HNHacker News
TopNewBestAskShowJobs

jodrellblank

14,854 karma · joined May 18, 2008

submissionscomments
jodrellblank··on Claude, change the “Add to Cart” button to blue
You can, but this is public and maybe you should post. If "you are what you repeatedly do" then we all collectively are what we all do.

If we each stop arguing with racists because we're each tired of it, then what we are is a society that lets racism go unopposed, a site with racist comments proliferating, a site where racists gather because they are able to be themselves, a site where future readers and AI training is learning that racism is popular, common, normal, and acceptable because everyone is accepting it.

It's a bit like democratic voting, your vote doesn't matter and cannot change things, but it's important that you vote because all of our votes do matter and can change things.

It's a bit like the quote "Dear Board, I don't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member. Sincerely yours, Groucho Marx.", I am upset and offended every time someone calls out my dumbass comments, but horrified at all the countless times nobody does. Why would I want to waste my time on a site with such low standards that it lets me comment? I'm exhalted and encouraged everytime someone upvotes or engages with my low effort quips[1] but thrown into a chasm of despair that HN users let that pass unopposed. When nobody engages with comments I spent literal hours on[2] I curl up into a ball and die, but also dream of it being a feather in my cap with dang that I'm posting a substantial comment and that will be its own reward. I identify with nobody more closely than Colonel Cathcart, and I will be delighted if someone engages with my Catch 22 reference, but aghast that such a nontechnical reference gets engagment; distraught if nobody engages but delighted that perhaps HN standards are being held higher.

If not you, whom?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49478355

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49586378 or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49491182

jodrellblank··on Casey Muratori – The Root of the Root of All Evil – BSC 2026 [video]
> "if walk monster manually trolls the map"

Casey Muratori has a 50 minute video on "Killing the Walk Monster" which is about how they started looking for glitchy game geometry by pretending to be a player walking around, then by a flood-fill ("walk monster") probing for barriers, then the video is explaining how they designed something "exponentially faster" (both demonstrated starting at time 38:33). The better version was realtime enough that level designers could use its overlays interactively while working on the level, and during test playthroughs. He describes it as "exponentially faster". It doesn't seem like the earlier poster calling it "brute force" is a reasonable description.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE8MVNMzpbo

And the place the player can walk but shouldn't be able to (off the boat), is not a fault in the walk system, as explained in that video near the end, it's a place where level designers made a mistake.

jodrellblank··on 'You Can See Everything' Review: Nathan Fielder's Doc About Elizabeth Holmes
Capitalism is not "when someone pays for something". By that logic when the USSR launched the Mir space station in 1986, because the state paid for it that made them capitalists.

> Capitalism would let them fail.

and yet ... Here we are. The state paying for things is Capitalism, and the state paying for this isn't Capitalism, in the same comment.

jodrellblank··on 'You Can See Everything' Review: Nathan Fielder's Doc About Elizabeth Holmes
Imagine claiming undue credit for the works of Euler, Einstein, Michaelangelo, and hundreds of huge Cathedrals all over Europe, while disclaiming the constant bailouts from the taxpayer so that Capitalists never actually risk or lose money, and being blinkered to the fact that 'money' doesn't solve hard problems or do hard things, workers do.

Manhattan project? Taxpayer funded. Concorde? Taxpayer funded. Walking on the Moon? Taxpayer funded. What are you talking about.

jodrellblank··on 'You Can See Everything' Review: Nathan Fielder's Doc About Elizabeth Holmes
Worker and parasite?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=z2_dhUv_CrI (The Simpsons)

jodrellblank··on Doomscrolling ourselves to death
> "we’re supposed to believe that social media is no different than extremely powerful drugs that have severe withdrawal syndromes and wreak havoc on their user’s bodies"

For someone nitpicking on details surely you noticed that nobody said that. This is a strawman you created to drag the parent poster's point off-topic.

> "The equivalence is obviously false"

And Opium is obviously not an "algorithmic feed forensically designed to hijack the brain", so clearly the poster who "sees no difference" does actually see differences, just not in the point they are making.

jodrellblank··on The revolt of the reader
> "My revolt is against the cognitive stress of reading generated text."

I saw a comment on HN that that was roughly "re: ChatGPT, when I write one sentence and I get back three screens of lecture, I don't consider that a 'chat'".

I consider that comment often when prompting Claude and hoping for a two line response and getting an "it's important to note that <blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah>".

At some point it may as well be the teacher in a Charlie Brown cartoon: https://annotatedgilmoregirls.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11...

audio version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss2hULhXf04

jodrellblank··on The revolt of the reader
My guess is that if you were betting on a race, you would put your money on the swift to win, and "sometimes fast runners trip over" wouldn't seem as smart.

The rewrite stinks of a consultant's report where humor is frowned upon, business is serious, and there's no way we could write in plain words that the CEO got there by chance. Objective consideration distances the author compared to the subjective original I have returned and [I saw]. The original gives examples, the rewrite's contemporary phenomena is vague enough to avoid calling out the board of directors. A compelled conclusion is one the author is - reluctantly, you understand - forced into. Innate capacity leaves an escape hatch for a education from a good school and life experience to excuse the board again. It's not an honest rewrite of the same sentiment - a subjective take that life isn't fair and it's not just here, and us.

A plenitude of observations undertaken in a multitude of geographically and culturally diverse locations has convinced this author of the incompleteness of the following claims: races are won by the swift, battles are won by the strong, bread is earned by wisdom, riches are earned through applied understanding, and favours return to skilled persons. Absent are the effects of time and chance on all situations, of which experience has made abundantly clear. Other phenomena may too have their inputs, e.g. underhanded manipulation.

(Swiftness is still the best available predictor of who will win a race, though, and training cardio, muscles, diet, electrolytes, mental endurance, is the best available way to increase your chances of winning and not dropping out, tripping over from tiredness, or getting cramp, even though you can't change your innate ability or age, and time and chance happeneth to ye regardless).

jodrellblank··on Aging brains blend memories together instead of just forgetting them
The past is 186,000 miles per second away.
jodrellblank··on Why do I lose my passion and want to do nothing?
Why not Goliath when he lost to David's new-fangled technology?

Wikipedia[1] says Deep Blue had 30x 120Mhz CPUs and 480 custom VLSI chess chips, and could do 11 GFLOPS. HN[2] says that's roughly an iPhone 5s.

Wikipedia[2] says 11 GFLOPS of compute power cost about half a billion inflation-adjusted dollars in the mid 1980s when the Deep Blue project was started; cost about half a million in 1996 when it was playing Kasparov; costs about 12 cents today. (Of course it's daft to compare custom chess chips and CPUs and GPUs, supercomputers and mobile SoCs, but it'll do).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_(chess_computer)

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9626731

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_point_operations_per_...

jodrellblank··on Bug Blindness
"Time passed, and they resented the defects no longer. The defects had not been remedied, but the human tissues in that latter day had become so subservient, that they readily adapted themselves to every caprice of the Machine. The sigh at the crises of the Brisbane symphony no longer irritated Vashti; she accepted it as part of the melody. The jarring noise, whether in the head or in the wall, was no longer resented by her friend. And so with the mouldy artificial fruit, so with the bath water that began to stink, so with the defective rhymes that the poetry machine had taken to emit. All were bitterly complained of at first, and then acquiesced in and forgotten. Things went from bad to worse unchallenged."

- E.M Forster, The Machine Stops, 1909

http://emforster.de/hypertext/template.php3?t=tms

jodrellblank··on Bug Blindness
I guess even without the physical buttons you had to just learn that "play" means "engage the appropriate technical machinery".

> "[play] The meaning "to cause (a recording) to reproduce what is on it" is by 1903, probably from the "make music" sense." - https://www.etymonline.com/word/play

jodrellblank··on GUIs should be fully keyboard-driven
Look how many programs and features exist on Earth.

Project this forward to the worlds of 2050, 2076, 2126.

Your "understanding of what options are available at all" becomes moot when every program has so many options that you couldn't read them all in a lifetime even if that was all you did. Or when the answer is effectively "everything". Future programs will vibe single-use features like you make a disposable regex for every search. You don't cement xyz\d{3} into a feature, and you don't ask "show me all patterns I could search for".

At what point is "how to do it without their help" a strange thing to say? Select text and press Ctrl+B for bold, you reply "no I want to do it without the software's help". What? Typing [b][/b] markers, coding a function call, pointing to a bolded font - there's no world where you "do the bolding" and the computer "doesn't help". There is a submerged iceberg of bolding with a bit poking above the surface where you press Ctrl+B and feel you are doing meaningful work. Like the story of instant cake mix, it was a market flop until they removed powdered egg from it and turned it into "just add an egg" cake mix, which lets us feel like we are still cooking.

Why does Future Word need an "insert picture" feature? It can press enter a few times and display that picture of your dog in the gap, easy. If you had a personal assistant they would not have a please-call-my-partner-and-say-I-will-be-late-home "feature" and you wouldn't want to micromanage which cellular network and which audio codec was used, and you wouldn't say "I want to call my wife without the telephone's help". "Insert picture" doesn't need to be "a feature" any more than the regex "xyz\d{3}" needs to be "a feature". Future turbo-LLM has seen you write every document you've ever written, future Microsoft Word has been trained on every document ever uploaded to Office 365/SharePoint/OneDrive. Future computer tracks your typing when you pause for emphasis, or hears when you speak with emphasis, or the cameras observe as you scowl for emphasis. When you indicate the bit that you want emphasised, it puts bold markers on that bit, and you won't give a damn how - whether it put [b][/b] markers or whether it printed the document through a virtual fax machine, simulated a hand drawing more ink on the simulated print, virtually faxed that back to itself, ran OCR on the incoming fax, identified the added ink as the bolded font, and put <p class=></p> and a CSS stylesheet indicating the bold font.

> "Seach and chat-based UIs always assume you already have a perfectly thought-out plan what to do"

What? CLIs assume you have a perfectly thought-out plan, and understand the internals of the tool, all its options, and how they combine. You either type `fffmpeg --foo-transform --start-frame=234 --bounding-box=0,0-100,100 --option=reticulate-splines --reticulation-formula-bellard-optimal` or you get an error.

A GUI assumes you have a plan and you can find your way through the menus to find the foo-transform, then the popup dialog box will prompt you with textboxes, comboboxes, radio buttons, for the options, which you can set using your plan. You still need a plan but you don't need as much software internals.

Chat based UIs are even more of that; you type "I want it to look like an old photo" and it says "here I setup the foo transform for you with options that will make it sepia toned, here's preview, accept?".

jodrellblank··on GUIs should be fully keyboard-driven
We know what it means for a GUI to be keyboard driven now:

Edit with Copilot[1]

Press the Copilot key on your keyboard[2] and type the thing you want to happen on your keyboard in English without leaving the home row. Forget the keyboard shortcuts, the path through the menus, the button location in the toolbar, the command name in the omnibar, the marketing name of the feature. Forget queueing up keyboard keys in an input buffer based on memorising which dialog will popup next, or the tab ordering on this or that screen. DWIM is back, and this time it still isn't determinstic, but it's the way we are going to manage ever-growing software features and task complexity and finally turn computing declarative instead of imperative.

"Move rows with dates from 2020 to the bottom of the table"

"Change the date format in the table from mm/dd/yyyy to yyyy-MM like 2026-Aug"

"Style the table with alternating dark/pale contrasting colour backgrounds and a different header row colour"

[1] https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/word/edit-with-copilot-i...

[2] https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2024/01/04/intro...

jodrellblank··on Show HN: The load-bearing vocabulary of Claude
I'd try to avoid posting this on HN these days, but since the guidelines contain a fiat doctrine that "HN isn't turning into Reddit", Claude-to-buttisms:

- "Users can now message My Butt a task from a phone"

- "How My Butt Watermarks AI-Generated Text."

- "Since I'm also subscribed to ChatGPT Plus, I pasted in the exact same question I'd asked My Butt. The difference was immediate!"

- "I've been a huge My Butt fan from its very early days. I've been one of its loyal users since it was still a relatively niche product mostly talked about in developer and technical communities."

- "Since deploying My Butt in our product, we're seeing higher user engagement, stronger user feedback and we're closing more deals."

- "I was at 90% of my session limit when My Butt suddenly decided it was time to call it quits. Instead of continuing with the task I'd asked it to complete, it essentially told me I was getting too close to my usage limit and that it would be better to stop there."

jodrellblank··on Show HN: The load-bearing vocabulary of Claude
20 years ago idlewords wrote[1] "Despite - or perhaps because of - sucks" and coined the term "linguistic kudzu" for annoying idioms spreading and spreading. I suggest it as a good term for LLM-isms despite, or perhaps because of, the way it doesn't quite fit.

[1] https://idlewords.com/2003/04/despite_or_perhaps_because_of_...

jodrellblank··on Show HN: The load-bearing vocabulary of Claude
"Huffing their own farts" comes to mind. Instead of building Artificial Intelligence, they were building Artificial Human Centipede.

I'd never considered that the 'Gray Goo' scenario[1] or the Paperclip Maximizer, might be informational and digital rather than physical. LLMs might turn every bit of computer storage into slop (goo) and then cause us to go mad turning the Earth's resources into making more computers (AI datacenters) to hold more goo. The GrAI Goo catastrophy.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_goo

jodrellblank··on Show HN: The load-bearing vocabulary of Claude
Cloud-to-butt extension but for Claudisms?

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=cloud+to+butt&ia=images&iax...

jodrellblank··on Show HN: The load-bearing vocabulary of Claude
"Few" says Duck.ai

> "The name Elvis was not among the top 1,000 US baby names in 2010, the first year it had not made the list since 1954, the US government said." - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13302517

Most recent famous Elvis on Wikipedia is Kosovan footballer Elvis Letaj, born 2003 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_(name)#People_with_the_n...

jodrellblank··on Small Models Have Arrived
> "I have yet to see anything more useful in terms of code generation"

Recently my employer hooked Claude into a bunch of SaaS services like a ticketing system and an asset inventory system, and I feel a big productivity boost is that I don't have to dig for their open browser tabs, remember their product name/URL/where I put the bookmark, find that my sessions have logged me out "for my protection" since I last looked, find my MFA code, approve sign-in on my phone, then use their mismashed/sluggish/poor-UX interfaces and slow searches to loko for things, and can instead ask Claude "search these systems for anything about <issue>" and it just does. It correlates between systems, summarizes things, and gives me references which system and where to look to check what it found. Internal search on a mess of acquired and disjoint systems.

This feeling reminds me of two classic Joel Spolsky blog posts below, and your comment here about the surprisingly useful tab-complete gives me a similar feeling. I wonder how many smaller candidates there are where LLMs are more helpful and less hyped, against the big vibe-coding solve-everything hype which are currently less helpful than their hype?

References [1]: "A lot of us thought in the 1990s that the big battle would be between procedural and object oriented programming, and we thought that object oriented programming would provide a big boost in programmer productivity. I thought that, too. Some people still think that. It turns out we were wrong. Object oriented programming is handy dandy, but it’s not really the productivity booster that was promised. The real significant productivity advance we’ve had in programming has been from languages which manage memory for you automatically. [...] Whenever you hear someone bragging about how productive their language is, they’re probably getting most of that productivity from the automated memory management, even if they misattribute it. Sidebar: Why does automatic memory management make you so much more productive? 1) Because you can write f(g(x)) without worrying about how to free the return value from g, which means you can use functions which return interesting complex data types and functions which transform interesting complex data types, in turn allowing you to work at a higher level of abstraction"

and [2]: "I have seen many language and programming fads come and go. But there’s only ONE, that’s right, ONE language feature I’ve ever seen that actually improves your productivity significantly. No, it’s not object oriented programming; no, it’s not intentional programming or assertions or programming by example or CASE or UML or XML or Java. The only thing that improves your programming productivity is using managed code – that is, using a language in which memory management is automatic."

[1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/06/13/how-microsoft-lost...

[2] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2001/10/17/working-on-citydes...

jodrellblank··on Saving 100 terabytes of memory by optimizing 1.1.1.1's DNS cache
And yet when Prof. Donald Knuth wrote that in 1974 paper[1] it was in this context:

> "The improvement in speed from Example 2 to Example 2a is only about 12%, and many people would pronounce that insignificant. The conventional wisdom shared by many of today's software engineers calls for ignoring efficiency in the small; but I believe this is simply an overreaction to the abuses they see being practiced by pennywise-and-pound-foolish programmers, who can't debug or maintain their "optimized" programs. In established engineering disciplines a 12% improvement, easily obtained, is never considered marginal"

also:

> "In the late 1960's we witnessed a "software crisis", which many people thought was paradoxical because programming was supposed to be so easy. As a result of the crisis, people are now beginning to renounce every feature of programming that can be considered guilty by virtue of its association with difficulties. Not only go to statements are being questioned; we also hear complaints about floating-point calculations, global variables, semaphores, pointer variables, and even assignment statements. Soon we might be restricted to only a dozen or so programs that are sufficiently simple to be allowable"

In a recent comment I mentioned a youtube interview with Rico Mariani, a performance engineer from Microsoft, and he said that he often got called into projects approaching their deadlines and not meeting their performance goals.

In one anecdote he spent a couple of hours with a team and showed how their design could never meat the goal even with the fastest disks, CPUs, memory, and network. And commented how strange it is if they had spent a day at the start of the project whiteboarding out the design against hardware specs at the start of the project - and avoided months of wasted effort - that would be called "premature optimization".

[1] https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/356635.356640

jodrellblank··on Apple introduces M6 and M5 Ultra
The video is exactly about design and architecture and not even slightly about microoptimization. How do you have it completely inverted?
jodrellblank··on Apple introduces M6 and M5 Ultra
Another small objection that I just remembered, Casey has an interview with Rico Mariani[1] who worked on performance at Microsoft for two decades, from their first C++ compiler, to .NET, to web browsers.

He coined the phrase "pit of success" after his team had spent months profiling and tuning the .NET startup to remove many milliseconds from it. One developer on another team called a default constructor for an XML class, and in that commit wiped out all their gains, three times over, he didn't know the default path was slow and there was another way. Rico was giving a talk and said that isn't a good way to design things, success can't be the hard way that only a few experts can find, it has to be like 'falling into a pit', the default way to do things has to be the good way.

Anyway, with one browser related performance regression, they profiled and found that the layout engine was using a lot more CPU. He believed the layout engine was good enough, looked elsewhere and found a commit which invalidated a node in a tree and all subnodes. That was cheap and didn't stand out in the trace, but far away in the codebase it triggered a lot of layout updates. Separating things out to focus on just one part at a time, and then the profiler can reveal where the problems are, neither of those things worked as intended.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Rig6v-xYU

jodrellblank··on Apple introduces M6 and M5 Ultra
> "you have plenty networking latency that can hide your CPU latency"

Does this excuse making 75 network calls instead of 5? Or knowing that you make a lot of network calls but designing the code as if they were instant and have the bandwidth of a local SSD?

> "Not to mention that "clean code" optimises for developer churn" "structure code not optimising for brain shift, because they'd hold the context in their heads."

Based on what studies or evidence is this optimised or optimal? How is it easier to work through code which is atomised and abstracted until there appears to be nowhere that anything actually happens, where the method and variable and parameter names are long compound words, where everything is multiple layers of indirection and generalised, and you have to hold all that context in your head?

jodrellblank··on Apple introduces M6 and M5 Ultra
I object on a few fronts.

One is that the rewrite has 'mechanical sympathy' with the machine e.g. arrays without pointer chasing can fit more data in CPU cache with fewer stalls while it reads over the main memory bus and waits after every item. That should not be a surprise, it's knowable in advance. Why deliberately ignore knowledge about the machine when designing the code, then come back and use that knowledge?

Another objection is to the idea of "measure then improve". Imagine a delivery truck which loads parcels without checking their weight first, then drives the truck onto a weigh machine (profiling), then if the truck is overweight they unload each parcel, weigh them individually, find the one heavy one filled with lead weights, then repack the truck without it. That would be silly and inefficient, right? Now imagine they unload the truck and there's no single parcel which is surprisingly heavy and instead the goods have been packed with 'lead foam'. Who could forsee that would cause problems with the weight on the delivery truck? (Anyone!). Now what's the fix? Unpack and repack every parcel, rewrite the whole code. There's no accidentally quadratic here to remove, instead every tiny piece takes a few more microseconds than it needs to and those add up.

Another objection is "YOU FOCUSED ON IT' - this implies that there is some way you can design and write code that doesn't need any focus. Part of the point of the video is that the faster code is not harder to write, there's no complex algorithms, no compiler intrinsics, no deep knowledge; it doesn't take a focused performance expert to write a switch(){} instead of a subclass.

Another objection is your implication that performance shouldn't be a consideration until you measure it and find a problem, and prove that it is. Which is like saying that aeroplane design weight doesn't matter until after you build it and measure it and prove that it matters. Computers are finite and limited, why have we got to the stage of assuming they are infinite and unlimited, and then demanding proof that they aren't, over and over on a case-by-case basis? A 3D game can render a virtual world at 100 frames per second. Does a program which takes 3 seconds to show a username/password login prompt need enough resources for 300 frames of game until proven otherwise?

Another objection is that you are defaulting to 'clean code is the default, performant code needs measuring and benchmarking to justify itself in every individual case. Why isn't that the other way around? Less resource-wasting code as the default, and 'clean code' only when maintainability has been measured and proved to be a problem, and only in the parts of the codebase which have the highest maintainability problems?

If all the clean code, encapsulation, isolation, abstraction layers, are providing the developer benefits that are claimed - why aren't programs better? If it's now so clean and easy to refactor, why doesn't that translate to software that gets better instead of software that gets worse? Casey's example is that Visual Studio debugger updated the watch window in realtime while stepping through code, on single core Pentium 4 with 512MB RAM, and now on a modern multicore machine with 64GB RAM and an M2 SSD it can't do that. (RemedyBG can, so it's not impossible).

jodrellblank··on Apple introduces M6 and M5 Ultra
> "the software has become bloated"

Casey Muratori has a 20 minute talk on YouTube called "Clean code, horrible performance"[1]. Using an oft-repeated example in C++ he rewrites it uncleanly and then benchmarks.

Removing Classes/subclasses/polymorphism: 1.5x faster. That overhead was like reducing an iPhone 14 to an iPhone 11 performance.

Replacing Encapsulation with a table-driven calculation: 10x faster. That overhead was like reverting an average desktop CPU from 2023 back to 2010 performance.

Adding basic SIMD: 20x faster.

His position is that the principles of Clean Code wiped out 15 - 20 years of hardware progress, for a subjective ideal of maintainability, and even if they deliver on that, the cost is too high. It shouldn't/cannot cost a decade of hardware performance to make programmer's lives easier.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD5NrevFtbU

jodrellblank··on There's no reason for software to be slow anymore
LANs effectively don’t exist. If you want to sell a speaker system useful to the general public, you’re going to have to deal with:

- Access points that don’t let WiFi devices talk to wired devices.

- Office networks that don’t repeat broadcast discovery traffic into different segments.

- People in McMansions who don’t understand extenders and use two different SSIDs for each half of their house or for indoor vs poolside.

- Phone is on cellular network, speaker is on WiFi, “controls don’t work”

- Network teams who won’t “open the ports” or configure mDNS or Zeroconf or Bonjour but will let port 443 to the internet.

- people who want to turn their speakers on at home while they are at work, for their dog.

- people who want to turn their speakers off at their second home after they returned from holiday and left the pool party music playing.

- diagnostic logs that would be nice if they went somewhere.

- People who lost their phone and want a website on their laptop to control their speakers.

- people who have their speakers nicked and want to login to your website to see their speakers checking in and “remote wipe” block them.

- People who want the status of all their speakers live in their phone app, even the ones at other properties.

- tons of buggy low quality, low cost, network devices (switches, hubs, cables, routers, firewalls, NATs).

Just about the only thing which is used enough to be reasonably trustable on any random customer network is HTTPS to the big CDNs and Cloud providers.

jodrellblank··on The August 17 outage
It's hard to separate out the hype from the results, but if you think none of that's being tried or worked on then you're the Ostrich with your head in the sand. Mayo Clinic says AI models help detect pancreatic cancer on CT scans 3 years before clinical diagnosis.[1] Breast Cancer.org says emerging research shows AI might spot cancers in mammograms that radiologists might miss[2]. Nature.com has a paper conclusing that AI (in various forms) have "already revolutionised the diagnosis, prognosis, screening, biomarker discovery" of cancers.[3] Cancer.gov says NCI scientists are using AI to improve cervical cancer screening with deep learning and digital images[4].

Dr David Burns offers his Teams CBT therapy with an LLM based app for people who can't afford therapist visits[5].

U. Chicago says that AI weather forecasts can be faster and cheaper than supercomputer-based physical simulations and produce results weeks ahead, which makes accurate forecasts affordable and available for farmers in middle-income countries[6].

With your smartphone camera you can get an AI-assisted bike-fit at home[7].

You can get a bike fitness training plan[8] and performance analysis with an AI that you can chat with to analyse and explain or change it, used by three professional cycling teams.

Prophix Australia analyse photos of powerlines taken by helicopter using AI to track assets and identify and verify potential faults[9]. AI systems scan images for early signs of plant disease in the vineyards of the Swiss Alps [also 9]. AI systems analyze multispectral images and satellite images of crops to detect nutrient deficiencies or pest problems in large farms[also 9].

In 2020 - 2022 a trial of a system in a hospital to identify patients at risk of sepsis helped medics treat them 2 hours earlier and reduced the death rate from sepsis by 18%.[10]

Self-driving cars now exist. Camera drones which follow you and respond to gestures now exist.

[1] https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/mayo-clinic-ai...

[2] https://www.breastcancer.org/screening-testing/artificial-in...

[3] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41698-026-01276-6#Sec17

[4] https://www.cancer.gov/research/infrastructure/artificial-in...

[5] https://www.feelinggoodapp.com/

[6] https://climate.uchicago.edu/insights/ai-is-transforming-wea...

[7] https://www.myvelofit.com/

[8] https://analog.io/sports

[9] https://medium.com/design-bootcamp/what-has-ai-ever-done-for...

[10] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/algorithm-that-de...

jodrellblank··on Don't paste the AI, please
"Why is a conversation needed?" he conversed, obliviously
jodrellblank··on Windows brings out the Rorschach test in everyone (2003)
I dunno why this gets instantly under my skin, but it's like a cross between those Youtube clickbaits "She walked into the meeting and they all laughed at her, then she revealed she was the new CEO" and "forwards from grandma: you'll never believe, Mavis had white flowers instead of yellow, and the home owner's association wsan't happy about that, I'll only say that much..."

What do your two things have to do with each other at all?

Are they not bothered by fire emoji because they are employees who could be fired?

because they work in an office building which could burn down?

Do they dislike cooking with gas, rocket emoji, or smoke testing because industrial machinery can explode?

Do they hate hearing about software crashes because they drive cars which could crash?

Do they hate tests of software resource use because of Climate Change?

Do they hate Continuous Deployment because they know people in the military who could be deployed?

Do they hate Test Suites because they're diabetic?

Do they dislike Black Box Testing because it should be African-American Box Testing?

Can they really not tell the difference in context between a picture of a fire in a status update on a computer screen, and an actual industrial fire??

← PreviousPage 3 of 34Next →