nirui

Not sure if I'm allowed to quote from the protected article, but the full talk point was:

> “What’s actually going to happen is rich people are going to use AI to replace workers,” he says. “It’s going to create massive unemployment and a huge rise in profits. It will make a few people much richer and most people poorer. That’s not AI’s fault, that is the capitalist system.”

It's kind curious how that would happen.

In the old days, if you want to maintain a monopoly, you can try drain out the talent pool so no one else can hire the best people to do the work that you're doing, and you can also try patent wall to delay your competitors from launching their product.

But if a worker can be replaced by an AI, it could also mean that the competitiveness of the work is significantly reduced, to the point that theoretically everybody can do it. The only way (i guess) to remain the monopoly is then tightening control on the AI while optimize the process to kill off all potential competitors etc. It's all Red Ocean policies (https://www.wallstreetprep.com/knowledge/red-ocean-strategy/).

"Massive unemployment" maybe, but I don't think "huge rise in profits" is guaranteed.

China's 996 or 007 work schedule is created by desperation. The root problem here is that almost all good industries in China are already cake-spliced by the powerful and privileged, leaving very little for the private sector to compete. As result, every tested and true way to reach profitability is a combat in the bloody sea, which in turn caused the hellish schedule.

So, if you see a SF start up founders started praising 996 schedule, keep a watchful eye, make sure those founders are not in similar desperation.

Also, Elon Musk loved China schedule, I don't really see Twitter improved much since.

> It was that a comment on a message board would lead to following them on LiveJournal...

I remember "back in the days"™ many forum software allowed a feature called "signature", it allows you to attach custom pictures and links after each and every post you posted. Many people use this feature to advertise their sites/blogs for others to visit.

Then the feature got weakened by both the social media platforms and forum software, to the point that it's gone and forgotten.

But based on my experience, it was the best place in the old time to do advertisement and SEO. I learned and bookmarked many interesting blogs from those signatures.

Now days, I'll just google it if I need anything, and never look back after I'm done. That's one reason today's Internet is dead to me.

> Broadly speaking, the online platforms we use are not built for connection; they are built for engagement. This is universally true for all internet spaces, from stories to newsfeeds, for the intellectual and the plebian alike.

It wasn't always like this, and the I feel the whole "engagement" blame is misplaced.

You don't post comments for engagement, you post it for recognition. And people post selfies on social media not to farm engagement, but to attract attention.

The engagement part come after it. Someone welcomed the content you posted, it's positive feedback from there. The social media platforms wants to farm engagement for profit, you, or rather most people at least, don't.

The connection part on the other hand, is your own effort, it don't happen automatically. Platforms are just a place, a pub, for people to gather, you need to do the work to find friends.

> A further check showed that all the network blocks are owned by one organization—Tencent. I'm seriously thinking that the CCP encourage this with maybe the hope of externalizing the cost of the Great Firewall to the rest of the world.

A simple check against the IP address 170.106.176.0, 150.109.96.0, 129.226.160.0, 49.51.166.0 and 43.135.0.0 showed that these IP addresses is allocated to Tencent Cloud, a Google Cloud-like rental service.

I'm using their product personally, it's really cheap, a little more than $12~$20 a year for a VPS, and it's from one of the top Internet company.

Sure, it can't really completely rule out the possibility that Tencent is behind all of this, but I don't really think the communist needs to attack your website through Tencent, it's just simply not logical.

More likely it's just some company rented some server on Tencent crawling the Internet. The rest is probably just your xenophobia fueled paranoia.

Which is the only form of hypnosis that I know for sure MAY work.

I think they used "armbands" to signify censorship which is useful for mass mind control. Armband is an insignia that someone wear to remind themselves that they belongs to a group and thus should accept it's ideas, which is kinda of an unification of mind.

If you see the the blog, which is about "secret internet blocklist", then it make sense for someone to create the link, albeit it's a bit far fetched since some blocks are fair legally and morally.

BTW:

> No judges, no transparency, just a bunch of ISPs and major copyright holders deciding what your eyes can see.

I don't like the sound of this. I think at most, only democratically established laws that reflects people's actual demand should decide which content is banned, not ISPs or interest groups.

The chosen example:

    bar, err := foo()
    if err != nil {
        return err
    }
    if err = foo2(); err != nil {
        return err
    }

Sounded more like a nitpicking.

If you really care about scope while being able to use `bar` later down, the code should be written as:

    bar, err := foo()
    if err != nil {
        return err
    }
    err = foo2() // Just reuse `err` plainly
    if err != nil {
        return err
    }

which actually overwrites `err`, opposite to "shadowing" it.

The confusing here, is that the difference between `if err != nil` and `if err = call(); err != nil` is not just style, the later one also introduces a scope that captures whatever variables got created before `;`.

If you really REALLY want to use the same `if` style, try:

    if bar, err := foo(); err != nil {
        return err
    } else if bar2, err := foo2(); err != nil {
        return err
    } else {
        [Use `bar` and `bar2` here]
        return ...
    }

You forgot to mention the hypnotizing video. You can get people to do anything for you after letting them watch it in repeat for more than half an hour.

Interestingly, or rather disappointingly, it looked like the "Fear-Mongering Marketing" is actually working.

YouTube creator ColdFusion recently uploaded a video titled "Gen Z Graduates Are in Crisis" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVc2ZhECTMg), which is about the impact of AI against Gen Zs. In it he talked about how AI is worsening job market.

I'm thinking, since the AI marketers are hyping up AI tools, maybe it has created an illusion that worker might not be needed in the near future, then it propagated outward like that. Considering how sluggish the job market already was, it's not surprising things could went on like this.

My guess is, it will continue the trend, until the moment the bubble pops, if the bubble is not just a joke.

But then I looked at how many people are paying for AI tools right now...

HR paying AI tools to read resume, job seeker paying AI tools to write resume; teacher paying AI tools to review homeworks, student paying AI tools to write homework; Academic journals paying AI tools to scan for cheats, paper factories paying AI tools to "optimize" their "paper"... Oh, and people vibe coding their project on GitHub, etc etc.

Well, at least for now it's fun to watch how things are panning out. Give yourself some laughter before the pain comes.

Congrats on your new gig.

About the AI thing, based on my readings, I feel that more and more dev and companies are realizing the true utility value of AI programming tools after the hype, i.e. it's useful but not going to replace programmers completely.

The signal did took sometime to get transmitted to the company's leadership, but a year is enough time for most smart companies to hear it loud and clear.

I think the title of the original article itself should be changed to "Too bad life in International Space Station would suck", as many examples are based on ISS experience.

If your vessel can do constant 1G acceleration/de-acceleration like those in The Expanse, then many problems mentioned in the article will simply not exist. For example: you never shower because gravity problems, toilet is hard to use also because of gravity problems, body fluids problem (including pee) is also because of gravity.

So I guess you just need is to wait for someone to invent Epstein Drive, and then you're good too go. Or, you can just take a walk in the park see if it reduces the urge, it's free and you can do it right now.

I wouldn't blame that on people, most people ARE fundamentally peaceful, rather, it's the (as I like to call it) "different interests" causing all these troubles.

Everyone is different in their personalities and their means to achieve what they want, so eventually someone may have conflict with you and makes you feel bad. But I've live long enough to realize all of those conflicts are just part of (good old) living, you can hate someone while still find a way to corporate efficiently to make both of you happy.

However, the story of The Expanse told me that, as long as we as human beings refuse to learn how to resolve or moderate our conflicts, we'll bring it along no matter where we go, different country, different continent, different planet or even different galaxy etc. We'll find a way to differentiate each other and attack.

That's why it's sometimes good to go back to the fundamentals, think what do we want to fill our lives with? Hope or hate?

IMO, I2P and Tor were never a solution to this, they are anonymization networks, which adds their own requirement on how to use it, and most people don't need anonymization. These protocols are slow and complex, thus not user friendly.

Maybe aiming a lower tier of security (like what TLS offers) is good enough for regular user. For example, Matrix or Jami.

But the problem with Matrix and Jami is that these are still too complex for regular user. No user, no motivation for the developer and it's a downward spiral from there.

> We don’t need more “alternatives” to the cloud. We need a shift in architecture—from platform-centric to protocol-centric systems.

Nice idea, but that alone is not enough.

The POP3/SMTP protocol is still a server-client based model, and such model naturally gravitates towards centralized systems which leads to the problem we're facing today.

In my opinion, to encourage self-sovereignty, a protocol should decouple the creator and the publisher. The information created by the creator can be published on multiple publisher platforms selected/directed by the creator.

And ideally the creator should be able to directly sharing information with other creators too, like a P2P system. This should also help reduce the risk of information leaking thus more secure.

The protocol also needs to be flexible enough that it can adopt the needs of more modern users too, otherwise you'll found yourself back at the start line few years later.

P.S. If you think this comment is very empty, that's because it is. I've observed quite a few P2P based protocols over these years failing to gain popularity... this is one of the things really hard to get it right. I don't know how to do it, and many way smarter people also failed to do it. So, yeah, that's why this comment is so empty. But hey, if you can get it right, maybe they should give you a Nobel or something.

> Chinese military wanted to pull something similar off they'd ship components in and assemble them inside the States

Then why don't they just source drone parts directly from local vendors? I mean, you can literally build all-American bomber drones, inside America, and then blame the attack on domestic terrorism. Why bother shipping the components from half a world away and the components says it was "Made In China"? Sounded like a lot of extra work and not very economical.

See the logical contraction here?

Am I on Reddit? Because this whole idea/conspiracy gives me the strong feeling of Reddit r/worldnews vibe.

> US first position themselves to reject manufacturing as an undesirable industry

I'm a Chinese let me just point out the obvious here: it's not that US "rejected" manufacturing, it's simply that the US at that time needed to get itself into a more profitable service economy, and by doing that it raised the living standard in the US so slowly more and more US citizens stopped seeing manufacturing jobs as an attractive option.

In fact, I don't really think Americans can be attracted to the manufacturing industry again (least not in this form), unless of course if you want to work in a sweat factory and handle heavy metal such as lead and lithium-ion while have full knowledge that doing such work will shorten your lifespan by 10% or more. Even China is upgrading it's manufacturing capability/technology because (guess what?) the Chinese also stopped wanting these dirty jobs.

The DJI bomb conspiracy is stupid because it assumes that the CBP of the US is dumb enough to not screening for explosives while doing their inspection. If smuggling this massive amount of bombs into the US can be this easy, then I'm afraid you are in much bigger trouble than this.

> Not saying that's likely, but it is possible.

I'm afraid that's not how things work.

For example, it is possible for everyone to self-host their own service, it's true and everyone can do that right now. However, that's not what happened.

In reality, people oped in to use these cloud services, with full understanding of it's downsides, in exchange for convenience and low cost for themselves.

And as I've pointed out in my last comment, the companies has optimized their services so well, it made it very hard for a library, which is a "outsider" in the service field to compete. The library and it's lacking of technical know-hows, political resources etc will eventually doom the service, making it a product people only buy with higher-than-market price as a show off of their goodwell. That's not a sustainable business model or any model, really.

You must know all these things if you want to change the world for the better. Dreaming on vague an idea is easy, making things actually work is hard.

Also, you need to reconsider the meaning of the term "self-hosting", because unlike what people widely believed, "self-hosting" is not equivalent to "setup and running a server by yourself". The definition is much wider.

In fact, if you ever downloaded something from the Internet and storing it on your computer for later use, that's self-hosting, you just not sharing it with remote access. And if you copied what you've downloaded to multiple computers, then you've just created redundant and distributed backups.

But if you taking that into consideration, that downloading is self-hosting, then there's even less reason to use self-hosting service provided by a library, because why should you pay extra for all of that if you have already done it with no added cost? Just for a expensive remote backup maintained by people who has other jobs?

    - "if there was only one library. But, there are tons!" - This is just empty dream. Not many will be welling to do it in reality.
    - "if the services are based on interoperable standards" - Designing protocol is not easy, and by simply defining the protocol you also restricts what the protocol can do. A file sharing protocol? Good luck getting it to also do bookmark or chat. So, empty dream based on empty dreams?

Sigh. Have you noticed this many "IFs" in your idea? "If some public institution is welling to do it", "If the institution can handle all the requirements", "If regular people are welling to pay for it" etc etc. These ifs are much much bigger than what you probably expecting.

I do feel you have a good heart and wanted a good change, but you look inexperienced. I would recommend that you learn the industry or simply work in it for a few years, then maybe you'll come up with something that actually works.

> Imagine a world where your library card includes 100GB of encrypted file storage, photo-sharing and document collaboration tools, and media streaming services — all for free.

But why should a (public) library be interested in providing such services? For funding? What about costs? On for example censorship/regulations/compliance/maintenance etc?

I'm not so sure a publicly funded library would have any interest in doing that. Think about it, if libraries can/welling to do any of that, then Amazon would never have any chance to grow this big.

I think that's why only private companies is capable of doing it, at least currently. They found out a way to make a profit while operating a sustainable (all things considered) cloud service.

In fact, the at-cost service provided by the libraries will probably collapse as soon as a for-profit company comes up with a cheaper plan.

Also, host by a library still creates centralized service, which comes with all problems that a centralized service inherits. It only shifts the problem, not solving it.

> It's actually best to do most of your activity undernourished, as it helps develop true intuitive nutrition feedback sensation. You'll start to sense how every macro and salt feels when you ingest it.

Not exactly my experience.

My did a exercise schedule involves climbing a mountain every week. The mountain is about 400 meters (that's ~1312 feet, or more than four American football fields laid end-to-end) tall, and the exercise was usually done during afternoon (1 or 2 hours before dinner) without eating lunch.

After two mouths of that, I've noticed:

1. My weight or belly size don't really changed much. I also notice that some people who also frequented the mountain have big bellies.

2. I got very hungry after that, which triggers me to eat more during dinner, usually salty food.

3. The delight of salt becomes craving, probably due to the lost of liquid/electrolyte through sweat (and tears, probably).

4. For comparison, I stops craving salty thing the next day.

I guess you need to actively suppress some of your inner urges to really make the "nutrition feedback sensation" work. Otherwise, exercise more only leads to consume more.

P.S. Also, doctors really can't recommend doing heavy physical activity with empty stomach, as it might increase your heat rate or something (I might be hearing it wrong). I've since changed the schedule so I can eat something before start climbing, though my belly size still remained the same, and I'm still craving for salty food if uncontrolled.

But maybe it's just because I don't know how to do it correctly.

You guys are nitpicking on the name while I clicked the link seriously thinking it's cool and could help to shrink my bellyfat.

Ignoring is not how it works. Internet is a basically huge social circle, if not enough people got on broad, a site can die out really quickly. I've observed quite few examples of small community closed down because no one was there anymore, some websites that I loved as a child no longer exists because of this reason too, gone with it is all the content they once hosted.

Here's the problem:

1. Software/Infrastructure have a cost: If you want to self-host, there's a consistent dread of maintaining things. It wears you down, slowly maybe, but eventually.

2. The problem of discovery: Back to the past, people used to sharing links and resource manually, often on a forum ("forum life", i call it). But now days people are more rely on platform recommendations (starts from "Just Google it"). If your content/link is not recommended, then you can't reach far. Also, people now days really hates registration (and memorizing/recording account/password), and they will not even try to use "strange" websites.

3. Government regulation: The government pushing laws upon laws that could restrict self-hosting content, by either making self-hosting difficult, or forcing websites to self-censor (which most personal sites just don't have enough admin to do).

4. Some people who has the capability and know-hows on solving the problem are "solving" it the wrong way. Instead of creating systems that modern users would love to use, they tries "being back the old way" so do speak, but not giving any consideration on why people abandoned "the old way" in the first place. The software they created maybe even quite hostile to regular non-tech-savoy people, but hey at least they themselves thinking it's cool.

There are few projects gets it right, like Mastodon, and maybe Blue Sky etc. But, then these project still don't earn a lot of money and political capital, meaning it still can't escape the point 1 above and maybe point 3 as well.

Over all, I think it's less that the platforms exploiting the Internet, it's mainly that most people just "moved on" to what could make their life easier. Internet is a tool after all.

P.S. If someone wants to solve the social media over-monopolization problem, I'd recommend that you make sure you're "user forced", user, user, user, regular old man/woman John/Marry Doe user. That's how you create social circle/network effect and that's how you grow and sustain.

I'm feeling/guessing the expiration is more of a flow-with-tradition thing. TLS certificates expires, it's part of the security feature, so why not Secure Boot certificates too?

And of course, it gives the root certificate issuer enormous amount of power as well, good riddance from the POV of Microsoft.

However, I think if Microsoft REALLY care about security, they should not let application installed on their system to do anything that is unapproved by the user (such as installing a virus that encrypts all their data), which could actually enhance the user experience and security. But, with secure boot, at least you can be sure that your Windows kernel is not tampered so it can serve the virus correctly :)

Protip: you need to pull the kid when his trying to pull VLC out of the river ice. I was sitting there for a half minute watching him doing it without realizing I'm part of the action. But what do I know? His not asking for help and I'm just a dog.

Damn! That's dark. I should've read the article first, but I did not. Sorry.

I kinda understand the false guilt these postmasters must have felt when they were wrongfully accused. These people should not be dead like that, those who puts them into that living hell should.

Oddly though, the justice of this world usually don't work like that. Usually, it's the people at the lowest level who suffer the worst fate/abuse, simply because they are the most defenseless, while the people "on the top" pets themselves for "resolving" the problem they created.

It's a odd place to mention, but from one of Donald Trump's story (The Verrazano-Narrows Bridge one where he noticed the unnoticed engineer) I've learned it is important that one must actively take what they deserved (recognition in his story, justice in this case), and at least don't be silent when other people is stealing it away. This is "a nasty world", and if you want to make things right, you must "Fight! Fight! Fight!" and never give up.

Not weird at all if people don't strictly follow a standard.

The world of programming, just like the real world, has a lot of misguided doctrines that looked really good on paper, but not on application.

For example:

    "_links": {
      ....
      "cancel": { "href": "/orders/123/cancel", "method": "POST" }
    }

Why "POST"?

And what POST do you send? A bare POST with no data, or with parameters in it's body?

What if you also want to GET the status of cancellation? Change the type of `method` to an array so you can `"method": ["POST", "GET"]`?

What if you want to cancel the cancellation? Do you do `POST /orders/123/cancel/cancel HTTP/...`, or `DELETE /orders/123/cancel HTTP/...`?

So, people adopt, making an originally very pure and "based" standard into something they can actually use. After all, all of those things are meant to be productive, rather than ideological.

That's exactly what I meant to say ;)

Is the article a translation from Chinese? You have to have some deep knowledge on Chinese net slang and Huawei slang to correctly understand it.

And all that unnecessary emotional expressions. All of it made the article hard to read.

Here's takeaways I extracted:

1. The author claim to be "an employee of the Pangu Large Model Team and Huawei Noah's Ark Laboratory", a lower ranking "small worker". The first 4 bullet points supposed to prove that they have insider knowledge, which should authenticate the claims that followed. As of why Huawei named their teams in this oddly way is unexplained but do desire some psychiatric analysis.

2. "At the beginning, our (Huawei, editor's note) computing power was very limited..." (detail followed), "...At the same time, other domestic companies such as Alibaba (which published Qwen, editor's note) and Zhipu were training on GPUs and had already figured out the right method. The gap between Pangu and its competitors was getting bigger and bigger"

3. "In this situation, Wang Yunhe ('the current director of Noah', editor's note) and his small model laboratory took action. They claimed that they inherited and transformed from the old 135B parameters, and through training a short few hundred B of data, the average improvement of various indicators was about ten points. In fact, this was their first masterpiece of applying the shell to the large model. Huawei's laymen led the experts, which made the leaders completely unaware of this nonsense. They only thought that there must be some algorithm innovation. After internal analysis, they actually used Qwen (which is published by Alibaba, editor's note) 1.5 110B for continued training.", "By adding layers, expanding the ffn dimension, and adding some mechanisms from the Pangu pi paper, they gathered about 135B parameters. In fact, the old 135B has 107 layers, while this model has only 82 layers, and the various configurations are also different. After training, the distribution of many parameters of the new 135B of unknown origin is almost exactly the same as that of Qwen 110B. Even the class name of the model code was Qwen at the time, and they were too lazy to even change the name. The subsequent model is the so-called 135B V2. This model was also provided to many downstreams at the time, even including external customers."

And that's about it.

Also, yeah, the article was indeed a translation from Chinese. The [original post] was written in Chinese, and then got translated it to English by github.com/moonlightelite. That's why it felt odd to read.

[original post]: https://web.archive.org/web/20250706034203/https://github.co...

After reading the article, I feel this is less of a whistle blowing, more of an attack against Wang Yunhe. That's why there's so much emotional expressions, to (maybe) appeal to Huawei and/or the future employer of this individual. But that's just my personal feelings/hint.

I noticed there's no word such as smart, bright, clever or wise mentioned in the sentence above.

Just an observation, nothing else.

Soham the remote work hacker(s)*.

* The extended meaning of "hacking" is required to correctly understand this sentence.