dwb

Yes, that’s the joke.

Well, they’re not minimum-viable if they don’t work, which they won’t for most users. It’s not a simple matter of the database being unlocked or locked, as I say it’s at least a per-process authentication, protected by the 1Password daemon. I’m not saying it’s a perfect system, but exaggerated mischaracterisation, with no apparent thought to the experience of the average user, doesn’t help your argument. You don’t seem to put much value in memory protection or process sandboxing. Yes with enough exploits you can do anything, but that’s true in any case. The fact is, 1Password is good enough for most people, and even at least one bank that I’m aware of. I’m willing to be convinced of a better implementation, but the fact you’re so scathing of something that works and has UX benefits over per-secret keying is off-putting. All design is trade-offs.

You have to both install and explicitly enable the 1Password CLI, both steps no “normal” user is going to take unless socially engineered to.

https://www.1password.dev/cli/get-started

And getting secrets using it requires explicit authentication with password/fingerprint/etc (I forget if it’s per item or per process, but still).

Absolutely.

> it takes a lot of work for a number to mean anything and we largely aren’t doing it

https://desystemize.substack.com/p/desystemize-1

> The bucket is the coordinator — no membership protocol, no failure detector, no consensus.

Sorry, but for me, even being a heavy user of coding agents at work, LLM-isms like this on your home page make me less trusting in the care gone into the project.

Socialists want to seize the means of production in order to democratise it and move towards communism, which is exactly a post-scarcity post-state destruction of the [capitalist] economy. It is entirely compatible with giving everyone AI and a replicator - the free association of producers and all that. Marx would disagree that you can skip the state part on your way to communism, sure, and I think he’s probably right, but maybe not.

I actually can't think of any functional languages that use < > for type variables (I'm sure there's one or two, but it can't be common)

Yeah, techno-religious types scare me. They're profoundly anti-human and seem capable of some heinous shit.

You've written a lot of words to say "humans are flawed, let's create a machine that's better", but trying to dress it up in flowery, lofty language. I'm not impressed by that. You have the programmer's disease of over-abstraction and over-active pattern recognition. You try to blur the line between essentially human, biological medicine, and technological development. They are not the same thing; they have completely different philosophies and aims.

I'll answer my rhetorical question: at the moment, and for the foreseeable future, people like Sam Altman and Dario Amodei are directing a lot of this. I do not want this. Enclaves of profit-seeking technologists are more-or-less the last people I want doing... well, anything, actually, but certainly not something that gets people like you in a religious fervour.

So condescending. “Can’t psychologically cope”? Can you hear yourself? There’s some advances, but we’re losing a lot too. Don’t get dazzled by the hype.

There are many mysteries of the universe, but who we are, to the extent that I am rejecting the comment I replied to, is not one of them. I would love to see how humans explore reality and being (if we survive!) as time goes on and we figure more out, but I hope we do so as a whole species and not through the designs of a handful of zealots.

Sure, we're cyborgs, but still very much of the flesh, and I think we have to draw a line somewhere.

I think attitudes like this are traitorous to the human species. You’re not talking about a transcendence, or at least, not one that I recognise. Our biology is an innate part of us - to improve, to fix, sure, but not to cast off. Who is directing this “transcendence”, and who benefits? I absolutely do not want a religious tone to any of this. Awful vibes.

If you ever thought “prediction markets” were a good idea, you should leave economic judgement to other people. Go take up gardening or something instead. It’s a hack reference at this point I know, but it’s Idiocracy-level stuff.

I really hope you’re joking, but it’s hard to tell on here!

I can certainly see the appeal of number four, but on more than a couple of systems I've worked on, it would have blown up the amount of data stored in a fair proportion of tables for very questionable benefit. It's a good technique to call out, but is it really right to dictate it for everything?

And what is people's opinion of the reverse: source-of-truth in traditionally-modelled mutable relational tables, with a change log written out with triggers?

Your dislike of music videos in general has meant that you haven’t had the interest to discern the good from the bad. There are plenty of high quality music videos. It’s like someone saying “I’m not really into classical music, it sounds all the same to me”. If they had an interest they’d know that it doesn’t sound all the same. So what’s the point in saying so?

I mean yes, cars are absurdly inefficient for a lot of trips. America’s addiction to cars is kind of funny.

Certainly where I live, rents are many times that, yes. If landlords really were just charging cost plus a modest profit (despite that I really object to any profit on housing) I wouldn’t be outraged.

No, too reductive. Rent-seeking is when people manipulate a situation to charge money without providing value themselves. Landlords are rent-seekers to the extent that they don’t do much, they mostly just own property - typical rent is many, many times the value of someone looking after the maintenance and building insurance for you (and anything else you want to argue a landlord does). The housing supply is naturally quite limited so the market doesn’t self-correct.

And anyway, if enough people don’t like the things people are doing with money, we can stop them from happening! So a pretty odd gotcha, to me.

Why do you think that? What knowledge/leaning do you have that would add weight to your opinion?

They appear to be “coming soon”. While I’m sure there’s a lot of interesting stuff they say, I too hope that the exclusively male and white selection of lecturers (and presumably philosophies!) is an artefact of how young the site is.

The author meant “wary”. You would never say “I’m weary of…”

For sure, I agree.

Right, I see. That is the traditional behaviour but there’s lots of apps that don’t do that, and closing the last window does also quit the app.

That is not true, when you close apps on macOS the process(es) really are finished, just like on Windows or Linux.

The same reason that you don't do a full shutdown every time you walk away from your computer. I don't really believe that you don't understand this.

Just had a quick look but I like the look so far. I’ve been thinking along similar lines for ages but never quite got around to making something. I very much support any effort to make remoting less dependent on the archaic character grid.

Glad to hear it!

I don’t think dismissing direct democracy as “fucking stupid” is the kind of constructive commentary this site is after. It’s a complex issue and I wouldn’t advocate for it claiming it would fix everything, but in the representative democracy that we (supposedly) have, and the representatives that we tend to get, often cowed or corrupted by huge corporate interests, is it surprising that people want to take some influence back into their own hands? I’m not ever going to be against that kind of democracy.