0xEF

This is not an apples to apples comparison. A single line in my cli letting me know one of my Rails project dependencies is requesting funding is _far_ less intrusive than Windows throwing popup notifications at me about some game they want me to play even though I requested to stop showing me that ad.

FOSS needs money, yes, but it also respects the user and can in no reasonable way be compared to Microsoft's abuse of power without some serious cognitive dissonance.

Linux is the answer. I have transitioned coworkers, friends and family to Linux with PeppermintOS, so that's the one I typically recommend. Windows-dependent users seem to find it more friendly and familiar, and it runs nicely on every old machine I've installed it on. I usually just make a text file on the desktop with instructions on how to update it via the terminal and use Anydesk to walk them through anything else they want to learn, and they pick up on it quickly.

I appreciate the blog's efforts, but it seems like a lot of work and feels akin to staying with an abusive employer or something. Microsoft is no friend to its users and it pains me to watch people try to salvage that relationship.

It's weaponized pivot tables all the way down.

Remember the Palm (palm.com, not to be confused with Palm PDAs of a much earlier era) for Verizon networks? That answered all my requests at the time; about the size of an iPhone 5S but running Android 8, but with the caveat that I had to have a "big" smartphone so the Palm could piggyback off the line, even though I could just leave the "big" smartphone at home.

I have no idea why that was the case and can't even speculate since I don't know enough about how the networks worked, but I would love to hear an explanation. I was pretty annoyed by the fact that I still needed to own what I considered a phablet, which was sitting collecting dust on my bedside table at home just so I could have the type of phone I really wanted. Seemed like a punishment-by-design for trying to step off the typical customer rails.

My tastes have changed slightly these days, and I'm okay with a 5.X" screen or whatever, but now I want it to be eInk or something similar and focus more on text/sms as I've gotten pretty minimalism with my phone use.

> the less educated you are, the more likely you are to believe you know what makes sense

It actually frightens me how true this statement is.

To reinforce my initial position about how important the rules are for setting expectations, I usually use cyclists as an example. Many follow the proposed rules, understanding they are traffic, and right of way is not automagically granted based on the choice of vehicle, having more to do with direction and the flow of said traffic.

But there's always a bad apple, a cyclist who assumes themselves to be exempt from the rules and rides against the flow of traffic, then wonders why they got clipped because a right-turning driver wasn't expecting a vehicle to be coming from the direction traffic is not supposed to come from.

In the end, it's not really about what we drive or how we get around, but whether we are self-aware enough to understand that the rules apply to us, and collectively so. Setting the expectation of what each of our behaviors will be is precisely what creates the safety that comes with following them, and only the dummies seem to be the ones who think they are exempt.

I apologize for that. I try to mitigate my US-centricness in my comments as much as possible, understanding completely that I am speaking with a global audience, but I am definitely not perfect at it :D

I suppose the same goes if you take the tube, ride a bike, walk, etc? There's still rules in terms of behavior, flow of traffic (even foot traffic), etc, that helps set a number of expectations so everyone can decide and behave accordingly. Happy to hear different thoughts on this!

It's easy to believe, though, and most of us do it every day. For example, our commute to work is marked by the trust that other drivers will cooperate, following the rules, so that we all get to where we are going.

There are varying degrees of this through our lives, where the trust lies not in the fact that people will just follow the rules because they are rules, but because the rules set expectations, allowing everyone to (more or less) know what's going on and decide accordingly. This also makes it easier to single out the people who do not think the rules apply to them so we can avoid trusting them (and, probably, avoid them in general).

> You'll just ruin it, nobody likes burnt beef

Tell that to my FiL. I dread his family gatherings since I know hockey puck burgers are going to be the only viable food on the menu because he's very proud of that expensive grill he has no talent with.

I was about to say, I think we all know where this is going...

I think so? I'd have to look it up, but I believe you're right.

They _definitely_ employ a lot of dark patterns, though. Glad you brought that up, because not enough people are taking the "dark patterns" thing seriously enough, in my opinion. It is absolutely wild what you can get people to do without even realizing it with some good front-end development, and none of us are immune to those tricks.

Yeah, I know. It's disturbing to say the least. The thinking with PO Boxes is just left over from a time when it was possible to use them as an extra layer of protection. It's barely an inconvenience to anyone who wants to get your address, anymore.

Correct.

It's the same conversation every year, well before Elon came along. The big players are TurboTax and H&R Block. TurboTax specifically has led the charge for over two decades to prevent you from ever filing your taxes for free. It's a racket, and an extremely profitable one for them, so there's no way they're going to willingly give that up without some new and enforceable laws being passed.

It just adds an extra step that keeps the general public away from your PII. The post office knows who owns that PO box and where that person actually lives. A simple subpoena makes that information available to whatever arm of enforcement needs it.

Nobody is rewriting history. I also remember the Google engineer who claimed encountering sentience, etc. What we're discussing here is dollars being put towards manipulating people into thinking the "AI" has consciousness like a person. Not whether superintelligence or AGI is possible, or maybe even closer than we think.

While the thread you link is quite the interesting read (I mean that with all sincerity, it's a subject I like to mull over and there's a lot of great opinions and speculation being displayed there) I'm not seeing any direct callouts of someone billing the current LLMs as "people," which is what the original conversation in _this_ thread was about.

There's A LOT to read there, so maybe I missed it or just have not hit it, yet. Is there specific comments I should look at?

It was short-lived if I recall, a few articles and interviews, not exactly a marketing blitz. My take-away from that was calling an LLM a "stochastic parrot" is too simplified, not that they were saying "AI us a person." Did you get that from it? I'm not advanced enough in my understanding of Gen AI to think of it as anything other than a stochastic parrot with tokenization, so I guess that part of the hype cycle fell flat?

As you shouldn't! Only a rube trusts a rule for which there is no real enforcement or punishment is a mere fine. If the erosion of consumer privacy has not taught us that simply stating "we won't use/sell your data" is the biggest lie of the 21st century, then I don't know what will.

I'd argue that zero dollars are spent convincing anyone that LLMs are people since:

A. I've seen no evidence of it, and I say that as not exactly a fan of techbros

B. People tend to anthropomorphize everything which is why we have constellations in the night sky or pets that supposedly experience emotion the way we do.

Collectively, we're pretty awful at understanding different intelligences and avoiding the trappings of seeing the world through our own experience of it. That is part of being human, which makes us easy to manipulate, sure, but the major devs in Gen AI are not really doing that. You might get the odd girlfriend app marketed to incels or whatever, but those are small potatoes comparatively.

The problem I see when people try to point out how LLMs get this or that wrong is that the user, the human, is bad at asking the question...which comes as no surprise since we can barely communicate properly with each other across the various barriers such as culture, reasoning informed by different experiences, etc.

We're just bad at prompt engineering and need to get better in order to make full use of this tool that is Gen AI. The genie is out of the bottle. Time to adapt.

Same. As an American living on the Canadian border most of my life, I learned most of my Candaianisms from factory coworkers and AvE's youtube channel.

https://www.youtube.com/arduinoversusevil/videos

Could be worse, and be like me, who instantly looks up any word he doesn't understand, and because he does it so often, forgets the definition almost as soon as it is read after moving on.

It probably takes me a good seven to ten times of looking up a new-to-me word to really nail it down. As a result, a lot of my blog/personal writing is filled with odd phrasings of things because I never quite learned the prescriptive way of using said word.

I have a different take on permission license. I offer up what little code I produce under the assumption that anyone can use it for whatever, just give me credit. Why? Because it might result in an interesting collaboration on a project I like. If someone uses my existing code to accomplish something neat and sees who I am, they can reach out to me for more, which I'm open to since it would likely result in some growth for me as an amateur. I'm not particularly interested in making money since I recognize that I am nowhere near that level, yet, but creating a future opportunity seems like a good idea since I enjoy coding.

True, but while there is a decent sized Flipper Zero community, I found it to be significantly smaller and less prone to fresh development than the other two you mentioned by comparison. The Flipper Zero is stunted by a good portion of that community being individuals who want a pocket hack toy without having to do any work to make it go, resulting in perceived stagnation of the device.

Perhaps I missed something when I owned mine? So many people I encountered in said community really just wanted a wifi deauther, which could have been built or purchased in a variety of cheaper ways. I got bored with it quickly, and returned to doing interesting things with Arduino and ESP32, but YMMV.

I believe it's still around, or at least some variants or other Battletech MUDs are. Check these out; https://www.sarna.net/wiki/MUX

I also like Mudlet and KildClient, but it's really best of you try a few and decide which works best for your tastes and needs. Blowtorch is still the go-to client if you want to play via Android mobile, last I checked. And you can always just straight up connect via telnet/ssh using your favorite terminal emulator if you want to keep things really simple and exercise your skills with graph paper.

> people just don't read

You're right, and that tracks with my experience too, sad as it is to have to admit.

However, if you're not holding people accountable for not reading the directive/memo, then that's on you. When you have something in writing that you can point to and say "look, there it is, I provided you with the information, you chose to not acknowledge it," it's very damning to the person who ignored it.

Without getting into details about the time I nearly left my company, I can tell you that one of my greatest weapons was (and still is) being able to literally recall emails, SOPs, and SMS messages that had been ignored. It makes me a thorn in the side of lazy managers and legacy hires that turned out to be freeloaders in my industry.

The people at the bottom of any organization have a responsibility to hold the people at the top accountable, just as it works the other way around. This is extremely hard for those of us near the bottom of an organization to do, I know, but if we don't, we are giving permission for the problem to persist and make our work that much harder. We all know that managers and those above them will avoid doing as much work as possible at any given time, but willful ignorance is not admissible in court of law, so why should it be any different in the work place?

That's on them, though.

But if you do not hold the engineers accountable for reading the memo, that's on you (or whomever has the authority to do that). This is why having things in writing is important and verbal directives have about as much value as a fart in the wind.

I don't know about anyone else, but contrary to my general disdain for meetings* I have found product owners/process managers to be useful in the regard of having one central person to funnel things through on a particular project. The bottleneck also creates a nice buffer of accountability in both directions and they typically offer either new or refined SOPs after solving the same problems over and over again. Plus, they can sit in on the meeting while I go do something useful.

I may just have been lucky with the few I've had to work with though, so your mileage may vary.

*or as the song says, a little less conversation, a little more action please

I have to disagree since I can also just not listen/pay any attention to what is vocally delivered in the meeting, which I find to be an abhorrent waste of my time in the first place. If the directive is in writing such as an email I (or the person who issued it) can't point to that and say "you did not read this" which shifts the onus entirely on the person receiving the directive.

About a year ago, I nearly quit my job over this, going so far as to put my two weeks notice in as a way to hold a gun to their head, repeating my frequent request that all directives handed down from on high _must_ be in writing if they are expected to be followed. My company had (still does, to some degree, but we are still working on it) a cancerous culture of he said/she said that was being abused to avoid any accountability from upper management, which was both impeding the actual work being done as well as demoralizing to th workers. We even ended up losing some talent over it before I used my own value and authority to put my foot down, making me wish I'd done it sooner.

Verbal directives only stroke the ego of the person delivering them and their meaning either evaporates or gets twisted as soon as everyone walks out of that conference room or logs off that video call. If the person issuing them is not willing to have their directives questioned when they are in writing, then they should not hold the position they do. It's not about questioning someone's authority, it's about ensuring the directive makes sense with the work being done and adds value or guidance to the existing processes. Screw the fragile ego nonsense.

The problem is interpretation. The key phrase is "interference with privacy" which is ambiguous yet all encompassing. You say it says nothing toward solicitation or manipulation where I interpret both of those acts as "interference with my privacy." Not saying your version is wrong, by the way, just different from mine as a example of where the protection falls apart.

My gut feeling as that no matter how much additional and specific language we add to any bill of privacy rights, there will always be holes or work-arounds due to interpretation and semantics. This is how lawyers in most robust legal systems make their living, after all. The data that results from robbing us of consent, privacy and agency when engaged with websites, web/mobile apps and software is so insanely valuable that the people interested in collecting and selling it will be happy to keep one step ahead of whatever language we come up with that attempts to mitigate their actions.

We need a different solution, one that returns us to the levels of implied trust I remember from the late 1990's/early 2000's Internet, one that prevents corporate entities from being the dominant drivers behind its growth and development. However, I am not technical enough or imaginative enough to even guess at what that solution might be, so from my perspective, the battle is already lost and we are at their mercy unless we avoid having an online presence as much as possible...a bit like that old classic movie War Games, the only way to win is not to play.

The difference is the lawyers and judges do not make any money from the DDOS achieving the same goal. Really, what the law cares about is money. Greed, plain and simple. Yes, what people think/feel factor into this _only_ because when the constituency (read: supporters) are put in an emotionally agitated state, they can be manipulated to believe just about anything, which helps pass things like batshit crazy budget cuts to critical public infrastructure or fuel witch-hunts for imaginary enemies in order to build an enforcement arm.

I know plenty of lawyers that would absolutely disagree with your first sentence, "the law doesn't care about technicalities." Oh, but they do. Technicalities are their tools of exploitation.

Engagement. It's part of a dark pattern that triggers that little neuron tie our tendency to compare ourselves to others, a sort of "keeping up with the Joneses" type thing. It is also billed as a free advertising for businesses (e.g. hey, look where your friends shop!) which encourages more businesses to accept Venmo as a payment method.

Anything for the sake of growth or perceived growth, up to and including privacy violations.