krageon

Yes, and the person you responded to posited that this is because they used to be niche. You claimed this was not the case, they provided some URLs that demonstrate semi popular subreddits have always been shit.

This post sounds like you are still disagreeing but nothing you've said points to another conclusion

You cannot ship things that don't work unless you work for Microsoft or Oracle or I guess IBM

It gave you feedback on why you are being down voted and actionable advice. You are free to ignore whatever you read online, but it is disingenuous to say there is no content.

You've made a hypothesis, provided no basis for it, blew past that and built some more conclusions on top of it. Along the way you introduced a few more unsubstantiated thoughts.

The post in it's entirety reads as a religious rant, but it might have had something to offer to the reader if you had bothered to provide some sort of philosophical foundation for why you feel that the middle way is the superior way. And that all excess is inherently not only nearly identical in terms of effect, but by definition harmful.

They might get sad because they feel like they're missing out

This is a forgivable statement if you didn't read it, because then I guess you may not have seen that there's themes at play and a point being made. If you did read it I do not understand how you don't see how you are meant to dislike the summary judgement and the judgement itself being an effect of yet another plot point.

But then if you did not read it it seems a little disingenuous to say "this is a bad book", because you would not only not know but anything you did know you would not understand.

Is this some sort of avant-garde sarcasm that is meant to be funny? I'm genuinely asking, I am having trouble modeling a live human being that reads any amount of llm-related news and says this without it being facetious.

If you want some input; I have to assume you are getting downvoted because you are posting a vague unsubstantiated criticism that isn't particularly interesting and while perhaps a little germane also does not invite further conversation (you've essentially posted "I don't like this". What exactly is anyone else meant to do with this?).

Large exchanges handle this very simply: If they have the keys, it goes to the inheritor(s) once they get a court order. If they do not, it goes nowhere

> You've used gift cards before right? The whole point is that you can't convert them to cash.

This is very untrue - there's a ton of services that do this and while it is against the ToS sometimes, there's plenty of place where ToS of this type are not legal and so you are perfectly within your rights to resell a gift card for money.

This is not laundering, it is in fact exactly as the service was meant to be used. As long as you save where the money comes from and where it goes you are at worst operating a discount pseudo-bank. But that's what google is also doing, so we can infer that this is okay.

Very cool. Of course we both understand that this is the case - this is why it is in scare quotes. You are arguing about something I literally acknowledged in my original post. The issue is that it happened due to what is for all intents and purposes bitrot: It breaks during regular use due to small compounding errors that happen due to bad software design. In practical use this means what I wrote, even though to the most pedantic of nerds it means literally what happened. It can in fact mean both things

They broke:

* at "random", during regular use

* when installing something, sometimes

* when removing something, sometimes

* slowly, over time

They were essentially just huge steaming piles of shit.

What you are describing was true at the time for Linux. It was an absolute bear to set up (at the time of win95/98) if you had anything unusual but once it ran it ran.

This has never been true for windows although the reasons why have shifted over time: it used to not work primarily because it was just shit. Now it additionally doesn't work because it is actively malicious.

I am writing this from the perspective of someone who is regularly forced to use Microsoft's products for work. I am familiar with the subject matter.

Given that you know these terms you must be aware we have invented different words for organisms that have mixed effects (positive and negative) on the host organism. Parasite, commensalist and symbiote. If you don't want folks who know these words to argue with you you should not use the wrong ones.

Ah, I thought you were saying you were disappointed due to something new.

arguably the job application process is automated and staffed by the ignorant to such a degree that it's an adversarial game where you don't need to be optimising for correctness. Which is the perfect tool to be mass spamming job ads with

Edit: I think this is a reasonable solution because the hurdles and context-free nonsensical rejections you'll face if you interact with this process in good faith are far too high. It's dehumanising.

A toaster cannot meaningfully consent, because it is not aware. I must say I'm morbidly curious what you are disappointed about.

This type of thing has been generalised to "we have created the torment nexus from acclaimed book 'dont create the torment nexus'". I really do not understand what motivates engineers to rebuild things from dystopic fiction, but I think it is emblematic of the type of thinking engineers working in the advertisement industry have as well.

A sort of willful blindness to real consequence born out of a vast apathy for social impact.

While in the abstract a great thought, this mindset in aggregate is why our children will end up living in hell.

This is a crappy report, that's what is being discussed

When you make an outrageous claim the burden of proof is on the claimant. Given that there isn't a real indication of anything to the contrary, it is reasonable to assume reality is still the way it always was and humans are too.

Calling it that makes you instantly recognisable as someone who is corporate to a problematic degree. I guess it is somewhat good to be upfront about it, but I think praise is taking it too far.

The fight itself definitely would not be stupid, because words have meaning and by letting marketeers corrupt them we let them make all of society worse. The real tragedy here is that you think linguistic drift for a proximate profit motive is acceptable.

This is a math problem with a math solution. You verify it with math

I thought it was interesting to read. It had some information I didn't have before.

You make so many outlandish claims and outrageous statements - Oss libraries being entirely ai, you can trivially replace any Oss library with agent output, etc. It really distracts from your core question (which has a premise that doesn't seem reasonable)

Even before the advent of AI the quality of most reports was depressingly low. Most of your reports will quite simply come from folks in lower-wage countries that broadly don't speak English well and that use a shotgun approach to bug bounties. That means you are receiving a lot of them, they will be hard to read (assuming the information you need is in there at all) and if they get one success out of fifty then for them it is a really good return.

The advent of LLMs has made this a hundred times worse. Both because it makes it easier for most people to create reports that sound good (and so are more effort to dissect) and because people who didn't have to work hard to get any amount of competence are usually more entitled and more rude (the stakes are even lower for them).

It is economically no longer a good idea to run a bug bounty program at all. I honestly question whether or not even having a direct input for such things makes any sense anymore. The volume is becoming so great you need a classical spam filter to plow through it. But that won't work, because they all sound reasonable.

I've run a bug bounty program for a relatively large corporation and you are exactly right. It's worse in open source, because none of the developers owe a researcher their time. At least in a bug bounty program you've communicated willingness both ways already

The coreutils rewrite was shit because of the license change. Most of the other founding ideas were also bad as you say, but the license change was absolutely a much worse signal. Just a bunch of people rolling over and showing big corps their belly. And for what? So they can be more exploited by people that treat them like cattle.

> What do you want to tell with this?

It's a common llm-ism. It makes clear this person is capable of speaking english without chatgpt and makes a case that the chatgpt voice patterns are in fact as claimed by GP evidence of a lack of original thought.

The third party is never trustworthy. Such a system is the death of all things good in effect - it makes a single party very attractive to compromise. Compromise is so easy in practice that imagining a group of people is preventing it at any kind of scale is purely magical thinking.