You missed the point. The point is that almost all software today follows the same general ideas, patterns, etc.

The quality of the output of AI is not tied to what these patterns are used towards. Even if, say, your tool has a completely new network protocol. An LLM will still "understand" that it is a network protocol, that it serializes following rules that you tell it, serializes and deserializes the way you decide, then it will write that down in a memory and be able to work with that.

A new file format? Same. A very specialized new kind of No-SQL database that fits your very specific tool better? It will also write down in a file how it works and be able to use that.

It's as good as the documentation you give it is. Which, for basic things such as setting up a basic REST API, it has learned in its training data. If it hasn't, it's up to you to provide it, and it will be perfectly able to use it.

Even if you build some weird unique assembly language it will be able to use it if you give it the set of instructions and their documentation.

I don't think history will remember that he did not do something, especially something that he had no power to do. He'll be remembered for what he did.

If they had no cards, LFI wouldn't need them. You're contradicting yourself.

Yes, they should compromise. They're obviously not big enough to win on their own, so they should compromise like all the others. They refuse to do so, and the logical consequence is that other parties refuse to join them.

If you think that having more popularity makes them the absolute authority of the left and every other party should bow to their ideas, we have nothing to discuss.

They refuse to compromise with parties less liberal than them as well, by the way. They refuse to compromise no matter the agenda.

No, they want the other left parties to agree to all their conditions and refuse to compromise on their positions. I'm all for a united left but LFI is a big part of the problem.

And a catchy one, but not really meaningful or correct.

The whole comment showcases how little they know about running a business. Marketing works. But of course we the consumer don't notice it works, because we think "Well I never click on an ad..." which also reflects on advertisement statistics.

But that's not the point of ads, at least not anymore. The point is you saw the brand. You saw what they do. Everytime you see the brand name or logo, everytime you see the product, your brain registers it. You might not realise it, but it does. And when the time comes you need a product like that, that's where the value of marketing shows. Because you'll browse, research, or whatever you do when you decide you need something. And you'll see the brand, and you'll see the name, and you'll think "Hmm I've heard of them before" and immediately place them higher in your mind than a competitor with 0 ad budget.

Well that's something else, but it doesnt change the fact thaft an election can be a small group of people electing a nation leader.

I am a dev as well, and to build a website you traditionally need a dev. Well, nowadays, you can build a website with a "no code" website builder. That's the most common "no-code" use.

Not that it's relevant to this conversation, but that doesn't stop people from hiring me to build their website, because "no code" also means "limited customization" and/or "low quality".

1. The OS isn't the software building anything for you.
2. You didn't build a media center, you installed software that makes a media center. A "no-code" software that would build a media center would not make much sense, as there isn't a need for any sort of customisation that would not fit into "configuration".
3. Your point with Minecraft does make sense, but as it does not have any use outside of Minecraft, I wouldn't call Minecraft a no-code system. However, the system itself that you used inside Minecraft to build your automatic sorter would fit the definition, imo. Redstone is a no-code system, for sure.
4. Firefox didn't build it, you did.
5. A parametric font isn't something that would require any code to make, so it doesn't fit the definition. What makes a parametric font useful is its support, which requires dev work, and is not no-code.
6. A 3D print isn't something that would require a dev to do. Of course you can always model something with lines of code, but that's not how you'd sensibly do it.

"Building something" and "Building something that traditionally requires dev work" are not the same thing.

The software you use always needed code to make, but it doesn't aim to skip the "hire a dev" phase of your project. If it does, it is "no code".

And for the sake of argument, let's say that Blender doesn't exist and no other software fulfilling the same purpose exists. Then you'd have to commission a dev (team) to create that software so that you can train people to create 3D models. But the dev building your 3D modeling software doesn't typically have the skills to use the software afterwards, so it does not fit the "no-code" definition.

TL;DR: It is a "no-code" software when you can skip the "hire a dev" phase of your project and use said software instead.

Ah! That does seem useful indeed! Even just generating a bunch a dummy data.

So you're forgetting all the instances where american companies have been forced to paid fines again and again for breaching EU law, and base your opinion on one recent event?

Hmm. Naive isn't the word, no.

I don't think so. The EU is pretty good at maintaining fair competition, especially against American companies.