dogleash

> The biggest problem I have with reddit is mods can slowly but systematically ban users who express unfavourable opinions

I recently got banned from subreddit A1 because I commented in subreddit A2 without knowing the ongoing bloodfeud where A1 moderators didn't find the A2 moderators strict enough. I'm a tourist to the topic "A" all together and barely understood the lore of the topic. Let alone the cultural eggshells of following a search result into the wrong subreddit.

>My biggest concern these days is so many intelligent/powerful people believe the labs are full of shit, yet they may very well not be.

Then why are they behaving like they're full of shit?

Where are their sober forthcoming responses and explanations for critics? I don't mean rando twitter "critics." They could start with the NYT editorials. Even the best you have to argue that they're sincere is a "just trust me bro."

If they're not going to engage in the discourse, that leaves us no other option than to acknowledge the signals of deception and apparent hypocrisies. This is what a tech company that lies to us looks like. Public wanking about p(doom) is unorthodox marketing, but it's undoubtedly mostly marketing now.

I've lived a life of "oh be reasonable, tech company wouldn't deceive us about this topic where they're obviously incentivized to deceive us" followed by "oh my god, who could have seen that coming?!"

>> the modern Democrats are primarily a corporate dominated party

> I suspect this is changing.

Nope. The democrats have been on the cusp of becoming serious for as long as I've been following politics. It's a con to get your hopes up. Don't.

> Why can’t the DoD say “ok we’re going with a different vendor”?

That's exactly what they're doing. It turns out the DoD is a really big bureaucracy and has process to make sure they thoroughly exclude a vendor and transitive dependencies on that same vendor.

>I wouldn’t chalk any of this up to malicious intent. I’m sure they are swamped with such requests.

It's malice from whoever is responsible for under-staffing. It's also malice to prioritize the squeaky wheel for optics; it's intentional to reduce the spread of the knowledge of how unresponsive they are.

I think there's something valuable in your take. The idea that technical failures and process failures are parallel tracks is not new.

Certainly not the kind of thing where an exec needs to pull out the "I don't want problems, I want solutions" card to illuminate that they are only valuable to the process domain resolution, not the technical one.

The accommodating reader can read that interaction as entirely because of mismatched insight into the issue. I'm willing to budge that maybe too much time in the agile dens does really does necessitate the conversational roundabouts. It's taught people to taboo process they don't see the immediate need for.

> they are noun phrases and not sentences at all? I’m pretty sure that any decent pre-LLM NLP-based grammar checker would correctly flag half the sentences in Claudish. Also, whatever variant of Claude wrote this thing can’t even capitalize around semicolons consistently with itself, let alone consistently with how English has been written for at least a century.

Probably just a case of a company hoping their scale can change the societal standard faster than they can be bothered to match the standard.

You'll talk like 2023 unsupervised TikTok generators and you'll be happy.

> Can anyone explain to me why Tristan simply didn't go to settings page and turn off the thing?

Maybe they were fine with contributing training data when their threat model didn't include the case of "OpenAI gets wind of our research and attempts to front-run us"?

There's something that really rubs me the wrong way when people use the language of healthy emotional regulation to spread unearned and unjustified placation.

It reminds me of (for the pedants out there, I'm not saying it's equivalent to) the consume product meme. "Don't ask questions, just complete assignment and then get excited for next industry trend."

>I don’t know what the future of this industry will look like, and I don’t know who will benefit from it and I don’t think I’m alone with that. However I can only urge anyone who feels anger and looks for a villain right to instead remain curious instead. To be curious enough to understand what is changing, excited enough to experiment with it. And then, from what we learn, earn the right to decide when resistance is warranted and where to direct it.

Sounds pleasant and vaguely inspirational. Then you read it again and notice guy thinks I don't always have the RIGHT to DECIDE to RESIST.

> I guess introducing money is taboo for those communities

Sourcehut is a subscription service with multiple tiers of access.

I think the different tiers are just for show, but I could imagine that if they felt there was a subset of projects they liked that were putting extra stress on their system they wouldn't be above differentiation at that point.

I thought sourcehut was general purpose git hosting, not open source mission focused like codeberg?

obv they're going to have content restriction, but there is a spectrum from "actually illegal" to "wonderful chaps whom I love but happen to disagree with philosophically." Slop coding is neither of those, but is closer to the latter than I'd expect a general purpose host to draw a line.

Hard disagree. Plenty of new technologies have readily apparent straight-forward application for government use.

You're arguing your point by naming a technology that speculative fiction regularly foresees advancements in, and loves using in stories as the enabler of more intrusive state power.

More surveillance records, better processing and recall of those records are like THE THING when it comes to more law enforcement and passive coercion by the state.

There is honest to goodness disruptive tech that takes time for society to adapt to and reveal where state power wants to go. But those are the vast minority. I think it's a pasttime of industry to play ignorant to how their products will interplay with the government's obvious motivations.

> but dear God would it be satisfying to watch him be proven right on the financials.

I don't get why there are so many people who need Zitron to be wrong. It reminds me of back in the days when people still liked Elon and every criticism of him or Tesla must be a short-seller spreading lies to move the price.

I think it's pretty easy to slot Ed's predictions into your possibility space even if you're still betting on a different outcome being more likley. Something else is going on.

> It’s not a conspiracy

Why does everyone play the game where everything ought to be assumed above-board until someone painstakingly proves otherwise.

> To date, five manufacturers have pleaded guilty to their involvement in an international price-fixing conspiracy between July 1, 1998, and June 15, 2002, including Hynix, Infineon, Micron Technology, Samsung, and Elpida.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRAM_industry_price_fixing

We are not the courts. The most reasonable and truth based position is operating with a fuzzy impression that most businesses are substantially more dodgy than their carefully manufactured PR releases are meant to portray themselves as.

And in this case, that includes acknowledging that a literal criminal conspiracy in well within the realm of possibility.

>So why not rate limit non-paying users and charge for whatever scarce resource is being consumed that is causing them to constantly fall-over?

I think it behooves them for the public presentation of their issues to too much load. If they implemented load shedding and still had issues the follow-up questions would be less comfortable.

old.reddit.com is remnants of a product they're trying to distance themselves from. People who like it are not the target market. It's not that they want you to go away, they'd much rather you be a scroll zombie addicted to the tripe on the front page. But if that's not an option they'd rather you fuck off. All the thoughtful subreddits I used to visit are ghost towns now, with 1-4 posts a month.

>or the tech industry and always suspect that we are cooking up some new way to screw them over

Looks like Amodi is laying the groundwork so he can re-run Eric Schmidt's "but it happened" playbook. Do whatever you can to make money, wait for the dust to settle and walk off into the sunset after one final "whoopie daisy, didn't mean to do that to you. sucks to suck."

> Also happy to answer questions about the design decisions we made.

Why did you choose extra pull requests as the division of work instead of building out a decent UI for reviewing/applying/reworking at the commit level? I assume there's some extra insight that made you ignore the mailing list "series of patches" workflow that inspired this whole thing and go with "series of series of patches" instead.

You see this response because the port of Bun from Zig to Rust does not have anything to teach us about Zig, Rust or porting between languages with LLMs.

There are so many non-quantifiable properties to evaluate of the 'before' and 'after' codebases. Choices and preferences to be had about languages, language porting in general, and LLM coding.

After all that, pretend we could have a clear convincing distillation of the port and want to go apply the lessons learned. If someone doesn't get LLM porting results as good as Bun did, or it cost them substantially more in tokens, then they're "holding it wrong." If someone is underwhelmed by Bun's results, then it was just a proof of concept and the models have gotten so much better in the last 6 months anyway you can't compare.

I've been reading people use "postmortem" to describe software retrospectives for like... 15+ years.

Mostly in the opensource, or marketing-blog spaces. The detailed investigation and fix report was a favorite genre of blogpost. And if someone's bragging about the design of an enhancement, or investigating a bug, then the overall product isn't dead. They're (usually) not talking shit to anyone. It's the bug that's dead. Or security indecent that's over. Or a schedule milestone that's "dead and burred".

It's a 1 chili pepper level of spicy to use a slang term that relates to death. I'd never read it as hoping someone fails. I think people let the corpotalk center of the brain overreact to anything that's not couched in euphemism.

The LLM translation of serenity brower's javascript engine to rust and bun's translation to rust actually provide an interesting set of open source projects to compare and contrast. While there will obviously be some blind hate, there is difference in commentary on the two projects. In technical details, Adreas'/Jared's approaches and communication. That all shows me there is substance to the criticism that isn't just AI naysaying.

Original story that isn't a transcript of a podcast covering that story: https://www.propublica.org/article/microsoft-digital-escorts...

I worked on projects with EEs and MEs for years. Were they not doing "engineering" because they built custom PCBs and the devices they go inside, rather than drawing the wiring plans or HVAC plans for a construction project? Most of them didn't even have a PE.

> The more I interact with the real world and mature as a person

I don't think this statement has the effect you want it to have. You're not laying out the experience you're speaking from. You're just setting it up so that no matter how reasonable the next thing you say is, it will appear maximally arrogant and condescending.

Some people like brutalist architecture.

I think is so ugly that I'm half tempted to chatgpt fact check this comment. It very well could have been a deliberate conspiracy to lie to the public and say it looks good to make some austerity go down easier.

The act of shooting the pitbull makes for good dramatics, but you would get zero sympathy from me if your local government banned pitbull ownership. e.g. Ontario bans pitbulls. I don't have a problem with that.

What do combat sports have to do with anything?

The intro lobbed up a clear cut point of contention for the article to address. I found the following writing to loose steam on that point. I turned to skimming, and did not manage to find a conclusion.

I suspect the stance they described as one readers mistakenly took away from their previous article to in fact be their stance. Otherwise why dance around it so hard?

I call meetings to force others to think about the contents of an email for more than 2 minutes.

I won't say there are zero times where face to face conversation is beneficial. But forcing someone to not be distracted by "multitasking" while they work through their inbox, is not one of them.

This is such an optimistic article ignoring the problem. There is downward pressure to reduce the rigorousness of pull requests.

More static checking and AI analysis of changes are good things, everything else being equal. But they're not sufficient to offset the additional review demands of AI pull requests.

> This layered model keeps PRs moving without lowering standards.

> Accountability stays with the human. But the human review becomes more about judgment and less about mechanical inspection when baseline checks are already handled.

> But as AI generates more of the code, the industry will likely move toward more radical review models.

Quit dancing around it and just advocate pushing to main. The PR model is to have a quality gate. If review throughput is seen a bottleneck, don't saddle people with accountability for changes they're pressured to let through.