Never been a fan of CCGs as their business models are exploitative and inevitably lead to power creep.

Netrunner and Compile have me sorted for card games for a while.

Don’t be evil.

AI is clearly no match for little Bobby Tables.

Seems you’re putting too much thought into this. If you really can’t come up with one just try a random noun genetrator a few times until you find one you like.

But then you’re just pushing the unknown/undefined part to “feels like”.

We cannot define it properly so we can’t discuss it formally or make assertions like it’s the only thing in the universe that is not an illusion.

You could assert “Cogito, ergo sum.” but that’s kind of been done before.

I couldn’t claim to have a definition as the origins of consciousness are still unknown to science and not formally defined.

However your definition is definitely not the widely accepted one. It doesn’t even offer a proper definition, all it does is push the unknowns to “what it is like to be that organism”.

Who defines what it is to “be” something? What is the smallest unit of “being”? Are we saying that consciousness is an inherent property of organisms or could it be recreated on a computer?

Ok, I agree it can’t be an illusion the way you define it, I don’t think that would be an unpopular opinion.

I also maintain that it cannot be defined the way you define it.

Yes my point was that if there was a hypothetical being outside our universe looking in they could correctly say that our consciousness is an illusion from their subjective experience.

It’s an oversimplification because that is not the scientifically accepted definition of consciousness. It is currently undefined and seems to be an emergent property from the brain, the complex object known to us.

If the universe is a simulation then conciousness could be considered an illusion to those outside the simulation. From an internal perspective it wouldnt be an illusion as it’s the only thing that we experience.

However we have trouble even defining what counciousness is (an oversimplified quote from a philosopher doesn’t cover it) so it seems pointless to make such speculative black and white statements about it.

Oh yeah agree, he has the reverse Midas touch at the mo. Might add it coincided with the media flipping sides when they saw it was a foregone conclusion.

One of the admittedly minor things I dislike about his tetchy interview answers is when he starts going “blah blah blah…that’s why we’ve done things such as…” and then proceeds to list the one and only example of said thing.

Nowadays?!

Completely agree, requirements are key and often badly defined due to the customers’ lack of knowledge of the intricacies of the system. You are correct to ask for clarity or it could come back to bite you later on.

I’ve just had a spec through from a BA which consists entirely of screenshots of an existing system with no technical definitition of any of the requested fields so relate to this right now.

Not substantially, it had a different title and was toned down.

I withdraw the word essay and apologise for any rudeness.

Have a good one.

My original message was “Wow ok chill.” then elaborated to clarify.

Where I’m from people are way ruder than anything I said here so perhaps I misjudged the room. However, calling it out seems to have had the desired response as since posting OP went and apologised for his anger.

I in turn apologise for my rudeness to them.

Did you read it before the edits? If it’s written like that I think I’m entitled to exaggerate back slightly to make a point by calling it a rage essay.

Anywho I wouldn’t choose to rant like this to my coworkers or online. A quick 🤦 in chat usually does the trick.

Completely put to task, yep really got me there. I will never see the world in the same way again.

Also, I don’t think you understand what irony means.

You too.

Wow ok chill.

The title of this post was “I hate programming, why did I choose this field”.

I responded suggesting maybe OP isn’t suited to SQL in particular. There are plenty of other languages to learn that they might pick up quicker if they are struggling with SELECTs.

It’s partially right but led OP down the wrong lines of thinking because it interpreted the prompt as a date field being missing rather than the field named date being missing.

Tbh I don’t blame it too much here as there is kind of a base level of understanding requred to use it successfully.

Ah yes here you are successfully ignoring it.

Might not be encouraging it but you seem to be defending it.