zlacker

>>tablet+(OP)
One thing that I find truly amazing is just the simple fact that you can now be fuzzy with the input you give a computer, and get something meaningful in return. Like, as someone who grew up learning to code in the 90s it always seemed like science fiction that we'd get to a point where you could give a computer some vague human level instructions and get it more or less do what you want.

>>gdubs+Z
There's the old quote from Babbage:

> On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.

This has been an obviously absurd question for two centuries now. Turns out the people asking that question were just visionaries ahead of their time.

It is kind of impressive how I'll ask for some code in the dumbest, vaguest, sometimes even wrong way, but so long as I have the proper context built up, I can get something pretty close to what I actually wanted. Though I still have problems where I can ask as precisely as possible and get things not even close to what I'm looking for.

>>forgot+zG
We wanted to check the clock at the wrong time but read the correct time. Since a broken clock is right twice a day, we broke the clock, which solves our problem some of the time!

>>Cobras+xM
The nice thing is that a fully broken clock is accurate more often than a slightly deviated clock.

>>pca006+St1
A clock that's 5 seconds, 5 minutes, or 5 hours ahead, or counts an hour as 61 minutes, is still more useful than a clock that does not move it's hands at all.