Calendar.
(Not a mistake the github page makes)
653 karma · joined May 16, 2024
(Not a mistake the github page makes)
He's an extreme populist authoritarian centrist -- a centrist dictator wannabe.
(I don't think people understand that successful dictators don't need to take a left or right position, and indeed any position they do take will ultimately be sacrificed to whichever policy choice centres power on the executive.)
Trumpism is its own thing, and this is why he beat Hillary (who was a mildly authoritarian, technocratic centrist).
The 2016 presidential election did not take place on the left-right axis. It took place on the populist-libertarian axis of the Political Compass:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Political_Compass
He only had to gesture towards the people he wanted to vote for him, which he did without care for consistency.
From Trump's perspective it was about the worst possible deal he could have struck if he'd approached it from the point of view the book is trying to portray.
I've always thought this to be enormously instructive about who he is. Strip away the politics, the authoritarian-populist schtick, and he fails on his own terms, again and again and again.
Reading this it can't possibly be the same guy, right?
But a proper healthcare system should absolutely be discussing obesity with women who intend to get pregnant at least, just as it should be discussing it with people who want to have surgery requiring general anaesthesia, with people who have mobility issues or knee/hip problems, etc.; if not more generally even outside of the context of immediate interventions.
Because it makes difficult, traumatic and bad health situations worse. Giving birth is routinely the first two of those things.
There is a positive-discrimination aspect here, though: yes, obesity complicates the health of older people, is raising mortality rates across the board. But society doesn't want women to die in childbirth anymore, and that makes this targeted intervention re: obesity a proper thing to do.
But you said...
> Phrasing like this is typical for people who want to persuade others that their opinions are somehow widely shared. It's a cheap rhetorical trick. Populists use this all the time. That doesn't make it any more true.
Is it only a problem when someone you disagree with does it, then? "Most people haven't got a clue" is also something populists say, I think you will find.
I tend not to write off whole swathes of people as non-technical. There's no such simple thing as a non-technical person, and people can like or dislike stuff without having a deep understanding of how it works. Generative AI is pretty widely distrusted and reviled; we know the damage it is going to do to trust and culture. It is poisoning the well of AI development. Studies like this shouldn't be a surprise.
It is, and I agree.
But I suspect you agree with me that this is not how people feel.
If you see someone lying on the street, bloodied, and you don't help, expect to be judged by that person about as harshly as they judge the person who beat them up.
Corporate culture has never come for art and writing as dismissively and callously as generative AI does.
This isn't pop stars and TV. This is coming to the artist who has self-taught oil paintings, the photographer who has built their own artistic camera, the pencil sketch artist who has learned photorealistic sketching and saying "hey, I know your work is almost impossible to share with people already and sharing it is the thing that makes you feel good... but I'm going to make that worse by drowning it in autogenerated shit. Oh and hey, you know how you developed a style and sold a couple of things? I've trained my system so that your customers can just generate work in your style without even giving you money, so that should make you happy, right? Happy customers are good."
This is not a mere extension of corporate culture. This is a callous, systematically careless, dismissive kick in the face to people on the ground. And we all feel it, either on our own behalf as creative people, or for those artists we admire.
I disagree with this. It's actually a pretty common understanding in UK culture at least; I've seen elderly photographers, young painters and one of my nephews use the phrase, recently.
Aside from the pithy "take", people absolutely do, instinctively, understand that if they aren't paying for something, it is them being sold in some way, to advertisers. Even if they assume incorrectly that it's somewhat more blatant than it actually is -- people think that big firms are actually selling their data en masse rather than selling gated access to it.
(I explain to people that you can really only sell a massive file of your customer data once; that's not where the big money is.)
It saves time.
*shrug*
Everyone knows this -- even the people pushing it. We know what it is doing to art, what it is doing to just being able to find a book on amazon, what it is doing to reviews, to website searches, to authenticity everywhere.
Splitting hairs about whether people think it's the terminology or the functionality is absurd. Stop making generative AI products that are the cultural equivalent of breaking into the community pool solely to piss in it.
People don't really want this. They have an instinct that a lot of AI products are little more than grift (trained by their experiences with "Web 3.0"). And this study is showing that.
But anyway: around the introduction of NT [0] there was clear discussion about how the kernel design was informed by the Mach/kernel boundary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT
"Like VMS,[24] Windows NT's kernel mode code distinguishes between the "kernel", whose primary purpose is to implement processor- and architecture-dependent functions, and the "executive". This was designed as a modified microkernel, as the Windows NT kernel was influenced by the Mach microkernel developed by Richard Rashid at Carnegie Mellon University,[26] but does not meet all of the criteria of a pure microkernel."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture_of_Windows_NT#Hyb...
[...] the strict distinction between Executive and Kernel is the most prominent remnant of the original microkernel design, and historical design documentation consistently refers to the kernel component as "the microkernel".
[0] which I am old enough to remember as an adult and a graduate -- I remember particular criticism from academics in OS design around the time of NT 4.0, which as I (admittedly hazily) recall relaxed some of the distinctive design because 3.5's graphics performance was too poor and the graphics subsystem had to be moved essentially into the kernel.
Because this is pretty much exactly how NT came to be the mess it now is.
I wonder if the parent commenter's point is that really, almost any OS design can be called "pragmatic", and therefore stressing it is particularly prideful.
The "Grid" view is absolutely fine for me. The "Table" view is unworkable.
I have a lot of trouble scanning across lines like this, where I will lose which line I am on (when my glance shifts). This, I have realised, is due to the tendency to shift eye dominance slightly across to the right. (My eyes are subtly misaligned so I have some prism correction; a recent change to my prism correction has improved this situation for me.)
This particular presentation has the indicator line in the low/high column placed so that it makes this accidental row shifting (which is always upwards) even worse.
For me, the line graph would be better off either as the background to the cell, or towards the bottom of the cell. And the rows would need zebra-striping, subtly.
The lesson from me, a fast and able reader who is not vision- or cognitively-impaired is: don't assume that you can put stuff across wide lines in tables like this. Provide affordances so people can hold onto the "row" as they scan across. The keyline separators are not enough, and the hover-over background change is not usable on a touch device.
As it is, when I encounter stuff like this, I often have to un-maximise the window and reduce the window height so I can scroll and use the bottom of the window or the title bar of another one to provide a consistent "edge" to see the data on. If I am using my iPad, I have been known to use a piece of paper or card.
Guitars as we know them are actually quite new, and going by "350 years" in the article, didn't really exist when these bits of paper were dropped through the floorboards.
Vermeer's The guitar player dates back to just over 350 years ago, shows a baroque guitar, and as far as I am aware these were complex, really expensive things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o-TOg-y_BI
I would guess there were lots of lutes and gitterns, though; they are relatively less complex. And I would absolutely think that the children who went to this school saw, owned and were expected to play musical instruments; they came from those sorts of families.
Not sure if Ondsel have one for any of their functionality.
I did not know about this, thank you.
> Been eying wp-graphql for my one wordpress project. From my dabbling with it, the DX feels a lot nicer than the WP REST api, though I'm sure you know that's an awfully low bar to clear.
Yes on both scores. There's a reasonably useful Woocommerce binding:
https://github.com/wp-graphql/wp-graphql-woocommerce
Which is what I was using for the federated storefronts, with the API locked down so it could only be accessed from a back-office client I hooked up with a Laravel worker. At the time it was very early days, but wp-graphql has quite a sane interaction with the hooks/actions model, so it's not awfully difficult to add/patch/override the things you need.
I think the parent comment's point is good -- if Apple are watching (pun not intended): you could make a truly tiny phone out of watchOS, please do it.
I essentially only do that for mutations, and they are no more complex than writing POST handlers.
Essentially all the rest is schema-first and it's _so_ quick and simple.
I don't dispute any of this -- it's really obviously a problem, particularly for certain "tent pole" projects where contributors have been horribly unrewarded.
I just don't think you can get from there to the first sentence of that article, because the reality of those unrewarded developers is that most will carry on until they starve rather than feel they have "the right" to money.
Utter horse pucky.
If there's a common misconception around corporate open source, it's the belief that it will reduce the maintenance burden by sharing it with volunteer contributors, or (for major projects at least) that releasing open source code will lead them to be in control of a standard, rather than (if they are lucky) having influence over one.
But individual contributors have such differing motivations, I have no idea what the evidence base for that first line is.
And it continues in that vein. So much [citation needed].
If you're coding resolvers by hand, that is not fun. But for example the Lighthouse GraphQL layer for Laravel (it's a schema-first thing based on the Webonyx PHP GraphQL reference implementation) can do a lot of this for you using schema decorations.
It has where/filter/sort/pagination, automatic scope narrowing etc., and you have very little code (if any) beyond the graphql schema to set it up. It integrates brilliantly with the Eloquent query builder.
One of the best applications for PHP IMO; it is really enormously productive.
It's not really torture. I do. I have built a private federation API in a system where there's a "mothership" service that needs to talk to individual websites.
Those websites are WordPress at the moment but they may be Magento, PrestaShop or whatever in the future.
GraphQL means I can template the API calls used to keep them in sync with the mothership. It's awesome.
I also use it for the frontend/backend connection of a couple of admin APIs and an intranet app.
Nuxt frontends, Laravel/Lighthouse headless backends. The only pain point is the unnecessarily complex Apollo stuff in the client, but that gives you really nice smart queries in Nuxt 2; it may not be that crucial in Vue 3/Nuxt 3.
I didn't diagnose. I made a suggestion. Full fucking stop. I didn't imply a diagnosis.
I suggested the possibility (I even used that fucking word). That he might want to think about it. Because the entire tone of the OP's question suggested it to me. Based on my own miserable lived experience of the last two years, for what it is worth.
So fuck off with this po-faced internet warrior shit.