tonnydourado

And off-by-one errors =P

That's nice, but a tool like this *HAS* to be distributed as a single binary, otherwise it's just too much hassle to bootstrap it, specially on Windows, or stripped out docker containers.

> was here before Anaconda popularized the idea of binary packages for Python

This has incredible "I was there, Gandalf, three thousand years ago" vibes =P

The first step for safely sharing passwords is not doing it. SSO as much as possible, give people actual accounts where not.

As a last resource, at a Former Employer™, people put a public key in their profile, and we used GPG to encrypt secrets and paste the encrypted value on Slack/Teams. This was only among developers, and there was a tutorial for setting up the GPG GUI and encrypting values with it, so it worked fine. But we did also actively worked towards not needing that as much as possible.

> It is named after one of its developers, Dick Pick.

You gotta be fucking kidding me

When you're paying $39/month for something that generates $0/month, that is a very sensible policy.

When you're paying $50,000/month for something that generates $200,000/month in value, or if an outage can generate $100,000/month in costs, or if the people that can fix an outage cost $100,000/year, then it's not.

Asking a design question like "Design a booking system, but with recurring appointments" is like asking "Write a function to order a list of string, but it has to work with arbitrary UTF-8 strings, in any locale, respecting alphabetical order conventions". It's a deceptively simple question that gets impossibly hairy if you try to make it work in a real-world, general, way.

The idea of a chatbot pretending to be a famous scientist trying to help me understand physics made me vomit in my mouth a little bit.

I've seen "Penetrate and Patch" play out a lot on software development in general. When a new requirement shows up, or technical debt starts to grow, or performance issues, the first instinct of a lot of people is to try and find the smallest, easiest possible change to achieve the immediate goal, and just move to the next user story.

That's not a bad instinct by itself, but when it's your only approach, it leads to a snowball of problems. Sometimes you have to question the assumptions, to take a step back and try to redesign things, or new addition just won't fit, and the system just become wonkier and wonkier.

My first thought is that "where TRUE" is just a wonky thing to have to write, but on further reflection, maybe that's kinda the point. Where-less deletes should be harder to write, making it look stupid will probably help.

Well, that was some nightmare fuel early in the morning. I've been diagnosed with Crohn's almost 20 years ago, had two surgeries, and am currently on meds. No fistulas, thankfully, but the whole thing is a Damocles sword, nevertheless. Reading this made it a little extra sharp.

You might not know them, but HR does. No way your employer is sending them money every month without a reasonable degree of certainty that they are who they say they are. Or, at the very least, that they aren't 3 hackers in a trenchcoat.

And corrupting an employee doesn't sound that easy, either. I mean, we do get paid above average.

That still leaves shit third party contractors and compromising employees computers/accounts, though.

From the story, I wouldn't call them successful =P

> If people would log all what they eat and how they feel.

Dietary data is one of the hardest things to collect. Either you need to hospitalize people and control their whole diet, and your sample size is small, because of costs, or you need to rely on self reporting, and your data is unreliable.

Basically, much easier said than done.

Not sure we're talking about the same thing. By validation I mean of identity. On proprietary software , before an attacker get inside access to the code, they would have to interview, get hired, submit (presumably, fake) document id, provide (again, presumably, fake) bank details, etc. This attacker just had a GitHub account and email, as far as understood it.

But, as I said, maybe tricking a sub contracting company into hiring you is not as hard. I remember working with contractors whose faces I've never seem on video, let alone in person.

Yeah, less eyes on it means it would be less likely to be caught, but there's also much more upfront validation on who gets to change it.

Although, I can imagine a sub-sub-contractor identity being somewhat easily forged, it's still harder than just creating a GitHub account.

Gonna have a serious talk with my mother about not trying to hack into opensource software that powers most of the world's software. I know retirement is boring, but that's no excuse.

The maintainer did mention mental health issues. It can be hard to say no in the best of times, let alone when your own mind is trying to screw with you.

You're assuming worse of me than I'm assuming of the technology.

There's almost no reply here with a use that is a) not somewhat bad and b) has enough of an upside to compensate the downsides.

Except maybe this one, but I do know enough about accessibility to know how blind people generally use computers, which is why I asked the question.

Your view smacks of contempt for workers, particularly in the arts. Specially the emphasis on "do", as if voice actors don't actually work, and just live of royalties or something. The kind of worldview that the rich and the delusioned working poor tend to share.

As another reply put, I'm very skeptical that the benefits for small content creators will offset the damaged to society as a whole, from increased fraud and harassment.

I mean, I explicitly used "wonder" because I don't wanna assume about blind people's experiences and needs. What else should I have done so you wouldn't come in kicking me in the nuts?

I don't know what else to tell you, I just think people deserve to be paid for the work they do.

Your vision of a world where anyone can create voice for their projects for cheap CAN NOT exist without someone getting exploited. Nor is it sustainable, really.

You said they this world would be worth some people losing their careers, but what do we gain? More games/audiobooks of questionable quality? Is this really worth fucking a whole profession over?

That would be non-evil, sure. But I wonder if blind people even want it? They're already listening to screen readers at insane speeds, up to 6-8x, I think. Do they even care that it doesn't sound "realistic"?

That's kinda what I was thinking on the second paragraph. Still, gotta be a small market.

I'm not saying that this should be forbidden or something. I just wonder what is the motivation for the people pitching and actually developing this. I'm all for basic, non-profit-driven, research, but at some point you gotta ask yourself "what am I helping create here?"

Have you seen how big studios treat vfx artists? They absolutely will replace voice actors with AI.

Also:

> This technology is incredibly powerful and useful

At what, exactly? The only "useful" case you presented is "actually, replacing voice actors with AI isn't so bad".

> I can imagine a fairly big market (...)

I can't, and if I could, I think this would be fairly dystopian. Didn't black mirror have an episode about something similar? I vaguely remember an Asimov/Arthur C. Clark short story about the implications of time travel (ish) tech in a similar context. Sounds like a case of "we've build the torment nexus from classic sci-fi novel 'do not build the torment nexus'"

Reasonable, but I'm skeptical of the market

That's basically replacing voice actors and stealing their likeness: both are arguably evil, and mentioned. So, I haven't missed them.

P.S.: "but what about small, indie creators" that's not who's gonna embrace this the most, it's big studios, and they will do it to fuck over workers.