applfanboysbgon

I would argue that shunning racism is productive for the commons. Instead it is the person calling it out who is being shunned. Wonderful.

The claim being made is so obviously, categorically incorrect that it falls apart within a single second of examination. For example: Hoyoverse, a Chinese company, produced Genshin Impact and Nodusfall, two games with completely different art styles. And yet, in typing this, I have already spent an order of magnitude more effort[1] than somebody professing their racist worldview is dignified to receive. I think the actual productive response is shutting that down. I mean, really. A billion people who can only produce one artstyle like a factory? The claim is so patently, obviously, intentionally racist and incapable of holding up to reality it's absurd.

I could spend an hour scrolling back through my Twitter likes and collecting links to a huge array of Chinese artists with divergent artstyles, but in doing so I would be doing nothing more than wasting my own time, because someone with such a flagrant disregard of reality to come to that conclusion in the first place isn't going to change their view based on being shown reality.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law

Whatever. I unfortunately have a compulsion to check this site, but I'll do my best to refrain from posting in the future, since your vision of the site is one where posting racist comments is welcome and calling them out is unwelcome.

What exactly is a productive response to blatant racism other than calling it out? What constructive discussion does a variant of "all Asian people look the same" engender?

[flagged]

> It looks like they have maybe a little over 1-2k users,

speedrun.com has millions of registered runners and many more unregistered spectators. But yes, it is just a glorified UI over google sheets. Speedrun communities almost never use it for the community features like forums (Discord servers are the typical community fixtures), it is mostly just a public place to publish records. Everything on the site is provided by the community. SRC essentially adds 0 value to the community other than "it was the first aggregator, and now it's entrenched".

This isn't actually legal, is it? My understanding is that SRC has no claim to ownership of any of the data they received that was already licensed under Creative Commons, and cannot retroactively revoke the license?

It was only as toxic as you allowed it to be, because you had control of the content you saw. If you used Twitter for politics, you were basically very stupid and any unpleasantness you endured was entirely self-inflicted. You could just... not do that. A global platform is going to have some wackadoos on it but you don't have to associate with them.

Why does it make you sad? Twitter as a concept is a technically superior platform to keep up with news about interesting things you like. Short-form, multimedia integrated, your own curated timeline. It is literally the perfect platform for following artists, musicians, game developers, programmers, whatever, and seeing what they're up to, vs. trying to follow 100 blogs. Unlike RSS, it is interactive, allowing people to communicate and form connections, and the entire "retweet" thing makes people creating cool things immensely more discoverable, allowing more eyes to see their cool work.

Obviously it has been degraded by the switch to algorithm over user curation of their own timeline, literally everything Musk did to it, etc, but old Twitter was good, hence the desire to "go back".

You cannot possibly compare embedded/single-purpose systems to a general-purpose OS that is expected to run arbitrary user-written software performantly on thousands of different hardware combinations.

No, Rust is not at the paretto frontier for your mentioned 1, 2, 3 and also 4 compilation speed. It could have all of those things and also just have faster compilation. Rust devs have talked about how they have some regrets about not optimizing more for compilation, but instead another attribute got optimized in terms of paretto efficiency - the language's development time. Arguably I think that is the single worst trait you can optimize for in language development, because by saving a little time developing the language you cost humanity, let's say hundreds of millions of hours of development time downstream from you, with millions of users being less productive.

That is indeed a perfect description of your comment.

> Why does anyone even dev for G or A

Because personal computers are a legacy platform for nerds and programmers, and smartphones are the most widely used consumer computing platform in the world. This desperately needs regulation. Unfortunately the EU is currently regulating the duopoly into law, making their phones necessary for ID verification, so we're probably completely fucked for at least a decade or two before we even have a chance, but that's still not a reason to shrug our shoulders and accept it.

> But I think people are over it and will value authenticity these days enough that it's a false economy. Just tell people the truth.

We have seen abundantly clearly that telling the truth is the worst thing you can do for your political career. The correct move is to lie, lie, lie, lie. Reality is completely irrelevant. All you need to do is tell them what they want to hear. Nothing else matters. They will not hold it against you if you break every promise you make. They'll vote for you again and in greater numbers if you ramp up the promises to even bigger lies, nevermind your track record.

I'm in. I would like to predicate the entire US economy on your business model.

It really is. I stopped reading immediately at the quoted sentence. If it's not nauseating to you, perhaps you have had the good fortune to not have seen that exact pattern a hundred times in LLM-generated articles already, or you perhaps simply haven't been able to recognise the pattern.

> You need to consider what is actually the “citizenry” of a society. In your example it sounds like the nobles are the citizens and the peasants are non-citizens. Using the term “noble” and “peasant” confused the matter with inter class or socioeconomic concerns.

In-group and out-group dynamics go far, far beyond citizenry. It is clear that you wish to declare all you consider to be undesirables as non-citizens to justify your discrimination against them, but this is not actually a useful model for anything.

> What you’re describing seems to be unequal justice for the poor rather than an in group or out group dynamic but it’s not clear because you’re mixing ideas.

No, I am talking about the literal basis for modern liberalism's existence. Liberalism has gradually expanded to encourage equality between more types of people, but the origin was in anti-royal and anti-noble sentiment, in opposition to birthright privileges and an immutable social hierarchy. You appear to be woefully ignorant of history, which is understandable for a tiny little lizard, but you should perhaps not speak of things you know nothing of.

Come, now. Where did I discriminate against them? I am engaging in dialogue with the tiny little lizard as equally as I would with a human!

> I thought that hash tables were something that were basically impossible to make in C,

Why would you believe this in the first place?

> we are also changing how we calculate the usage for it. In effect, if you do the math, it will net out at half the dollar in API spend compared to the old Pro $200 plan.

So, so tired of living in this world full of people who lie and obfuscate at every possible turn. Just fucking say it - "we're cutting limits in half". Five words. Living slimeball.

LLMs are faster until the technical debt comes due, at which point all supposed productivity gains evaporate and you're now 10x slower than doing anything by hand. They have a use if the debt never comes due, eg. for one-off scripts or for prototypes you will responsibly dispose of. The debt does come due in production, very quickly.

LLMs write code that compiles, which they accomplish mostly by robotically attempting the task and repeatedly fixing compile errors in a loop. That's a very narrow definition of "code that works", and I would argue it is the starting point, not the finish line. My definition of code that works is more like: secure, stable, maintainable, efficient, performant, effectively bug-free, with an ergonomic interface. LLMs fail on every single fucking count. I routinely observe generated code that leaves trivial 10x or 100x gains on the table, while having severe deficiencies in every measurable approach.

Given that you talk about assembly as a bogeyman, though, I gather that you're from the generation of "software engineer" who was already writing insecure, unstable, unmaintainable, 100x inefficient, 100x non-performant, bug-ridden JS for everything. LLMs can replace this class of people, it's true.

Absolute slopshit "explainers" are not real use, no.

If you have the rights to sell them, yes.

> Because the market keeps demonstrating that these technically simpler but vague requirement tasks have a lot more value than something like game dev, at least monetarily.

Game industry generates hundreds of billions in revenue. There is plenty of value in it. The value happens to not be in decompiling 80s/90s games you have no legal right to sell, of course.

If that's your idea of "real use", you're really reinforcing their point.

You can immediately tell someone has absolutely no fucking clue what they're talking about and dismiss everything they say as soon as they say "solved coding". You must write the most heinous code imaginable if you think LLMs are better, or even anywhere near, what a competent professional can produce. So funny to listen to terrible coders talk up terrible code.

In the first place, what does it even mean to say that code is the "wrong abstraction" for the work we do? You can't actually abstract away reality. Maybe you wish we could, that programming computers wasn't about contending with physical constraints. But it is. It will never not be important to have control over what the hardware is actually doing. Abstractions are temporary conveniences, not a replacement for understanding what is being abstracted away.

Where is the contradiction? There is a trivial solution that does not impinge on our freedoms, so why on Earth would the existence of the trivial solution that could be used to avoid the tyrannical solution justify accepting the tyrannical solution?

> Chinese companies just use massive government subsidy

[citation needed]

It's weird to say that about a YCombinator-affiliated event on a YCombinator forum. I'm not especially fond of YC but there's pretty clearly potential to make valuable connections in this sphere.

The practical goal of Recurse is to make connections. Starting a business or publishing research are explicitly non-goals.

> It's a feature most software doesn't even have

"All software should be shit because most software is shit"

Disturbing to see justifications for this program behaviour. The only time a program I write explicitly deletes persistent user data is if the user is interacting with a modal that very, very clearly warns them they are taking an intentional action to delete data. Migrations always backup the files being operated on before performing any migration actions. This is surely common sense. It is clear that many of you have absolutely zero regard for anyone who uses your software. Which is, I suppose, not surprising given how much software is absolute unusable dogshit.