the startups i work with require actually more diverse knowledge then the jobs most people at google do

at google most jobs are fixing bugs in their code and managing simple bits of data

compared to robotic applications

which require sensor fusion

path planning

and so on

all of these are in google as well but ONLY IN BOSTON DYNAMICS

and even that is still not the best place

but most developers google hires only work on apps

because google likes to pretend they are smart but do the exact opposite

and dumb down both interally their code and so on

IBM literally does the same

i have a few friends who work at IBM and they told me that all they do is take open source software change it up a bit and claim ibm made them

big companies no longer innovate

they get small companies to do so then buy them up

and lock those developers in that particular job

when they were small companies

if you want to actually learn programming or actually be creative you need to go for small companies

which one

name 1 innovation that they made that was truly ground breaking

actually i know a few of the people who worked on their bioinformatics thing (friend of mine got a job interview with them and she dragged me along)

those people were SO FUCKING insecure

within the last 20 years

they made innovative stuff ya in 1990 and 1970s

but now they are just repurposing and rebranding stuff they made

they made ipods before that as well

after there were quite a few other companies which were already making "smart" phones

it is still not an innovative technology

that is literally just taking something and changing it

E.A. Johnson is believed to be the first to develop the touchscreen in 1965. But the tablet, which was patented in 1969, could only read one touch at a time, and it was used for air traffic control until about 1995.

no this is the LOWEST form of engineering actually

Bent Stumpe and Frank Beck, two engineers at CERN, developed a transparent, capacitive touch screen in the early 1970s. This kind of screen relies on having an object pressing particularly hard against its surface, and will only react to certain objects like a stylus. It was manufactured by CERN and utilized in 1973.

they literally have not done ANYTHING

they claim it is but it is stuff first year engineering students are capable of doing

if you REALLY push them

but it is not innovation if you take things that have been invented and then claim you invented it

i am using a Motorola but currently am using a Dell XPS 15

which is a gift from one of the companies i work with

we had personal assistant devices that Microsoft made in 1990s

which were basically ipods just with slower processors

there are TONS of things that are still new

MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF THINGS

ok what about a way of using quantum mechanics on a larger scale?

what about actual nano bots which can go inside the bloodstream that FULLY WORK

they do not provide enough information

Yep, they provide info you give them

quantum computing that is not bullshit

no

Yep, they provide info you give them

but not what caused that fault

and without that cause it is useless

but not what caused that fault

What you want is a stack trace. I've seen that in D

What you want is a stack trace. I've seen that in D

i have stack traces in C and C++

that i use for seg faults

C++ should have that in C++20, not likely or C++23 hopefully

and this even is how i do some of my debugging for other kind of faults and some of my log messages

C++ should have that in C++20, not likely or C++23 hopefully

and then we might be able to use that in 2026-2027

because it takes time for these compilers to mature in that standard

and fix bugs

so for this long you have to make your own homemade things

no it actually has not if it did then every theoritical physicist i know would literally be jizzing in their pants but they are not because we are still nowhere close to using what the theoritical physicists found for us

and then we might be able to use that in 2026-2027

Honestly, that had never been my problem. I customise the error thrown and when the messages displays, I'm good to go

we still have to also make biological computers

because it takes time for these compilers to mature in that standard

Nope, not anymore

Honestly, that had never been my problem. I customise the error thrown and when the messages displays, I'm good to go

ya and that works for small projects

I don't which C++ you're using

g++

and fix bugs

There's always bugs

c++ has poor error management techniques

.. I have no words

g++

version ?

I use Clang and GCC

7 to support for cuda and 8 for personal projects

i also use both arm cross compiler g++ and intel x86_64 g++

Noice

i use currently standard 14

I'd like the ISO C++ to fix a lot of things

i tried using standard 17

But I believe they're being careful

for an industrial project when it came out

OK

and it just was unusable

and it just was unusable

?