have "hail and ride sections" without designated stops. You can't get off, but can hail and get on at any point. Here's a list for London [1].
It's a crossover between busses and taxis; they operate on demand like taxis, but only get you roughly the most direct way (they can drive detours to pick up other passengers on the way) in a roughly predetermined amount of time (a 20 minute drive usually takes about 20 to 30 minutes due to the detours) from roughly where you are to roughly where you want to go (they are only allowed to stop on a virtual grid of bus stops spaced around 250 meters apart).
> a 20 minute drive usually takes about 20 to 30 minutes due to the detours
That variability makes the whole system much less interesting once a change is involved, e.g. if the on-demand shuttle is only supposed to operate across the local area, but not for longer journeys traversing the whole city, especially if the connecting fixed-route transport runs less than every few minutes…
Or even without changes, but when you have some other external schedule constraints, because in those cases you always have to budget for the longer journey time, negating the benefit of direct routing somewhat.
There was a recent erroneous system message on Feb 14th regarding the deprecation of Azure IoT Central. The error message stated that Azure IoT Central will be deprecated on March 31st, 2027 and starting April 1, 2024, you won’t be able to create new application resources. This message is not accurate and was presented in error.
