dogleash

> By late 2024, FedRAMP reviewers concluded that they had little choice but to authorize the technology — not because their questions had been answered or their review was complete, but largely on the grounds that Microsoft’s product was already being used across Washington.

The article talks a lot about conflicts of interest, but this is the line I went looking for. A bureaucracy fighting itself over goal prioritization, and what's a necessary roadblock vs red tape is the less sexy but more meaningful problem at the core of this.

Once the government decided they wanted the product, they were going to find a patsy.

> the core gameplay loops work just fine without it.

Of course it's functional, it has to string people along for enough time to get them to start paying.

That doesn't mean grinding a system tuned to get you hooked enough to give up and pay is a 'just fine' as a game. It's openly deliberate malicious design.

These smell like the kind of metrics that cause someone to feel informed and then to miss the forest for the trees. The kind of data for a "data driven" decision maker who will just invent a narrative to explain the numbers, and then do what they wanted to do all along.

The map is not the territory.

>PMs coding unlocks a whole new category of work, mainly addressing the long tail of cool ideas/small optimisations that ordinarily would not be addressed

So you get to cowboy code, but I don't. I see how it is.

> Premium to be able to "Jump Ahead to parts other users think are valuable".

This is Google's euphemism for building a SponsorBlock equivlient into youtube. It just sounds terrible if they come out and tell you that in addition to removing their ads, they're selling an adblocker. They don't want you adblocking their ads, but they'll gladly charge you to do it to someone else.

> Maybe the people on charge have personally invested heavily in Kick?

Twitch is owned by Amazon. AWS sells the streaming tech Twitch uses to Kick.

Amazon would probably rather sell IVS to Kick than try and figure out how to make Twitch profitable. Or the just don't care enough to notice the people at Twitch are just LARPing at business.

> my current job my boss has never told me not to do something. Getting the time to do it is another story

I’m confused. The polite way to say no at work is to make it about not having time.

> Just think about how easy it would be though

Endlessly painful. Right?

The defining characteristic is that everyone is using it, not that it's your personal ideal operating system. We have a few major players trying to create their version of the one single os. They're already nobodies ideal, and they have the luxury of telling people to go elsewhere if the system isn't right for them. Imagine how much worse it would be if they had to support everything.

It's weird because one of the main selling points for the principled position against surveillance is your inability to control which use-cases are allowed.

The way to avoid masked gestapo thugs is to ensure that not even your preferred leaders are able to create them.

>My read of the recent discussion is that people assume that the work of far fewer number of elites will define the patterns for the future.

Even if we assume that's true, what will prevent atrophy of the skillset among the elites with such a small pool of practitioners?

People have been comparing tech - the status games, power brokering, need to juggle context-dependent sets of morals, etc - to working in Hollywood for as long as I can remember.

Under that mental model, the only thing surprising about this article is that WIRED would publish. It's conspiratorial and easy to construe as homophobic. This is an SF-based magazine that still has physical distribution. What editor in those shoes doesn't immediately spike a story like this? They know something.

> In most cases in software and especially devops I have found it means "pay for this product that constrains the way that you do things so you don't shoot yourself in the foot". It's not really a "practice" if you're using a product that gives you one way to do something.

The good thing about a lot of devops saas is that you're not paying anyone on staff to understand the problem domain and guide your team. The bad thing is that you're not paying anyone on staff to understand the problem domain and guide your team.

> if you use AI as a draft generator [...] you're spending your cognitive budget on the high-value parts (ideas, structure, voice

I don't follow. If you have the ideas and a structure to give to an AI you already have a working draft. Just start revising that. What would an AI add other than turn into the replacement for thinking described in your negative example?

And not born in Edinburgh, either.

I usually stop reading any article that brings up the dopamine hits in short timescale iteration loops (or lack thereof). We're professionals, we have to detach ourselves from that part of our brains when we think at day, month, year, or career timescales.

Forget professionalism, learning to deprioritize Type I fun for other goals is a childhood development.

I'm not saying deliberately suffer. Maybe just don't chase the dragon through programming, right?

Is this generated? In either case it's a lot of yapping that's trying to be taken seriously while throwing warning flags not to take it seriously at all.

I’m throwing shade at Facebook and google era not the dotcoms.

> HN AI booster excitement about LLMs as therapists simultaneously hilarious and disturbing

> The big AI companies have not really demonstrated any interest in ethic or morality.

You're right, but it tracks that the boosters are on board. The previous generation of golden child tech giants weren't interested in ethics or morality either.

One might be mislead by the fact people at those companies did engage in topics of morality, but it was ragebait wedge issues and largely orthogonal to their employers' business. The executive suite couldn't have designed a better distraction to make them overlook the unscrupulous work they were getting paid to do.

>Try using it for a few days. We've been using this internally at Anthropic for about a month now, and found that it took people a few days to mentally switch over to the new UI. Once they did, it "clicked" and they appreciated the reduced noise and focus on the tools that actually do need their attention.

Ah, the old "you're holding it wrong."

> otherwise we would have heard complaints about the last 200 paradigm shifts in the industry over the past thirty years.

We have though. And they all received some version of "piss off, geezer."

Have you not noticed how the hype cycles and counter-hype haters buried most of the meaningful considered conversations about new technologies and methodologies across your career?

>> False, he is forcing Flock on EVERYONE

>> No one has permitted themselves to be surveilled

> As much as I dislike Flock, this is bad logic. There's no such thing as opting out of surveillance in public spaces.

You're agreeing that he is forcing flock on people. Legality doesn't make it not-forced. Not needing consent is different from receiving consent.

Corollary: building a benign system that doesn't make the levers of control as small and close to the user as possible, is inviting someone with ulterior motives to use those controls.

> voices of the government supporters are not heard here...So they just flag and move on, not even trying to defend their position

Why are you're assuming flagging indicates support of the government?

Maybe they're flagging because it's a topic that will generate much more heat than light. It doesn't have to be deeper than that.

Every now and then I get the suspicion hacker news is used to practice sophistry for the workplace without the risk of making yourself look like a jackass at work.

Of course it would break the rules about civility here to directly accuse someone of that. Which makes me want to joke that it's an intentional feature of the site and explains why a VC firm wants to run a tech watering hole.

> Where did we go wrong

Driving character out of the software world. Spotify couldn't whip the llama's ass even if it wanted to. And it doesn't want to. Spotify is a boring office worker that we're professionally cordial with only because they run the stockroom.

>What a horrible thing to do. So sorry I wasted my own personal time on this. People like you drive others out of open source.

Pot, meet kettle.

I think you're on to something about bad categorization. Sentiment analysis as practiced is almost always pseudoscience. (And that's a hedge. I've never seen it done right but I'm not outright discounting the possibility.)

>Even if you hate it, the vibe of that is completely different.

It's so mealymouthed my internal sentiment analysis grades it as insanely toxic.

Nobody actually talks like this. And if they do they have a terrible office culture.

Come to think of it, AI Stans do remind me of people bending over backwards to justify how their Soylent farts made them more skilled at living life.

>I used to work for an ad tech company (which I know already makes me the devil to some around here)

everyone sets the bar below what they do

>even I think that they crossed a line with this

everyone sets the bar below what they do

>I would genuinely like to know what the engineers thought when doing design reviews for a "selective stand down" feature. There doesn't seem to be a legit way to spin it.

everyone sets the bar below what they do