1,340 karma · joined November 28, 2021
I have to add that, unsurprisingly, the fake therapy on offer is fucking toxic. Right away it's putting thoughts in your head that are obviously based on nothing relevant, contradict each other, and are escalatory. It is not at all surprising that people are killing themselves and others because of their interactions with these things.
As for the backlash itself, it seems safe to say it's motivated by a wide range of things. Ultimately though, I do agree with the point in the title (i.e. it's about datacentres) but I think a lot of the other factors mentioned are significant, but I still wouldn't expect even a perfect (impossible) poll/study to find a neat, unifying reason for most of the backlash.
Of course it's about the datacentres: why would anybody want even a modest, ye olde time datacentre, let alone a neo cloud / AI one, in their neighbourhood? You can call this nimbyism, which it is, but it's important to note the gulf of difference between a tech company's private profit facility and the sorts of projects where "nimby" typically is invoked.
Because this particular DC rollout is so massive and high profile, people have realised en masse that rejecting these things is something they can do. The anti-AI movement is absolutely a big part of this -- in terms of publicity, awareness, outreach -- but the various local peoples can (should, must) have their own reason for rejecting/protesting the projects.
Finally, given the dismal rate of promised capacity actually coming online -- which was apparent prior to and separately from "the backlash" -- I can't help but wonder if the widespread local resistance will end up as a scapegoat when questions start getting raised.
The USA is increasingly the source of economic and military destabliisation in the world and it's getting real hard to justify being the best little doggy for them. I'm not suggesting any action more drastic than calling a shit deal shit, and frankly it's pathetic and embarrassing that this is such a rare occurence.
And yeah, maybe some miracle corrective action will begin with a new president but the thing is, that will necessarily include restoring our "special relationship". You're better off refusing a bad deal outright, rather than trying to reneg later.
Really not trying to call you out here, as a teenager I once had the idea to load up my marble cannon with dead AAs (they're free!) and got a "do you really think that's a good idea?" from an environmentally conscious adult when I went asking for dead batteries.
You might need to qualify that a bit harder or someone could quite easily point out that all of these worthless shitdribblers cause actual damage to humans. They all lie, they all continue to claim that they hold the future in their feeble sticky hands. Just to take, take, take. You seem fixated on lying being a problem but only one of these two liars causes you to feel that her case is different? Maybe the difference between the two is in the lie of the beholder.
Fair enough, I applied that lens to it on my own.
Allow me to elaborate on my earlier comment and reply to this one here:
A ton of it? No, I don't see that. It's probably the least commonly implemented approach to difficulty (curves).
Dynamically adjusted difficulty has been around for a long time, but it's never been broadly adopted. There's a lot of reasons for this I'm sure, but a couple of obvious ones are that executives don't tend to throw money at features they can't see [or game developers in general], and that it's a tricky thing to build anyway.
It's certainly not the default solution to the problem, but there's a long history of games implementing some form of dynamically adjusted difficulty. Some of them to great success with the difficulty system itself being celebrated (Xevious, Resident Evil 4, Left 4 Dead), the vast majority of them you have no idea even implemented such a feature, and there's also a number of famous examples that were widely derided for it (Oblivion, ...?). [I'm genuinely stumped to think of another famously bad example, not trying to make it look like there are fewer of one than the other. I'm sure there are just as many negatively viewed ones as I can come up with positive ones.]
While it's obviously possible that an individual designer/team didn't thoroughly test their particular feature, the concept itself has been very well tested in a wide variety of implementations/mechanics. And if you're playing a game designed by people who didn't test it, the difficulty scaling seems likely to be the least of your problems.
Sorry, but it's hard to take this comment seriously when it reeks of "git gud". So I'll just point out that a lot of people play games, and that there are well-documented instances of games with dynamic difficulty as early as the 80s.
One also assumes the people maintaining OpenJDK have had their workload increase to an unmanageable level, like a lot of other free software projects and one thing I'm sure everyone can agree on is that Oracle certainly won't want to pay anyone more or hire more people to deal with that.
A lot of people (including the Register[0]) are pointing out that Oracle leadership are gung-ho about using LLMs for everything, and this seems to go against that. It makes sense to question this from a journalistic angle -- the executives are obviously full of shit and people would do well to remember that the next time one of them opens their mouth. But pointing at the apparent contradiction -- different rules for internal projects vs. open ones -- doesn't seem particularly meaningful on its own:
I don't think the CEO/CTO raving about LLMs should be taken as firm statements about how they actually operate internally. I'm surprised that this does not seem to be the default case. Among other things, Oracle stands to profit from greater adoption of LLM tools.
It would be unrealistic/unreasonable to expect their employees/contractors working on internal projects to be held to the same standard/guidelines/rules as developers contributing to a free software project. This applies either way, whichever side (internal/open) has the worse deal.
I don't know what the rules are for their internal teams. As far as I know, I'm not alone in that. Oracle also don't need to post anything publicly to change those rules.
[0] https://www.theregister.com/ai-and-ml/2026/08/03/as-larry-el...
I just want to add that programmers have only relatively recently become so abundant (i.e. replaceable) that they have so little say in how software should be built.
Programmers are still the experts in the room, but they don't get what they ask for for free anymore.
I completely disagree. I think this post has emdashes in the first paragraphs and that most of the people saying that it was generated didn't go any further than that.
Where is the repetition? The sense of deja vu? Where is the artificial sweetener, the overuse of adjectives? Where is the lack of meaning?
Suppose there was a group of highly motivated individuals that saw this article and felt called out by it -- prompt engineers, if you will. Because saying that "taste is all that's left" and that you can't develop taste without doing the work? That's saying that there's something still out of their reach. Something that can't be copied and reproduced ad nauseum.
This article gets at the heart of the issue and calls out -- though not explicitly -- these practitioners. It does this in a calm and reasoned way, in a way that they cannot defend themselves from.
I'm not making the claim that the article is an attack on anyone -- my claim is that a class of people will see it that way and react to that like Gamers seeing a 7/10 review for the game they're hyped for.
The "wood is a solid-state battery" thing was an absurd rhetorical device I used to point out -- particularly in a field so significantly connected to electronics -- that merely substituting a liquid for a solid does not justify using what will obviously be understood to be a reference to solid-state electronics.
P.S. A coal-fired steam engine is a solid-state motor.
Yes, lots of people thought disabling package adoption is/was a good idea. It seems quite likely that the Arch DevOps team also could have come up with that one, and they certainly wouldn't have missed all of the people telling them to do so.
It seems to me that disabling package adoption is not a desirable thing to do in general, and can only be used as a stopgap response to an emergency, which seems to be what is happening right now.
"just disable adoption" certainly can't be a long-term solution: Without adoption, the AUR will slowly fade away as orphaning a package would be permanent. Maybe the idea is to have some sort of approval process to filter adoption requests? In that case the AUR just dies instantly as that would effectively be another official repo with all of the issues that that would bring.
As for wood batteries,
Most usage of the term 'battery' is independent of technology, outside of usually wanting electricity as the interface. The fact that most batteries people talk about happen to be electrochemical cells is incidental -- it's irrelevant to whatever they are actually talking about. So yes, a lot of the time 'battery' happens to refer to electrochemical cells, but it also refers to energy storage devices in general, which wood obviously is.
The problem with wood being a "solid-state battery" is surely the solid-state part.
Q: I mean how does that even work, solid-state combustion?
A: No, it's still obviously a normal chemical cell. You do a chemistry and these special "electrodes" turn the result into electricity.
Q: Can you recharge it?
A: Well, not in your own home, but in your backyard, maybe sort of.
If we are to use the term 'solid-state' to refer to anything that is solid, as in "solid-state battery", and we can get electricity from burning wood, I don't see the problem with referring to wood as a solid-state battery.
When Sabrewulf[1] come, some fight, some run ... some run in cave. No good. Bad.
Token cost. Seem smart less token. But already discount. No profit.
Use less token? Price go up.
What money?
You should be bothered by the persistent & popular use of the "caveman" terminology and the myth surrounding it. However, from a dedicated amateur linguistic point of view, the "caveman language" that so many people seem to know by default is kind of remarkable. Perhaps it points to (it doesn't) some deeper, ancient understanding.
[0] this is a joke because the caveman myth comes with a lot of misogynistic baggage and you should have a problem with it. Also because I made you read this. (this is not an explanation of the joke itself, that's up to you)
[1] the sabre-tooth cat is a trope that over-represents its relationship with people. I mean it's extinct, but it was around "back then", right?
I'm used to the software industry being isolated (vice versa) from the games industry, but I'm a bit surprised by this point because "streaming text" is a pattern inherent to video games running on low powered computers (i.e. 8/16 bit game consoles) and games continue to implement this as a stylistic (or aesthetic) choice today.
Then, thinking about it for more than a second:
Text streaming into view is also inherent to [slow] "network" connections, including the early internet and terminal interfaces (paper and CRT), the default way that computer text appeared for decades. These are less common, though still present today, but a keen-eyed observer [and I genuinely place Nielsen in this category] will surely have noticed the film & TV industry is still running with the trope/meme of text-appears-slowly as the best way to show computer action.
A more relevant example for a huge number of people is found on Tik Tok videos, where it's the default way for text to appear on screen[0]. Platforms desperately chasing Tik Tok have adopted the same effect -- it's a significant part of the aesthetic -- even Youtube's autogenerated captions[1][2][3] on "normal" videos.
[0] I mean "default" aesthetically, purely looking at the output. Not a "default" option like a software thing.
[1] which now come on by default if you have actual captions enabled -- it used to be like a separate language choice, like how if you select Italian subtitles it won't give you Spanish -- Valve^wYougle please fix.
[2] And these are arguably not really captions, by the way. Ignoring how wrong they are, and other issues, I'm just talking about in relation to the subject of this comment: captions and subtitles don't appear one word at a time. Show me a reasonably long phrase and let me read it. The / one / word / at / a / [music] / time / thing / is / a hippo / not / it / and / I / don't / receive / true / meaning. ('hypnotic', by the way)
[3] Yes, this is presumably AI. No, I don't think that undermines my point. It's still a choice (the people in charge did the choosing, not the confabulator), and it's a choice that goes against the extremely well established best practices for captioning as an accessibility service, as I whinged above[2].
The term has obviously been selected because of how revolutionary solid-state electronic devices were/are. And it's not like they selected it after a revolutionary energy storage device was introduced. Solid-state batteries (cells) are an incremental improvement, at best.
And because this is the web: I am not being negative about the technology. I happen to be of the radical opinion that incremental improvements are good, actually.
"Microservices" is[0] a tech industry fashion trend. It can be a real solution to a problem, too, but it's like how throwing out all your shit is the solution to depression now because a nice lady in a book said that you probably don't want all that stuff anyway. The solution is applied/suggested because it's trendy, not because it is necessarily the best fitting solution.
Like many buzzwords, 'microservice' is difficult to define. "You know it when you see it" is a euphemism for something devoid of meaning[1]: a null concept. This is a feature and not a bug. And where the term does have meaning, it's always relative -- so everyone can have microservices, and argue about who does.
[0] I do mean 'is', as opposed to 'are'
[1] it can also be the case that the speaker just doesn't know what they're talking about, and perhaps that they know it has meaning to others, social constructs, &c. To avoid spending the next three years working on this comment, I'm assuming that's not the case above.
[x] Conspiracy-theory rabbit-hole: buzzwords are like conspiracy theories in that they rely on vagueness or being undefinable. I guess my point is that concrete ideas aren't really suited to being buzzwords. Only the vague/relative/broad ones get selected (as in natural selection, not by the shady cabal of buzzword pickers), just like how only the best impossible contradictory stories tend to become popular conspiracy theories. ... actually, mostly I just thought "conspiracy-theory rabbit-hole" was a funny heading for a tangent about conspiracy theories.
The Bun project was started in Zig by someone with a lack of experience using the language, despite the massive scope and complexity, and was effectively a rewrite from another language in the first place.
From the Bun post:
> Bun started as a line-for-line port of esbuild's JavaScript & TypeScript transpiler from Go to Zig.
Then, a few years later, the entire codebase was thrown out to do another rewrite in another language.
What is there to address?
From the home page[0]:
> Flipper Zero is a tiny piece of hardware with a curious personality of a cyber-dolphin.
One assumes that that "curious personality", the creator's attitude and the styling/presentation of the product/project is part of the reason for the success of the product.
The "furries" (as you call them) don't seem like the primary focus focus of the picture anyway -- there's a wide variety of characters doing a bunch of stuff in the drawing. There's also a dog, a shady-looking person stick up a poster, someone with pink hair, a cyber-dolphin, and I think there might even be more than two genders being represented.
Would there be a problem if the Flipper Zero community was "intertwined with the furry community"?
In any case, it's quite likely that the physics simulation is not being initialised with identical state on each instance, so the physics engine -- even if it claims to be deterministic -- cannot be expected to arrive at the same solution across instances. From the scripting layer atop Unity (et al.) you are essentially out of luck. You don't have the requisite control/access to guarantee the simulation input is consistent.
To expand on the "quite likely" variance in the simulation input, there's an unending list of possibilities, so just a couple of points: Unity is really really big and complicated. The physics engine in Unity is not primarily there to be a FEATURE: physics engine. It's a general purpose collision system, and it's fundamental to Unity's whole world/scene/components. It's always running. Stuff that has nothing to do with what you see as your simulation can affect your simulation.
My unopinionated advice is: read Glenn Fiedler's classic networked physics articles[0].
My opinionated advice is: you're making a game where the physics is the whole game. It's also a very nicely contained problem space. Write your own physics simulation. It's gameplay code. Also, typical rigid body physics engines certainly can do a billiards sim, but they aren't actually that good at it.
That's almost certainly the case, yes. Anything like royalties / residuals is pretty much unheard of in gamedev. You do the work, you do the crunch, you don't talk about conditions, you don't talk about pay, you are actively hostile towards the 'U' word, your boss _________ ____ __ _____. For your service, you get the chance to be in the credits, provided your service continues after going "gold"[0], of course. Then you get laid off which is actually a win because you get to leave the company without getting blacklisted. Please forgive the gentle hyperbole, it's illustrative.
The situation may have improved (slightly)[1] with ~actors as SAG-AFTRA was a growing influence in the industry some years ago. I'm a bit out of the loop on that side of things, though.
[0] not that anyone ships after going gold anymore
[1] improved slightly relative to "I'm the voice of Niko Bellic and I got paid in Famista cassettes" -- no this is not a true story, I'm actually not even a voice actor.
> why would I care about this
It's up to you, of course. But I think you're making a mistake in assuming it could, in any way, benefit you as a customer. This isn't specific to this company or the particulars of the business that they're in.
Simply put, you stand to lose more than they do and they are relentless in seeking, maintaining and exploiting any leverage they have over you. Further, any power they gain over one individual customer tends to generalise to all customers. Further further, one company's leverage is another company's right.
Not being bothered by the practice is accepting the terms set by the business. Acceptance invites escalation. Relentless.
Even more simply put, you should care because this is how you get John Deere.
The software is written in a deliberately obtuse way, presumably in service of some (unknown to us) goal. This is a deceptive and anti-social thing to do, it is by nature an adversarial stance to adopt. An already adversarial actor may be "punished" by this, but in such a relationship, hostility can be expected. A non-adversarial actor -- a normal developer / user -- is being harmed by this because the software is treating them as an adversary.
Further, lets assume your guess is correct and, in addition, that Anthropic elects to alter/downgrade/poison their service[0] for users that fit a particular pattern of markers. It's obvious how this system would "punish normal developers" (i.e. not the intended target/victim) that happen to fit those patterns.
[0] to some extent, the service already has been altered as its behaviour depends on the prompt text
Having a court stop actual counterfeits -- sure, nobody has a problem with that. That's not what this is.
Then there was the headstock thing, Fender was notorious for pursuing makers of guitars with headstocks that had any resemblance to the Strat headstock. Let's ignore how limited the design space is considering the constraints of six strings - six tuners at the end of a narrow strip of timber. Fender was obviously acting in an anti-competitive way at that point. At the same time, the quality of their own products continued to drop. Coincidence?
Now they are going after anything that looks like an electric guitar.
The general "S-style" body form, as popularised/iconified by the Stratocaster is popular for many reasons. A lot of those reasons (I would say most) are practical/functional.
Fender shouldn't be allowed to possess the shape, let alone use it as an anti-competitive weapon in order to coast along for another century just because the brand happens to come with some notable IP.
Fender's monopoly over the shape shouldn't be protected by law/courts. Here's why:
It's a functional design -- a matter of ergonomics and practicality. For a lot of guitarists, the S body style is the most effective, comfortable shape to play.
For a concrete example of an "iconic", yet clearly functional design feature: the top point of the "S" is where the front strap hook is. Having this point protrude forwards (along the neck) helps balance the weight and this provides the player with physical control over the mass of the guitar.
Many of the subtle features of Stratocaster body are obvious practical improvements -- it's the result of filing down sharp edges that were noticed when attempting the play the instrument. Imagine you're starting from a classical acoustic design, what steps would you take to make it more playable and make it electric at the same time?
It's an incremental design built on forms that have been used by luthiers for centuries. It's not a Fender shape -- it's an (electric) guitar shape.