Stéphane Dalbera’s Post

↫↫↫↫↫ sɪɢɴᴇᴅ ʟᴀɴɢᴜᴀɢᴇs ↬↬↬↬↬ A very useful sign for a punchy summary of your meetings 😇

╰☆☆ ɴᴏ, ɴᴏsǫʟ ɪsɴ'ᴛ ᴀ ᴍɪʀᴀᴄʟᴇ sᴏʟᴜᴛɪᴏɴ ☆☆╮ Although NoSQL solutions are interesting when used properly, it is clear that fewer and fewer people master the Relational Model and that this has serious consequences for the quality of solutions. NoSQL is just another tool in our toolbox, not a pauperization of what we can implement. There is no silver bullet.

╰☆☆ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇᴍᴘɪʀɪᴄᴀʟ ʟᴀᴡs ᴏғ sᴏᴄɪᴀʟ ɴᴇᴛᴡᴏʀᴋs ☆☆╮ Based on my observations, two empirical laws come to mind.: - 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐦𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 (𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞) 𝐢𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬. - 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐚𝐥-𝐭𝐨-𝐧𝐨𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞. With a threshold effect, the phenomenon appears to be triggered only by genuinely significant audience successes.

╰☆☆ ᴘᴀsᴛ ᴘᴇʀғᴏʀᴍᴀɴᴄᴇ ɪs ɴᴏ ɢᴜᴀʀᴀɴᴛᴇᴇ ᴏғ ғᴜᴛᴜʀᴇ ʀᴇsᴜʟᴛs ☆☆╮ I'm always surprised by the magical thinking that underpins so many posts, especially from those without technical or scientific training. Believing that we can extrapolate a continuous trend from the impressive progress of a technology is shortsighted. No, the predictive or even programmatic power of Moore's empirical law is not a universal law of technology, far from it. Many technologies that initially experienced exponential growth have eventually hit nearly insurmountable limits. Believing that the impressive successes of one era are indisputable evidence of continuous exponential progress is a mistake. Let's beware of this bias, the source of much golden calf bullshit.

╰☆☆ ɪɴғᴏʀᴍᴀᴛɪᴏɴ ᴛʜᴇᴏʀʏ: ɴᴇxᴛ sᴛᴇᴘ ☆☆╮ I often highlight the great 𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐮𝐝𝐞 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐧 and his work 🫡 If his master's thesis "𝘼 𝙎𝙮𝙢𝙗𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙘 𝘼𝙣𝙖𝙡𝙮𝙨𝙞𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙍𝙚𝙡𝙖𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙎𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝘾𝙞𝙧𝙘𝙪𝙞𝙩𝙨" alone could secure him a place in the pantheon of computer science, 𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐮𝐝𝐞 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐧's masterpiece is undoubtedly his 1948 article: "𝘼 𝙈𝙖𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙤𝙧𝙮 𝙤𝙛 𝘾𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙪𝙣𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣."👀 https://lnkd.in/dX8zaSbY ---- Based on my observations of LinkedIn, two empirical laws come to mind.: - 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐦𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬. - 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐚𝐥-𝐭𝐨-𝐧𝐨𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞. With a threshold effect, the phenomenon appears to be triggered only by genuinely significant audience successes.

╰☆☆ ғʀᴇɴᴄʜ ᴛʜᴇᴏʀʏ : ᴘᴇɴᴅᴜʟᴇ ᴅᴇ ғᴏᴜᴄᴀᴜʟᴛ ☆☆╮ Michel Foucault passed away 40 years ago.

↫↫↫↫↫ ʟʟᴍs & ᴅᴇᴠ : ᴛʜᴇ sᴇʀɪᴏᴜs ᴘᴀʀᴛ ↬↬↬↬↬ The rapid ascent of large language models (LLMs) is a double-edged sword, fueling both innovation and an abundance of misinformation. It has sparked a wave of magical thinking, baseless assertions, sensationalized press releases treated as indisputable truths, and predictions lacking scientific grounding. This phenomenon manipulates FOMO (Fear of Missing Out), fosters irrational beliefs, and borders on a new form of mysticism—in essence, it perpetuates irrationality. In this context, serious works are rare and those of the CodeScene teams are to be praised. I'm sharing with you today this study conducted by Adam Tornhill, Markus Borg & Enys Mones 🫡 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘣𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘬 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘓𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘦 𝘓𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘶𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘔𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘴 (𝘓𝘓𝘔𝘴) 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘥𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘢𝘴𝘬𝘴. 𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘪𝘮 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘥𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘴. #LLMs #IA #Dev #Refactoring

¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 𝐁𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐅𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐲 : 𝐃𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐝 𝐊𝐧𝐮𝐭𝐡 ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ To wrap up a week dedicated to celebrating the gold-standard geek humor of the great 𝐃𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐝 𝐊𝐧𝐮𝐭𝐡, I'm continuing with my #BecauseItsFriday by republishing this. ---- 𝐊𝐧𝐮𝐭𝐡's first scientific publication was in one of the most prestigious and selective peer-reviewed journals: Mad 🫡 𝘒𝘯𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 “𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤” 𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘴𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘮𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘻𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘯 1957 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘭𝘦 “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘰𝘵𝘳𝘻𝘦𝘣𝘪𝘦 𝘚𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘞𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘔𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴”. 𝘐𝘯 𝘪𝘵, 𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘵𝘩 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘔𝘢𝘥 𝘕𝘰. 26, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 “𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘺”. 𝘔𝘢𝘥 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦 𝘕𝘰. 33 (𝘑𝘶𝘯𝘦 1957). ᴛʜᴇ ɢᴏᴀᴛ🖖 #geekhumor #BecauseItsFriday

↫↫↫↫↫ ᴋɴᴜᴛʜ's ʙᴏᴜɴᴛʏ ʜᴜɴᴛᴇʀ ↬↬↬↬↬ This morning, François 🐙 Pacull and I discussed the various awards and honors available to computer science researchers. There is a very prestigious but little-known award that recipients proudly frame and display on their office walls : The 𝐊𝐧𝐮𝐭𝐡 reward checks 🤑 𝐊𝐧𝐮𝐭𝐡 reward checks are unique checks or certificates given by computer scientist 𝐃𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐝 𝐊𝐧𝐮𝐭𝐡 to individuals who identify technical, typographical, or historical errors, or offer significant suggestions for his publications. But 𝐊𝐧𝐮𝐭𝐡 being the gold standard of geek humor : In the preface of each of his books and on his website, 𝐃𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐝 𝐊𝐧𝐮𝐭𝐡 offers a reward of $2.56 to the first person who finds an error in his published works, whether it be technical, typographical, or historical. 𝐊𝐧𝐮𝐭𝐡 explains that $2.56, or 256 cents, is equivalent to one hexadecimal dollar. Initially, 𝐃𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐝 𝐊𝐧𝐮𝐭𝐡 sent real, negotiable checks to recipients who found errors in his works, but he stopped in October 2008 due to check fraud. Instead, he established the fictional "Bank of San Serriffe" and now sends "hexadecimal certificates." By October 2001, Knuth had written over 2,000 checks with an average value of over $8 each, and by March 2005, the total value exceeded $20,000. Most recipients framed these checks as trophies rather than cashing them.