I guess now we finally know why Babbage never finished building the Analytical Engine.

all 89 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 65 points 1 year ago

That quote is my favorite example of a very polite wtf

  • source
  • [–] 144 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Ada Lovelace invented coding on that thing btw

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 164 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    And then had the wisdom to die before a computer capable of running her programs was invented, thus saving the bother of having to debug them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 47 points 1 year ago

    Writes code.

    Realises that debugging code that was written by the lunatic that is yourself two nights ago is going to be a big part of her life.

    dies

    We've all had debugging sessions where that feels like the best option. Right?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Debugging was easier when all you had to do was spray the room with fly spray and vacuum the tubes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Just that the Analytical Engine she'd have had to debug was all gears and levers and cranks and linkages and shit. One wrong move and it'll take off a finger, or a hand, or more.

    In hindsight, if modern computers were like this, probably users would be different, too...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I realize you jest, but I bet she did actually debug them by running through them by hand. I've found and fixed many bugs via code review without actually running into the bug during a run. Plus wtf else was there to do in the 1800s? Debugging might have been relatively highly entertaining in those days.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    I'm sure she did. I've also heard that when computers could run her code existed someone tried to run her programs and found several simple bugs that had not been seen before even though they are obvious. (I don't know how to verify that claim but it wouldn't surprise me)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 89 points 1 year ago (24 children)

    I always assumed they were asking if it was rigged.

    Like, i can write function sum(a, b) that always returns 10, and impress people how it's correct when I pass in 1,9 and 2,8 and 3,7. But if I pass in 7,7 it'll still return the "right" answer of 10, because it's rigged and not actually doing math.

  • source
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 121 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    That's a good point, but a few decades of talking to clients has led to a number of conversations like this where they want it to "just work", even if they've input the wrong information.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 56 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Clients? Shit happens in my house.

    "My monitor keeps turning off."

    "Ok next time it happens ill look at it and see if i can figure out what is going on."

    "Cant you just fix it?"

    "Fix what? I dont know whats wrong yet."

    "Just fix the monitor."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Legitimately, about 1/3 of the time my mere presence seems to magically fix the issue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    There was a thread on Reddit where people likewise noted that having another person try problematic software solved the issue. So one commenter regaled how a dude sidestepped the whole rigmarole by saying to his colleague “look, this thing's broken again”, and then before the other guy could step in, he clicked the thing himself, and it worked.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Sometimes I wonder if people really do affect their environment with their thoughts and attitudes and maybe people who believe in ghosts but don't believe in technology can see ghosts and have their tech fail in unexplainable ways, but the presence of someone who understands and believes in it changes the way it works and doesn't see paranormal shit because they don't believe in it.

    Like my ex believed in paranormal stuff and apparently experienced some herself and also had her tech stuff fail spectacularly in ways I couldn't replicate if I tried but would otherwise work fine for me.

    Though I do have a feeling that if their activity on the PC was recorded, it would actually turn out to be just them lying about (or not even knowing) what they did and the behavior of the tech being as logical as usual, given their actions. Or they just ran into a rare race condition and the correct actions fail like 0.3% of the time.

    But it would be more interesting if it was the other thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I've started defaulting to just saying "yes" with my family and pretending to fix it. I'm actually thankful for the laptop revolution, cause I can just say "it's fucked, buy a new one."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago

    One time my boss asked me to basically solve the Travelling salesman problem.

    My first pass at ot was a simple grab closest neighbor solution, but that left a slightly unoptimal path and my boss asked me to "fix" it. I explained to him why, no, I can't make it both fast amd accurate, pick one, while also showing him that wikipedia page. I was so mad when he said just make it more accurate ignoring now it takes hours to run sometimes only to save 10 seconds of a machine moving.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago

    Alternatively, people could genuinely believe the primitive computer is a "thinking machine". So if you fat-finger an input, will the machine know you made a mistake and intuitively correct you? Not unlike asking "Hey, I've got ten days of vacation, can I take two weeks off?" And your coworker - knowing a week is seven days, but you're only referring to business days - responds "Yes".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    No, they were literally asking if the machine was able to return the right result if the person didn't enter it ccorrectly. You know, like how some people expect search engines and AI to give them the answer they want even if they use the wrong words.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Oh like when you type "population of tenton" and it returns "Did you mean Trenton? That population is XYZ"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago*

    Yes, except in the case of Babbage's machine they were asking if putting 1235 instead of 1234 would give the same answer.

    Search engines work that way because of having large large datasets and pattern recognition that can suggest based on typos. Calculators don't do that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago*

    i.e. "I'm not smart enough, nor dumb enough, to understand how you arrived at such a stupid question."

  • source
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    And thus the role of QA was born.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 42 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    So the I-d10t bug has been around since the beginning, it seems.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I've also heard it referred to as PICNIC: Problem In Chair, Not In Computer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago

    Confusion of ideas in, garbage out.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    Works on my machine

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Wasn't it a member of Parliament who asked him this? Or was that addition apocryphal?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    No idea, but wouldn't be surprised at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Old enough to remember Babbages video game store. I'd spend hours re-reading the descriptions on the back of every game box. Joy. Great share, thanks!

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Ah yes, I remember being in the store when Charles Babbage himself would brag about his high score in Asteroids. Or that time he gave me a copy of the Doom shareware on 3.5" floppy. /s

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Don't you mean 5 and a quarter pence?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago (7 children)
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    it has limited memory but could me expanded, by a lot. but I'm theory yes, no display though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Pff, who needs a display? Just do that Matrix thing and render the raw state in your head.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    Being extremely, extremely generous, maybe they meant a human would notice the input was incorrect? But even then, a human could notice the same when inputting it into a computer.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    [off topic?]

    https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-difference-engine-a-novel-william-gibson/0a5ffa44e0f3f9f1

    "The Difference Engine" Fifty years ago, Ada Lovelace and Charles Babbage gave the British empire the first working computer. Since that time, life has changed vastly in some areas, but remained the same in others. Great novel.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I remember when someone built one on Minecraft. Those were the best days of minecraft.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Isn’t the whole point of autocorrect to put the wrong input but still get the right output?

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Not exactly. An autocorrect is a closest-match or prediction device with correct input given beforehand. When you type "fridsy", what it does is to answer the question "between fridsy and this set of words, what is the shortest distance?"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    But to the user, it can correct their inputs. The rest is an abstraction. My point is that there’s more to a platform than just precise calculations. Obviously the asker isn’t thinking this far ahead, but Babbage is also rather flippant in his response.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 6 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    I mean, that’s a hyperbole. I think there’s more depth to this question from our point of view than just what’s on the surface.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 10 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Isn’t this just dependent on the level of abstraction? At the low level a CPU is just a calculator.

    Presumably the user has a way to enter these digits. If they’re using a touchscreen, then there’s plenty of algorithms being used to make sure the intended touch target is triggered, even if they touch something in between.

    There’s a lot of effort into making sure the user gets the intended result even if their input is fuzzy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Are you just being purposefully dense?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    No. But there’s no point in talking to a troll.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    AI Troglodyte: Of course the answer is yes! Money please!

  • source