LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

photonic69

secretsqirrel said:

https://youtu.be/H5znEigYYCw

Mr Pie.

Spot on again as usual Mr Pie

(love the boiled sweet in a hoover bag reference)

wallace_and_gromit

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:

My job is skilled but 100% in the firing line of Microsoft and AI.

This is plainly obvious to me but many people in the same industry don’t agree. I think they’re very naive.

So I help businesses implement business software. Microsoft is deskilling every single aspect of the work in a clear and visible way. I don’t think this is a bad thing. They are also introducing AI to help configure the software.

Their aim is to make it quicker and easier to setup the software with less reliance on partner organisations like the ones I work for. They want more customers quicker and to reduce reliance on 3rd parties. It all makes perfect business sense.

Personally, I still think business expertise is an essential part but my role is massively decreased to key areas where I can actually add value. There will be a fraction of the people currently doing my role in years to come. The only question on my mind is how quickly it all happens. I am making a point of being ahead of the game in breadth of knowledge. Many aren’t.

Forgive my ignorance, but wouldn’t you just shift to implementing AI as opposed to software?

It takes the actual nuts and bolts of coding out of the equation. Essentially if you can write a detailed functional requirements document, AI can do the rest. Still need someone to analyse and determine requirements though. Shifts the balance away from specialist houses.

This basically. So you still need people with knowledge about the software and business process.

But fewer of them can do more work.

Doesn't it just become another language?

From the limited experiments I've done with the system/language I know most about, if I prompt ChatGPT with "write a report that displays sales orders created in the last 5 days that are not rejected and are relevant for delivery but have not started the delivery process", it will write the code (and did it correctly, with decent naming conventions). And give an explanation of what it had done.

For more complex requirements, I'd need to specify more details of what I needed, obviously, and I would need to know what to ask for. But it's functional language, not technical.

Sounds quite useful. I asked it which restaurants were airside at CDG. It just made stuff up.

With my optimistic hat on re employment levels, I foresee a world where x people have been made unemployed after being replaced by ChatGPT, but 2x people are then needed to check ChatGPT's outputs.

If it's outputs cannot be relied upon for factual accuracy (and that's my experience, too) then I'm not sure how it improves productivity.

I was being slightly tongue in cheek, but during my professional life so much number crunching has been automated that you'd think there would be no need for human number crunchers any more. Yet there are veritable armies of number crunchers who find ways to do analysis that previous wasn't possible, or even conceived of. This new analysis then gets automated, and the cycle repeats itself.

Whether this is a good thing for society is an open question. After all, the "quants" having too much spare time in the run up to the financial crisis led to them blowing up the banking system, but in terms of employment, the threat of automation is not necessarily going to be a problem.

Quants ... there are still an absolute tonne of them in banking.

They are far too resilient to be seen off by mere AI.

But as an aside, who did nearly blow up the banking system? I know the answer to this having worked through the GFC and its aftermath. I'm just curious for you take on it, given that you can only have second hand experience of the period.

briantrumpet

secretsqirrel said:

https://youtu.be/H5znEigYYCw

Mr Pie.

Perfect use of the C word... he saved it for the right moment, and then used its expected repeat perfectly too.

orraloon

The Spaffer fanbois on here have gone somewhat quiet. Odd that.

rjsterry

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:

My job is skilled but 100% in the firing line of Microsoft and AI.

This is plainly obvious to me but many people in the same industry don’t agree. I think they’re very naive.

So I help businesses implement business software. Microsoft is deskilling every single aspect of the work in a clear and visible way. I don’t think this is a bad thing. They are also introducing AI to help configure the software.

Their aim is to make it quicker and easier to setup the software with less reliance on partner organisations like the ones I work for. They want more customers quicker and to reduce reliance on 3rd parties. It all makes perfect business sense.

Personally, I still think business expertise is an essential part but my role is massively decreased to key areas where I can actually add value. There will be a fraction of the people currently doing my role in years to come. The only question on my mind is how quickly it all happens. I am making a point of being ahead of the game in breadth of knowledge. Many aren’t.

Forgive my ignorance, but wouldn’t you just shift to implementing AI as opposed to software?

It takes the actual nuts and bolts of coding out of the equation. Essentially if you can write a detailed functional requirements document, AI can do the rest. Still need someone to analyse and determine requirements though. Shifts the balance away from specialist houses.

This basically. So you still need people with knowledge about the software and business process.

But fewer of them can do more work.

Doesn't it just become another language?

From the limited experiments I've done with the system/language I know most about, if I prompt ChatGPT with "write a report that displays sales orders created in the last 5 days that are not rejected and are relevant for delivery but have not started the delivery process", it will write the code (and did it correctly, with decent naming conventions). And give an explanation of what it had done.

For more complex requirements, I'd need to specify more details of what I needed, obviously, and I would need to know what to ask for. But it's functional language, not technical.

Sounds quite useful. I asked it which restaurants were airside at CDG. It just made stuff up.

With my optimistic hat on re employment levels, I foresee a world where x people have been made unemployed after being replaced by ChatGPT, but 2x people are then needed to check ChatGPT's outputs.

If it's outputs cannot be relied upon for factual accuracy (and that's my experience, too) then I'm not sure how it improves productivity.

Even with CAD design packages of the past 20 odd year in my line of work and, no doubt, yours there has been an element of users accepting the output without being able to cast an eye over the results and sense check. It makes me worry about what will happen when AI becomes more prevalent.

Yes, producing a drawing that conveys little, misleading or incorrect information is easy enough whether by hand sketch, CAD drawing or AI generated image. I've seen lots of AI architectural visualizations and they all have that slightly soulless feel because there are by definition no ideas from which the image has been generated. They are just mashups of half-remembered second hand ideas.

Jezyboy

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:

My job is skilled but 100% in the firing line of Microsoft and AI.

This is plainly obvious to me but many people in the same industry don’t agree. I think they’re very naive.

So I help businesses implement business software. Microsoft is deskilling every single aspect of the work in a clear and visible way. I don’t think this is a bad thing. They are also introducing AI to help configure the software.

Their aim is to make it quicker and easier to setup the software with less reliance on partner organisations like the ones I work for. They want more customers quicker and to reduce reliance on 3rd parties. It all makes perfect business sense.

Personally, I still think business expertise is an essential part but my role is massively decreased to key areas where I can actually add value. There will be a fraction of the people currently doing my role in years to come. The only question on my mind is how quickly it all happens. I am making a point of being ahead of the game in breadth of knowledge. Many aren’t.

Forgive my ignorance, but wouldn’t you just shift to implementing AI as opposed to software?

It takes the actual nuts and bolts of coding out of the equation. Essentially if you can write a detailed functional requirements document, AI can do the rest. Still need someone to analyse and determine requirements though. Shifts the balance away from specialist houses.

This basically. So you still need people with knowledge about the software and business process.

But fewer of them can do more work.

Doesn't it just become another language?

From the limited experiments I've done with the system/language I know most about, if I prompt ChatGPT with "write a report that displays sales orders created in the last 5 days that are not rejected and are relevant for delivery but have not started the delivery process", it will write the code (and did it correctly, with decent naming conventions). And give an explanation of what it had done.

For more complex requirements, I'd need to specify more details of what I needed, obviously, and I would need to know what to ask for. But it's functional language, not technical.

Sounds quite useful. I asked it which restaurants were airside at CDG. It just made stuff up.

With my optimistic hat on re employment levels, I foresee a world where x people have been made unemployed after being replaced by ChatGPT, but 2x people are then needed to check ChatGPT's outputs.

If it's outputs cannot be relied upon for factual accuracy (and that's my experience, too) then I'm not sure how it improves productivity.

If it can do the legwork between requirements documents to code then it's powerful...

However I wonder about the security implications of feeding your software requirements into someone else's AI system.

I think it's prudent to be slightly more worried about ai than Rick, but I think there are good reasons why it's not quite the apocalypse that some are predicting.

briantrumpet

orraloon said:

The Spaffer fanbois on here have gone somewhat quiet. Odd that.

Ah, you forget, the sole remit of Johnson was to wind up lefties... the norms of parliament and the fortunes of the UK (or even the Tory Party) were never Johnson's concern, so he did a good job on those terms.

TheBigBean

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:

My job is skilled but 100% in the firing line of Microsoft and AI.

This is plainly obvious to me but many people in the same industry don’t agree. I think they’re very naive.

So I help businesses implement business software. Microsoft is deskilling every single aspect of the work in a clear and visible way. I don’t think this is a bad thing. They are also introducing AI to help configure the software.

Their aim is to make it quicker and easier to setup the software with less reliance on partner organisations like the ones I work for. They want more customers quicker and to reduce reliance on 3rd parties. It all makes perfect business sense.

Personally, I still think business expertise is an essential part but my role is massively decreased to key areas where I can actually add value. There will be a fraction of the people currently doing my role in years to come. The only question on my mind is how quickly it all happens. I am making a point of being ahead of the game in breadth of knowledge. Many aren’t.

Forgive my ignorance, but wouldn’t you just shift to implementing AI as opposed to software?

It takes the actual nuts and bolts of coding out of the equation. Essentially if you can write a detailed functional requirements document, AI can do the rest. Still need someone to analyse and determine requirements though. Shifts the balance away from specialist houses.

This basically. So you still need people with knowledge about the software and business process.

But fewer of them can do more work.

Doesn't it just become another language?

From the limited experiments I've done with the system/language I know most about, if I prompt ChatGPT with "write a report that displays sales orders created in the last 5 days that are not rejected and are relevant for delivery but have not started the delivery process", it will write the code (and did it correctly, with decent naming conventions). And give an explanation of what it had done.

For more complex requirements, I'd need to specify more details of what I needed, obviously, and I would need to know what to ask for. But it's functional language, not technical.

Sounds quite useful. I asked it which restaurants were airside at CDG. It just made stuff up.

With my optimistic hat on re employment levels, I foresee a world where x people have been made unemployed after being replaced by ChatGPT, but 2x people are then needed to check ChatGPT's outputs.

If it's outputs cannot be relied upon for factual accuracy (and that's my experience, too) then I'm not sure how it improves productivity.

I was being slightly tongue in cheek, but during my professional life so much number crunching has been automated that you'd think there would be no need for human number crunchers any more. Yet there are veritable armies of number crunchers who find ways to do analysis that previous wasn't possible, or even conceived of. This new analysis then gets automated, and the cycle repeats itself.

Whether this is a good thing for society is an open question. After all, the "quants" having too much spare time in the run up to the financial crisis led to them blowing up the banking system, but in terms of employment, the threat of automation is not necessarily going to be a problem.

Quants ... there are still an absolute tonne of them in banking.

They are far too resilient to be seen off by mere AI.

But as an aside, who did nearly blow up the banking system? I know the answer to this having worked through the GFC and its aftermath. I'm just curious for you take on it, given that you can only have second hand experience of the period.

Can you give some credit to rating agencies?

Jezyboy

briantrumpet said:

orraloon said:

The Spaffer fanbois on here have gone somewhat quiet. Odd that.

Ah, you forget, the sole remit of Johnson was to wind up lefties... the norms of parliament and the fortunes of the UK (or even the Tory Party) were never Johnson's concern, so he did a good job on those terms.

The statements from his supportive MPs just seem bizarre. No concept of gracefully admitting defeat, or perhaps even a difference of opinions. Just attempts to smear the process, all to defend someone who doesn't give two ****s about anyone but themself.

secretsqirrel

Jezyboy said:

briantrumpet said:

orraloon said:

The Spaffer fanbois on here have gone somewhat quiet. Odd that.

Ah, you forget, the sole remit of Johnson was to wind up lefties... the norms of parliament and the fortunes of the UK (or even the Tory Party) were never Johnson's concern, so he did a good job on those terms.

The statements from his supportive MPs just seem bizarre. No concept of gracefully admitting defeat, or perhaps even a difference of opinions. Just attempts to smear the process, all to defend someone who doesn't give two ****s about anyone but themself.

The gulls following the trawler will always be gullible.

briantrumpet

Jezyboy said:

briantrumpet said:

orraloon said:

The Spaffer fanbois on here have gone somewhat quiet. Odd that.

Ah, you forget, the sole remit of Johnson was to wind up lefties... the norms of parliament and the fortunes of the UK (or even the Tory Party) were never Johnson's concern, so he did a good job on those terms.

The statements from his supportive MPs just seem bizarre. No concept of gracefully admitting defeat, or perhaps even a difference of opinions. Just attempts to smear the process, all to defend someone who doesn't give two ****s about anyone but themself.

As they are not very bright (or have a shred of shame), they are just trying to imitate Trump supporters.

Jezyboy

briantrumpet said:

Jezyboy said:

briantrumpet said:

orraloon said:

The Spaffer fanbois on here have gone somewhat quiet. Odd that.

Ah, you forget, the sole remit of Johnson was to wind up lefties... the norms of parliament and the fortunes of the UK (or even the Tory Party) were never Johnson's concern, so he did a good job on those terms.

The statements from his supportive MPs just seem bizarre. No concept of gracefully admitting defeat, or perhaps even a difference of opinions. Just attempts to smear the process, all to defend someone who doesn't give two ****s about anyone but themself.

As they are not very bright (or have a shred of shame), they are just trying to imitate Trump supporters.

Trump at least has a (decreasing) shot at the next presidency. What is the route for Johnson to get back to power? Fair enough if they could group round a Johnson continuity candidate, but when it's a cult of personality, rather than a political philosophy that wins, I guess that's quite hard.

orraloon

briantrumpet said:

Jezyboy said:

briantrumpet said:

orraloon said:

The Spaffer fanbois on here have gone somewhat quiet. Odd that.

Ah, you forget, the sole remit of Johnson was to wind up lefties... the norms of parliament and the fortunes of the UK (or even the Tory Party) were never Johnson's concern, so he did a good job on those terms.

The statements from his supportive MPs just seem bizarre. No concept of gracefully admitting defeat, or perhaps even a difference of opinions. Just attempts to smear the process, all to defend someone who doesn't give two ****s about anyone but themself.

As they are not very bright (or have a shred of shame), they are just trying to imitate Trump supporters.

So will Grease-Smug, MadNad and the rest of the cult (not going JP there 😉) be formulating a HoP insurrection day? Trump-lites gotta Trump it, don't they?

Stevo_666

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:

My job is skilled but 100% in the firing line of Microsoft and AI.

This is plainly obvious to me but many people in the same industry don’t agree. I think they’re very naive.

So I help businesses implement business software. Microsoft is deskilling every single aspect of the work in a clear and visible way. I don’t think this is a bad thing. They are also introducing AI to help configure the software.

Their aim is to make it quicker and easier to setup the software with less reliance on partner organisations like the ones I work for. They want more customers quicker and to reduce reliance on 3rd parties. It all makes perfect business sense.

Personally, I still think business expertise is an essential part but my role is massively decreased to key areas where I can actually add value. There will be a fraction of the people currently doing my role in years to come. The only question on my mind is how quickly it all happens. I am making a point of being ahead of the game in breadth of knowledge. Many aren’t.

Forgive my ignorance, but wouldn’t you just shift to implementing AI as opposed to software?

It takes the actual nuts and bolts of coding out of the equation. Essentially if you can write a detailed functional requirements document, AI can do the rest. Still need someone to analyse and determine requirements though. Shifts the balance away from specialist houses.

This basically. So you still need people with knowledge about the software and business process.

But fewer of them can do more work.

Doesn't it just become another language?

From the limited experiments I've done with the system/language I know most about, if I prompt ChatGPT with "write a report that displays sales orders created in the last 5 days that are not rejected and are relevant for delivery but have not started the delivery process", it will write the code (and did it correctly, with decent naming conventions). And give an explanation of what it had done.

For more complex requirements, I'd need to specify more details of what I needed, obviously, and I would need to know what to ask for. But it's functional language, not technical.

Sounds quite useful. I asked it which restaurants were airside at CDG. It just made stuff up.

With my optimistic hat on re employment levels, I foresee a world where x people have been made unemployed after being replaced by ChatGPT, but 2x people are then needed to check ChatGPT's outputs.

If it's outputs cannot be relied upon for factual accuracy (and that's my experience, too) then I'm not sure how it improves productivity.

I was being slightly tongue in cheek, but during my professional life so much number crunching has been automated that you'd think there would be no need for human number crunchers any more. Yet there are veritable armies of number crunchers who find ways to do analysis that previous wasn't possible, or even conceived of. This new analysis then gets automated, and the cycle repeats itself.

Whether this is a good thing for society is an open question. After all, the "quants" having too much spare time in the run up to the financial crisis led to them blowing up the banking system, but in terms of employment, the threat of automation is not necessarily going to be a problem.

Quants ... there are still an absolute tonne of them in banking.

They are far too resilient to be seen off by mere AI.

But as an aside, who did nearly blow up the banking system? I know the answer to this having worked through the GFC and its aftermath. I'm just curious for you take on it, given that you can only have second hand experience of the period.

No clues I'm interested to know Rick's answer.

rick_chasey

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:

My job is skilled but 100% in the firing line of Microsoft and AI.

This is plainly obvious to me but many people in the same industry don’t agree. I think they’re very naive.

So I help businesses implement business software. Microsoft is deskilling every single aspect of the work in a clear and visible way. I don’t think this is a bad thing. They are also introducing AI to help configure the software.

Their aim is to make it quicker and easier to setup the software with less reliance on partner organisations like the ones I work for. They want more customers quicker and to reduce reliance on 3rd parties. It all makes perfect business sense.

Personally, I still think business expertise is an essential part but my role is massively decreased to key areas where I can actually add value. There will be a fraction of the people currently doing my role in years to come. The only question on my mind is how quickly it all happens. I am making a point of being ahead of the game in breadth of knowledge. Many aren’t.

Forgive my ignorance, but wouldn’t you just shift to implementing AI as opposed to software?

It takes the actual nuts and bolts of coding out of the equation. Essentially if you can write a detailed functional requirements document, AI can do the rest. Still need someone to analyse and determine requirements though. Shifts the balance away from specialist houses.

This basically. So you still need people with knowledge about the software and business process.

But fewer of them can do more work.

Doesn't it just become another language?

From the limited experiments I've done with the system/language I know most about, if I prompt ChatGPT with "write a report that displays sales orders created in the last 5 days that are not rejected and are relevant for delivery but have not started the delivery process", it will write the code (and did it correctly, with decent naming conventions). And give an explanation of what it had done.

For more complex requirements, I'd need to specify more details of what I needed, obviously, and I would need to know what to ask for. But it's functional language, not technical.

Sounds quite useful. I asked it which restaurants were airside at CDG. It just made stuff up.

With my optimistic hat on re employment levels, I foresee a world where x people have been made unemployed after being replaced by ChatGPT, but 2x people are then needed to check ChatGPT's outputs.

If it's outputs cannot be relied upon for factual accuracy (and that's my experience, too) then I'm not sure how it improves productivity.

I was being slightly tongue in cheek, but during my professional life so much number crunching has been automated that you'd think there would be no need for human number crunchers any more. Yet there are veritable armies of number crunchers who find ways to do analysis that previous wasn't possible, or even conceived of. This new analysis then gets automated, and the cycle repeats itself.

Whether this is a good thing for society is an open question. After all, the "quants" having too much spare time in the run up to the financial crisis led to them blowing up the banking system, but in terms of employment, the threat of automation is not necessarily going to be a problem.

Quants ... there are still an absolute tonne of them in banking.

They are far too resilient to be seen off by mere AI.

But as an aside, who did nearly blow up the banking system? I know the answer to this having worked through the GFC and its aftermath. I'm just curious for you take on it, given that you can only have second hand experience of the period.

Being a quant is a bit like a being an engineer at the back of a car garage. It’s just a role as part of the bank.

The answer to your question is rather long winded but largely there was a system of incentives that individually made sense but in aggregate was a disaster.

But it wasn’t “quants”. They helped structure the things that blew up (though there were also actual structurers etc) but they were no more or less a part of it than the sales people or the lenders or brokers or rating agencies or regulators etc.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:

My job is skilled but 100% in the firing line of Microsoft and AI.

This is plainly obvious to me but many people in the same industry don’t agree. I think they’re very naive.

So I help businesses implement business software. Microsoft is deskilling every single aspect of the work in a clear and visible way. I don’t think this is a bad thing. They are also introducing AI to help configure the software.

Their aim is to make it quicker and easier to setup the software with less reliance on partner organisations like the ones I work for. They want more customers quicker and to reduce reliance on 3rd parties. It all makes perfect business sense.

Personally, I still think business expertise is an essential part but my role is massively decreased to key areas where I can actually add value. There will be a fraction of the people currently doing my role in years to come. The only question on my mind is how quickly it all happens. I am making a point of being ahead of the game in breadth of knowledge. Many aren’t.

Forgive my ignorance, but wouldn’t you just shift to implementing AI as opposed to software?

It takes the actual nuts and bolts of coding out of the equation. Essentially if you can write a detailed functional requirements document, AI can do the rest. Still need someone to analyse and determine requirements though. Shifts the balance away from specialist houses.

This basically. So you still need people with knowledge about the software and business process.

But fewer of them can do more work.

Doesn't it just become another language?

From the limited experiments I've done with the system/language I know most about, if I prompt ChatGPT with "write a report that displays sales orders created in the last 5 days that are not rejected and are relevant for delivery but have not started the delivery process", it will write the code (and did it correctly, with decent naming conventions). And give an explanation of what it had done.

For more complex requirements, I'd need to specify more details of what I needed, obviously, and I would need to know what to ask for. But it's functional language, not technical.

Sounds quite useful. I asked it which restaurants were airside at CDG. It just made stuff up.

With my optimistic hat on re employment levels, I foresee a world where x people have been made unemployed after being replaced by ChatGPT, but 2x people are then needed to check ChatGPT's outputs.

If it's outputs cannot be relied upon for factual accuracy (and that's my experience, too) then I'm not sure how it improves productivity.

I was being slightly tongue in cheek, but during my professional life so much number crunching has been automated that you'd think there would be no need for human number crunchers any more. Yet there are veritable armies of number crunchers who find ways to do analysis that previous wasn't possible, or even conceived of. This new analysis then gets automated, and the cycle repeats itself.

Whether this is a good thing for society is an open question. After all, the "quants" having too much spare time in the run up to the financial crisis led to them blowing up the banking system, but in terms of employment, the threat of automation is not necessarily going to be a problem.

Quants ... there are still an absolute tonne of them in banking.

They are far too resilient to be seen off by mere AI.

But as an aside, who did nearly blow up the banking system? I know the answer to this having worked through the GFC and its aftermath. I'm just curious for you take on it, given that you can only have second hand experience of the period.

Being a quant is a bit like a being an engineer at the back of a car garage. It’s just a role as part of the bank.

The answer to your question is rather long winded but largely there was a system of incentives that individually made sense but in aggregate was a disaster.

But it wasn’t “quants”. They helped structure the things that blew up (though there were also actual structurers etc) but they were no more or less a part of it than the sales people or the lenders or brokers or rating agencies or regulators etc.

Do car mechanics simultaneously fix a billion cars?

Jezyboy

That's not what engineers do...if you're going to insist on using them in a negative example I would guess you could describe a load of engineers working on a product with features that could be described as planned obsolescence.

pblakeney

People not knowing the difference between a car mechanic and an engineer trivially annoys me but that’s for another thread. 😉

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

People not knowing the difference between a car mechanic and an engineer trivially annoys me but that’s for another thread. 😉

Soz everyone.

(Funny how sensitive engineers get but will slander quants 😉)

Pross

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

People not knowing the difference between a car mechanic and an engineer trivially annoys me but that’s for another thread. 😉

Soz everyone.

(Funny how sensitive engineers get but will slander quants 😉)

Got no idea what a quant is, the only person I’ve seen mention them on here other than you is someone I assume has worked in finance.

Jezyboy

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

People not knowing the difference between a car mechanic and an engineer trivially annoys me but that’s for another thread. 😉

Soz everyone.

(Funny how sensitive engineers get but will slander quants 😉)

Tbf I don't think either pblakeney or I have slandered quants (at least here).

I'll slander consultants, but I'm a consultant so I think that's ok...

orraloon

Ok, I bite. What is a 'quant'? A quantum accountant?

pangolin

orraloon said:

Ok, I bite. What is a 'quant'? A quantum accountant?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpsI_Gvn7C8

Pross

I now know, the traders in Billions were getting worried about them.

orraloon

So a quant is a bloke with specs called John. Much clearer now.

🤔

veronese68

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

People not knowing the difference between a car mechanic and an engineer trivially annoys me but that’s for another thread. 😉

Soz everyone.

(Funny how sensitive engineers get but will slander quants 😉)

Got no idea what a quant is, the only person I’ve seen mention them on here other than you is someone I assume has worked in finance.

I glossed over it assuming it was some made up bs, like Singers and Sainos,only used by Rick and others in the strange circles he moves in.

wallace_and_gromit

Quant = “quantitative analyst.
Grade inflation for “number cruncher”.

pblakeney

Jezyboy said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

People not knowing the difference between a car mechanic and an engineer trivially annoys me but that’s for another thread. 😉

Soz everyone.

(Funny how sensitive engineers get but will slander quants 😉)

Tbf I don't think either pblakeney or I have slandered quants (at least here).

I'll slander consultants, but I'm a consultant so I think that's ok...

Only Quant I know of is Mary. 😉

TheBigBean

wallace_and_gromit said:

Quant = “quantitative analyst.
Grade inflation for “number cruncher”.

You know there are only three numbers in maths? No crunching required.

wallace_and_gromit

TheBigBean said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

Quant = “quantitative analyst.
Grade inflation for “number cruncher”.

You know there are only three numbers in maths? No crunching required.

Fair point.