Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

nvie.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 427 posts

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#151

Post by AlienRobot »

p_ing wrote: post #136
anonymous908213 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suggested that if there is no review process, it is a systemic issue, and that if there is a review process that failed to catch something this egregious, it is a systemic issue. My supposition is that regardless of how the publishing process works, there is a systemic failure here, and I made no claims as to how it actually works, so I'm not sure where the "you're incorrect on how it works" is coming from.

You said it takes multiple people screwing up, implying that publishing content had multiple gates/reviewers. It doesn’t.

But if there are no gates, doesn't that mean the people who should have put the gates in there screwed up?

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#152

Post by kuhaku22 »

toong wrote: post #96
pointlessone wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not just a copy. It’s a caricature of a copy with a plenty of nonsense in it: typos and weird “text”, broken arrows, etc. Even a cursory look gives a feeling that something’s fishy.

"Legal reviewed it and did not flag any issues!"

This is the same Microsoft that promised to indemnify any of its customers sued over copyright lawsuits as a result of using its AIs. [0] So I'm sure legal reviewed it the same way, saying "Yep, our war chest is still ample".

[0]: https://www.reuters.com/technology/microsoft-defend-customer...

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#153

Post by [deleted] »

m12k wrote: post #137

Regarding the original git-flow model: I've never had anyone able to explain to me why it's worth the hassle to do all the integration work on the "develop" branch, while relegating the master/main branch to just being a place to park the tag from the latest release. Why not just use the master/main branch for integration instead of the develop branch - like the git gods intended - and then not have the develop branc…

[deleted]

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#154

Post by Gigachad »

choeger wrote: post #144
m12k wrote: post #137

Regarding the original git-flow model: I've never had anyone able to explain to me why it's worth the hassle to do all the integration work on the "develop" branch, while relegating the master/main branch to just being a place to park the tag from the latest release. Why not just use the master/main branch for integration instead of the develop branch - like the git gods intended - and then not have the develop branc…

I am working with main/master for years now, and there's one problem you don't have with develop: Whenever you merge something into master, it kind of blocks the next release until its (non-continuous) QA is done. If your changes are somewhat independent, you can cherry-pick them from develop into master in an arbitrary order and call that a release whenever you want to.

I worked at a place that had Gitlab review apps set up. Where the QA people could just click a button and it would create an instance of the app with just that PR on it. Then they could test, approve, and kill the instance.

Then you can merge to master and it's immediately ready to go.

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#155

Post by layer8 »

varjag wrote: post #121
cwal37 wrote: post #10

LinkedIn is also a great example of this stuff at the moment. Every day I see posts where someone clearly took a slide or a diagram from somewhere, then had ChatGPT "make it better" and write text for them to post along with it. Words get mangled, charts no longer make sense, but these people clearly aren't reading anything they're posting. It's not like LinkedIn was great before, but the business-influencer incentiv…

Of course they aren't. The text to go with those diagrams is also machine generated.

The comment you’re replying to already stated that.

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#156

Post by UqWBcuFx6NV4r »

m12k wrote: post #137

Regarding the original git-flow model: I've never had anyone able to explain to me why it's worth the hassle to do all the integration work on the "develop" branch, while relegating the master/main branch to just being a place to park the tag from the latest release. Why not just use the master/main branch for integration instead of the develop branch - like the git gods intended - and then not have the develop branc…

[flagged]

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#157

Post by AlienRobot »

Gigachad wrote: post #149
AshleysBrain wrote: post #141

Is this not a good example of how generative AI does copyright laundering? Suppose the image was AI generated and it did a bad copy of the source image that was in the training data, which seems likely with such a widely disseminated image. When using generative AI to produce anything else, how do you know it's not just doing a bad quality copy-paste of someone else's work? Are you going to scour the internet for the…

There are countless examples. Often I think about the fact that the google search AI is just rewording news articles from the search results, when you look at the source articles they have exactly the same points as the AI answers. So these services depends on journalists to continuously feed them articles, while stealing all of the viewers by automatically copying every article.

I actually often have the opposite problem. The AI overview will assert something and give me dozens of links, and then I'm forced to check them one by one to try to figure out where the assertion came from, and, in some cases, none of the articles even say what the AI overview claimed they said.

I honestly don't get it. All I want is for it to quote verbatim and link to the source. This isn't hard, and there is no way the engineers at Google don't know how to write a thesis with citations. How did things end up this way?

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#158

Post by mns »

aftergibson wrote: post #82

Archive.org shows this went live last September: https://web.archive.org/web/20250108142456/https://learn.mic... It took ~5 months for anyone to notice and fix something that is obviously wrong at a glance. How many people saw that page, skimmed it, and thought “good enough”? That feels like a pretty honest reflection of the state of knowledge work right now. Everyone is running at a velocity where quality, craft and…

If you work in a medium to large company, you know most of the documentation is there for compliance reasons or for showing others that you did something at one point. You can probably just put slop at the end of documents, while you still keep headlines relevant and no one will ever read it or notice it.

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#159

Post by reisse »

anonymous908213 wrote: post #32

Microsoft employee (VP of something or other, for whatever Microsoft uses "VP" to mean) doing damage control on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/scott.hanselman.com/post/3mez4yxty2... > looks like a vendor, and we have a group now doing a post-mortem trying to figure out how it happened. It'll be removed ASAFP > Understood. Not trying to sweep under rugs, but I also want to point out that everything is moving very f…

> This excuse is hollow to me. In an organization of this size, it takes multiple people screwing up for a failure to reach the public, or at least it should.

Only if this is considered a failure.

Native English speakers may not know, but for a very long time (since before automatic translation tools became adequate) pretty much all MSFT docs were machine translated to the user agent language by default. Initially they were as useless as they were hilarious - a true slop before the term was invented.

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#160

Post by viraptor »

OJFord wrote: post #132
crossroadsguy wrote: post #76

Something tangential.. > people started tagging me on Bluesky and Hacker News Never knew tagging was a thing on Hacker News. Is it a special feature for crème de crème users?

Don't think so, expect they just mean replying to comments to mention it, or they posted another article and people commented about seeing this and isn't it from another article of yours etc.

People still try to use @user all the time, even though it doesn't work.
Post reply on HN