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

171–180 of 427 posts

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#171

Post by mcny »

Anon4Now wrote: post #125
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…

> everything is moving very fast right now Now that's an interesting comment for him to include. The cynic in me could find / can think of lots of reasons from my YouTube feed as to why that might be so. What else is going on at Microsoft that could cause this sense of urgency?

My guess is there is some communication going out to every "manager", even the M1, that says this is your priority.

For example, I know of an unrelated mandate Microsoft has for its management. Anything security team analysis flags in code that you or your team owns must be fixed or somehow acceptably mitigated within the deadline specified. It doesn't matter if it is Newton soft json being "vulnerable" and the entire system is only built for use by msft employees. If you let this deadline slip, you have to explain yourself and might lose your bonus.

Ok so the remediation for the Newton soft case is easy enough that it is worth doing but the point is I have a conspiracy theory that internally msft has such a memo (yes, beyond what is publicly disclosed) going to all managers saying they must adopt copilot, whatever copilot means.

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#172

Post by kuhaku22 »

kgeist wrote: post #95

>What's dispiriting is the (lack of) process and care: take someone's carefully crafted work, run it through a machine to wash off the fingerprints, and ship it as your own. "Don't attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity". I bet someone just typed into ChatGPT/Copilot, "generate a Git flow diagram," and it searched the web, found your image, and decided to recreate it by using as a reference…

In this case, we can chalk it up to malicious stupidity. Someone posting a reference aimed at learners, especially with Microsoft's reach and name recognition, has a responsibility to check the quality and accuracy of the materials. Using an AI tool doesn't absolve that responsibility one bit.

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#173

Post by jll29 »

AlienRobot wrote: post #157
Gigachad wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

ChatGPT was a research prototype thrown at end users as a "product".

It is not a carefully designed product; ask yourself "What is it FOR?".

But the identification of reliable sources isn't as easy as you may think, either. A chat-based interaction really makes most sense if you can rely on every answer, otherwise the user is misled and user and conversation may go in a wrong direction. The previous search paradigm ("ten snippets + links") did not project the confidence that turns out is not grounded in truth that the chat paradigm does.

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#174

Post by layer8 »

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…

It can be beneficial if there is no mechanism that ensures that develop is always in a working state, but there is one that ensures that master is. The immediate benefit is that a new feature branch can always be started off master from a known-good state.

Of course, there are ways to enforce a known-good state on master without a dedicated develop branch, but it can be easier when having the two branches.

(I just dislike the name “develop”, because branch names should be nouns.)

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#175

Post by wiseowise »

HelloNurse wrote: post #122
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…

> "everything is moving very fast" Then slow down. With this objective lack or control, sooner or later your LLM experiments in production will drive into a wall instead of hitting a little pothole like this diagram.

Jokes on you, I’ll cash out by then and move to the next gig.

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#176

Post by hliyan »

wiseowise wrote: post #170
ozim wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are people who write genuinely interesting stuff there as well. I use block option there quite a lot. That cleans up my experience rather well.

Can to share some of them? Genuinely curious.

I don't know if I'm helping make things better or adding to the problem, but here's the sort of thing I share with my audience: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/day-life-hft-developer-two-de...

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#178

Post by cjs_ac »

hansmayer wrote: post #105

This is hilarious actually. I am starting to lean into "AI-dangerous" camp, but not because the chatbot will ever become sentient. Its precisely because of increasingly widespread adoption of un-reliable tools by the incompetent but self-confident Office Worker (R).

The weakest point in any computer system is the bag of meat operating the thing.

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#179

Post by dxdm »

p_ing wrote: post #162
AlienRobot wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There is no singular publishing org at MSFT. Each product publishes its own docs, generally following a style guide. But the doc process is up to the doc owner(s).

I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#180

Post by tovej »

nxobject wrote: post #71
Animats wrote: post #59

This is so out of hand. There's this. There's that video from Los Alamos discussed yesterday on HN, the one with a fake shot of some AI generated machinery. The image was purchased from Alamy Stock Photo. I recently saw a fake documentary about the famous GG-1 locomotive; the video had AI-generated images that looked wrong, despite GG-1 pictures being widely available. YouTube is creating fake images as thumbnails fo…

> recently saw a fake documentary about the famous GG-1 locomotive It wouldn’t happen to be a certain podcast about engineering disasters, now, would it?

Well there's your problem? That one always seemed very well researched to me.
Post reply on HN