59 Matching Annotations
  1. Jul 2025
  2. Jun 2025
    1. It appears that we have few specific environments (factory facilities) forthe economical production of programs. I contend that the productioncosts are affected far more adversely by the absence of such anenvironment than by the absence of any tools in the environment… Afactory supplies power, work space, shipping and receiving, labordistribution, and financial controls, etc. Thus a software factory should bea programming environment residing upon and controlled by a computer.Program construction, checkout and usage should be done entirely withinthis environment. Ideally it should be impossible to produce programsexterior to this environment…Economical products of high quality […]are not possible (in most instances) when one instructs the programmer ingood practice and merely hopes that he will make his invisible productaccording to those rules and standards. This just does not happen underhuman supervision. A factory, however, has more than humansupervision. It has measures and controls for productivity and quality.18

      Hsu again cites only Mahoney for this, and the passage here is presented as one quote, but it's actually a quote within a quote: first Bemer and then Mahoney. The original Bemer quote ends with the second sentence ("I contend that the production costs are affected far more adversely by the absence of such an environment than by the absence of any tools in the environment…" which ends prematurely here but ends with a parenthetical "e.g. writing a program in PL/1 is using a tool"), and the remainder is Mahoney's commentary.

      The Bemer source is:

      R.W. Bemer, "Position Paper for Panel Discussion [on] the Economics of Program Production", Information Processing 68, North-Holland Publishing Company, 1969, vol. II, p. 1626.

    Tags

    Annotators

  3. May 2025

    Tags

    Annotators

    Tags

    Annotators

  4. Apr 2025
  5. Dec 2024
  6. Oct 2024
  7. Aug 2024

    Tags

    Annotators

  8. May 2024
    1. If you ask ChatGPT to cite it will provide random citations. That's different from actually training a model to cite (e.g. use supervised finetuning on citations with human raters checking whether sources match, which would also allow you to verify how accurately a model cites). This is something OpenAI could do, it just doesn't.
    2. GenAIs are not capable of citing stuff. Even if it did, there's no guarantee that the source either has anything to do with the topic in question, nor that it states the same as the generated content. Citing stuff is trivial if you don't have to care if the citation is relevant to the content, or if it says the same as you.
  9. Apr 2024
    1. I ran across an AI tool that cites its sources if anyone's interested (and heard of it yet): https://www.perplexity.ai/

      That's one of the things that I dislike the most about ChatGPT is that it just synthesizes/paraphrases the information, but doesn't let me quickly and easily check the original sources so that I can verify (and learn more about the topic by doing further reading) the information for myself. Without access to primary sources, it often feels no better than a rumor — a retelling of what someone somewhere allegedly, purportedly, ostensibly found to be true — can I really trust what ChatGPT claims? (No...)

  10. Nov 2023
    1. AIs are not capable of citing the sources of knowledge used up to the standards of the Stack Exchange network. Even when Artificial Intelligence appears to cite sources for responses, such sources may not be relevant to the original request, or may not exist at all. For Stack Overflow, this means the answer may not honestly or fairly represent the sources of knowledge used, even if someone explicitly cites the Artificial Intelligence as an author in their answer.

    Tags

    Annotators

    Tags

    Annotators

    Tags

    Annotators

  11. citeseerx.ist.psu.edu citeseerx.ist.psu.edu
  12. Oct 2023
  13. Sep 2023
  14. Aug 2023
  15. www.dreamsongs.com www.dreamsongs.com
  16. Jul 2023
    1. This is:

      Lampson, Butler W. “Software Components: Only the Giants Survive.” In Computer Systems: Theory, Technology, and Applications, edited by Andrew Herbert and Karen Spärck Jones, 137–45. Monographs in Computer Science. New York, NY: Springer, 2004. <doi:10.1007/0-387-21821-1_21>.

    Tags

    Annotators

    Tags

    Annotators

    Tags

    Annotators

  17. Jun 2023

    Tags

    Annotators

    Tags

    Annotators

    1. This is:

      Fielding, Roy T., Richard N. Taylor, Justin R. Erenkrantz, Michael M. Gorlick, Jim Whitehead, Rohit Khare, and Peyman Oreizy. “Reflections on the REST Architectural Style and ‘Principled Design of the Modern Web Architecture’ (Impact Paper Award).” In Proceedings of the 2017 11th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering, 4–14. ESEC/FSE 2017. Paderborn, Germany: Association for Computing Machinery, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1145/3106237.3121282.

    Tags

    Annotators

  18. May 2023

    Tags

    Annotators

  19. Apr 2023

    Tags

    Annotators

    Tags

    Annotators

    1. amd [sic.]

      I'm having trouble determining the source of this purported error. This PDF appears to have copied the content from the version published on kurzweilai.net, which includes the same "erratum". Meanwhile, however, this document which looks like it could plausibly be a scan of the original contains no such error: https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/dod/readingroom/16a/977.pdf

      I wonder if someone transcribed the memo with this "amd" error and that copy was widely distributed (e.g. during the BBS era?) and then someone came across that copy and inserted the "[sic]" adornments.

    Tags

    Annotators

  20. Dec 2022
  21. Sep 2022
    1. (I feel like I tweeted about this and/or saw it somewhere, but can't find the link)

      visible-web-page looks to have been published and/or written on 2022 June 26.

      I emailed Omar a few weeks earlier (on 2022 June 7) with with a link to plain.txt.htm, i.e., an assembler (for Wirth's RISC machine/.rsc object format) written as a text file that happens to also allow you to run it if you're viewing the text file in your browser.

      (The context of the email was that I'd read an @rsnous tweet(?) that "stuff for humans should be the default context, and the highly constrained stuff parsed by the computer should be an exceptional mod within that", and I recognized this as the same principle that Raskin had espoused across two pieces in ACM Queue: The Woes of IDEs and Comments Are More Important Than Code. Spurred by Omar's comments on Twitter, I sent him a link to the latter article and plain.txt.htm, and then (the next day) the former article, since I'd forgotten to include it in the original email.)

  22. Aug 2022
  23. Jul 2022
    1. i mean i have a whole speech about that

      @03:06:54:

      Blow: I mean I have a whole speech about that that I can link you to as well.

      Should that be necessary? "Links" (URLs) are just a mechanical way to follow a citation to the source. So to "link you" to it is as easy as giving it a name and then saying that name. In this case, the names are URLs. Naming things is said to be hard, but it's (probably) not as hard as advertised. It turns out that the hard part is getting people to actually do it.

  24. Jun 2022
  25. Jul 2021
  26. Oct 2020
  27. Dec 2016