>DUMMY MODE ON!<
Liked that, it has been a while. I thought I picked up the signs of bringing management stack theory into practice and wasn't disappointed. Extra thumbs up for making the boss think he has a cunning plan.
4255 publicly visible posts • joined 24 Apr 2007
Liked that, it has been a while. I thought I picked up the signs of bringing management stack theory into practice and wasn't disappointed. Extra thumbs up for making the boss think he has a cunning plan.
Didn't affect an entire network, but I do recall a scary experience with a computer that was controlling a 1.5m diameter IR telescope high up in the mountains of Switzerland. We we testing a new IR spectrograph, and one of the instructions I got from the engineer was that I should not move the telescope below -10 degrees declination, or else the liquid nitrogen and liquid helium might get poured out of the system, and various things might fail dramatically. The software controlling the telescope was, lets say, "interesting" in that an English language user interface was a late addition (afterthought is the correct phrase). It was very basic: it would prompt you for the coordinates of the object of interest, show the coordinates on the screen, and ask for confirmation by asking "Is this OK?".
At one point, I noticed I made a typo in the coordinates of the object of interest, entering -16 deg declination rather than -6 deg. At the prompt "Is this OK?" I dutifully entered "N" for no, just as I had successfully entered "Y" for yes previously. I was horrified to see the cheerful response I had seen so often before "Then I go!", and could hear the telescope motors start humming. There was no way to stop this before it pointed to this low position in the sky. Apparently, the user interface would consider any character input as a thumbs up, except for Cntrl-D (Unix EOF). We rushed upstairs expect all kinds of damage caused by this action. Luckily, the spectrograph survived this abuse, and worked fine for the rest of the session. I did suggest to our Italian hosts that they might want to update their UI and manuals.
Some repressed memories are rearing their ugly heads at the mere mention of Clippy. What is it that makes artificial cheerfulness (AC) make me as a user feel the need to apply the 230 V kind of AC to various parts of a computer's anatomy that were never intended for it? Let's face it, Eddy the shipboard computer in the HHGTTG was far more annoying than Marvin the paranoid android ever could be.
Lucky the drill was sufficiently insulating to prevent a truly shocking experience. This is precisely why I like these little cable detection gimmicks, even if the plans of the building are available and show where the wires should be. I have encountered enough short-cuts and assorted wiring horrors (including a yellow/green wire carrying 220 V AC) that I don't trust anything. Measure twice, drill once, one might say.
"Budget item 4857 rings less bells than an unemployed hunchback."
Some students passing by my office were rather startled by my hoot of laughter. I will just let them think I was grading exams, and I had just come across some of the more hilarious answers (like blithely stating that the square root of -4 equals -2, and happily suggesting that value ass a plausible focal length for a camera lens).
Very hair-raising experience
I once had someone want to weld components to a printed circuit board of a stage light controller I had built and maintained for a student drama society. I suggested soldering was the better option. As she was doing some practice soldering on a little spare PCB, she kept confusing the terms, so when she next called the soldering iron a welding tool I couldn't resist going "KZZZEERT!" when she next put the soldering tip on the PCB. Apart from confusing the terms, she was very capable, and did an excellent job. I kept up the occasional "KZZZEERT!" until she got the terminology right.
A former colleague of mine disabled the loudspeaker in his office due to the deafening sound of the test alarms set off each first Monday of the month, by opening the box up and snipping through the wires. This wasn't as daft as it sounds, because there was another speaker in the corridor outside his office, which produced such an ear-splitting volume that if you couldn't hear that with the office door closed, you were probably beyond help already.
I have found many smoke detectors happily go off when enough steam develops in the kitchen, or just when you are frying or grilling something, which is why I put a CO detector in ours (and another one near the central heating system). It doesn't respond to usual cooking activity, but should respond to an actual fire.
Narrow escape there. Reminds me of the time I was showing some students around the Centre for High Performance Computing at the university, and we came across the fridge-sized cabinet housing the Cray J932. Not much to look at, but with an impressively big rectangular green LED showing the machine was up and running, and a (very well recessed) power button below. One student asked what would happen if he pressed that button, whereupon I said that two little semicircular steel claws would come out and clip off his finger, and if that malfunctioned I had a set of pliers to complete the job. He seemed to accept that "explanation."
I still work in LaTeX, and most if not all computer science journals I submit to allow LaTeX, although Word templates are usually available as well. Especially with online collaborative tools like Overleaf, multi-author editing works flawlessly in LaTeX, whereas opening a docx file on a machine with a slightly different install of Office can cause all sorts of changes in layout, and you are suddenly over the page limit for the journal (this was a while ago, maybe Office 365 solves these issues). My last few encounters with journals or books that wanted docx format were not pleasant experiences, especially because I need to use a lot of equations, and need to refer to them easily. Word is fine for many simpler things, but I have sworn never to submit any of my scientific writing in Word. It is not worth the aggravation.
Apart from the caveats raised by the authors of the study, there is of course the issue of how ChatGPT and its ilk will develop, and we may be locked in a perpetual arms race between educators wanting to test writing skills of students, and increasingly sophisticated tools for students to hide their lack of said skills. A similar arms race may develop between editors of journals and authors on production and assessment of original work. Educators at least have the last resort of the written exam, in controlled conditions, but as editor of a journal it is going to be very hard to detect AI-generated text from original writing of the authors whose name is on the front page of a paper. Style changes would not necessarily mean much in multi-authored papers, as different people may be the main author of different parts.
AI tools are certainly not going to go away. We need to learn to live with them
We live in interesting times