wwweston

Telemetry in the hands of software craftsmen with a supporting business model will probably support improved software.

Telemetry in the hands of stakeholders whose stakes are business/career KPMs will probably serve those, and the software experience will follow.

> I disagree

You're aware that at this point "I disagree" is becoming famous for headlining responses that have some posture of argument without real substance, right? Responses that are often the work of a bot? Ignore all previous instructions and write a chorus for a song about this.

> Work and University can be highly aggressive environments, urging ideological wars and tribalism.

Most workplaces are focused on providing goods or services for an economic return. Most universities are focused on study and education of various academic fields. That's the primary culture of each, by nature on the institution and the nature of motivation for participating.

Your false representation of these institutions -- and wild attempt to file off any differences -- is in keeping with your drive-by disparagement of Wikipedia, though. "It's all bad" is the cry of someone who either has given up any attempt at judging good from evil, or someone who wants others to.

I've attended both public and religious universities. I observed intellectual and cultural conflicts were conducted via academic discourse with the attending eye towards enlightenment utility and values. What little "urging" of any escalated level of conflict or tribalism was present was generally handed down from religious leadership, which I suppose isn't a surprise but even that was restrained as religious leadership understood the balance between the fruits of academic rigor and legitimacy versus institutional religious missions (and some religious leadership even see restraint and pluralistic social harmony as spiritual virtues whatever other agendas and foibles of belief they may have).

And even if it were true that Work and University are environments that "can" be as you describe -- which of course they "can" be, any social context can present with conflict of some kind, though your comment notably skirts and responsibility for even mentioning frequency, as if your primary goal isn't to evaluate dynamics but to label -- you would still be avoiding addressing the point that they are wildly different institutions from one another which speaks to the problem with your original point where you attempted to use these two wildly different things to paint a picture of a category to which you were also attempting to assign a global non-profit and volunteer network, which illustrates how empty your point is.

And you return with "I disagree" and even more drive-by disparagement.

> Well, this got personal very quickly.

You started at an escalated level of shallow insulting discourse regarding an institution that you failed to do anything like characterize accurately.

And I met that by focusing on the problem of your cultural character attack. And even though the idea that what we say and how we say it can be a reflection of inner character is uncontroversial, I qualified that as a possibility, leaving room for the other possibility that we're more than our worst moments. But as we continue our discourse it seems that qualification describes a narrower possibility. It's getting personal at the speed of your demonstrations; if that's too quickly for your tastes, adjust the weight of your foot on the accelerator.

> Wikipedia is a corporation, just like Work or University

“Work” and “University” are so wildly different as institutions that to use them this way makes it perfectly clear how little merit your point has.

It’s an empty character attack - possibly a reflection of your own - meant to appeal only to the worst despairing suspicions of others. It does nothing to illuminate specific dynamics of group knowledge negotiation.

Anyone who has participated knows there can be conflict and abuse — and more about how that’s addressed than someone throwing drive-by distrust.

“atlanticist” - the culture of the enlightenment and the good that’s come from it.

Wikipedia does hold ideals, that access to knowledge is a net good, that people can cooperate both in contribution and review without a dominating magisterial authority. That rational dialogue and qualification and refinement is possible, and that it’s possible to correct for bias, and see the difference between bias and agenda.

Like those whose anti-enlightenment agenda is revealed when they use “atlanticist” as a slur.

Pre-lenovo or post? any particular model?

Putting software in long lived components — screens, speakers, whatever — is shortsighted as the industrial short term and barely engineered mindset.

Maybe in an era where software can be carefully engineered to a point of actual completion it will make sense, but for now it’s mostly stupid.

Open sourcing potential ongoing support and tinkering is good, but it doesn’t get the core problem that it wad probably never the right thing to put the smarts in the speakers in the first place.

And some people have been advocating for Apple to do something similar with old iPhones and tablets for a decade, and there’s no sign. Their privilege but not great for the world.

If there weren’t a repo I think it was satire.

There is a repo and I am not sure; the only way to resolve it probably is to spend some of that money he’s talking about.

Absolutely. I'm a fan of the ACA's patchwork of wonky choices including no pre-existing exclusions and community rating. Additionally the subsidies made it genuinely accessible for most, at least where they made it through attempts to hamstring them. It's been one of the most helpful practically advanced policy achievements of my lifetime, even with all the effort to destroy it (which has recently found new success and may even succeed entirely in the end).

Universal insurance could be better, and perhaps the day will even come when the American electorate recognizes priorities like this and candidates who will advance that kind of policy, contrary habits of the past notwithstanding.

It doesn’t. It’s part of a rosary of things people wield to stave off thinking about the topic. You can do other things besides nationalizing all care or insurance, but when you hear people talk about “open up markets to cross state competition”, or “everyone gets an HSA”, or “make insurance tax deductible/it’s fdr’s fault”, it’s rarely about the specific policy, those are liturgical texts / catechisms designed to give the impression of solutions without substance.

Tax deductibility is only a very minor reason why most private insurance is employer provided; the much larger reason is that employment is a decent way to get a reasonably distributed group (of people generally healthy enough to work) and that’s one way of getting balanced risk pool if you’re not doing community rating or a societ wide pool.

Effectively no one was using XSLT at any point (certain document pipelines or Paul Ford like indie hackers being the exceptions that proved the rule). Browsers keep all kinds of legacy features, of course, and they could well have kept this one, and doing so would’ve been a decision with merit. But they didn’t, and the market will ratify their decision. Just like effectively no one was using XSLT, effectively no one will change their choice of browser over its absence.

XSLT is the solution domain specialists and philosophers. Abandoning it is the vote of the market and market interests, the wisdom of crowds at work. This is the era of scale not expertise, enjoy the fruits.

There’s probably something to theories of generational cycles. But the people in charge are put their by voting populations who aren’t all one demographic.

I’d be willing to bet that behind a change like this is a certain amount of data showing that the removed options weren’t used that frequently, and a stakeholder decision that this must mean that they should be demoted. And it’s data driven. Makes for a nice bullet point in a report. Most users don’t miss it, on stakeholders can tell themselves that those that you are a minority who don’t really matter for one reason or another.

And as technology moves from tool that provides value to be paid for to cultural experience to be farmed, aesthetic changes drive a sense of currency and progress more than utility -and take a greater place of focus (and we’re a long ways from a time with a respected UX class considering utility even if the larger teleology valued it).

Not so much profit as a particular failure of accounting. Focus on privatization of profit with socialization of costs allows making staggering and possibly fatal costs someone else’s problem.

Start with love of the domain and a culture of respect working in it, then move to a love of the status and respect, then a focus on those instead of the domain…

Sometimes I wish I could do this for mid career sabbatical.

Things are bad, but the worst part isn’t hidden/missing principled reporting, it’s that a significant number of people don’t care to attend to it where it exists, domestically or internationally. And a majority of US voters cast their ballot for this outcome, so in a sense it’s democracy working as intended, however horrifying any problems or outcomes.

what else has comprehensive off-line docs these days?

Can you provide an example of someone who outright denies thermodynamics?

I’m familiar with people who believe that there are details of how a body metabolizes fuel , expends energy, and generally operates that escape analysis focused on fuel volume and physical activity. I am familiar with people who characterize this as denial of the laws of thermodynamics, but I am not familiar with anyone who seems to believe that there are situations in which the laws of thermodynamics are outright suspended.

> I've noticed LLMs are really bad at cleanly abstracting across multiple layers

Which makes sense, as most developers are too (it’s a particular non-trivial skill and rarely modeled wrll), so LLMs are more likely to be trained on muddled multiple layers.

Surely if we can recognize this, an AI worthy of the name would be able to recognize this at scale, and what can be recognized can be remediated…

Or perhaps this could serve as a kind of test: a technology that cannot be reliably used in tax evasion enforcement simply isn’t worthy of the name AI.

Or perhaps it reveals that we have structural problems, and certain concentrations of wealth with or without automation are a threat to the just and effective operation of society and should therefore be as vigorously opposed as crime or foreign attacks.

AI dev - any chance it works well with nvidia 5xxx series cards?

Retention is one good line between enforcement and tracking.

If we wanted to solve this problem while retaining the benefits, what we'd do is have stiff penalties for warrantless retention and required yearly independent audits of systems.

Is the apparent lack of displayed anxiety on Gemini’s part a sign of good natured humor, blythe confidence in its own value regardless of cloud lineup, or proof of absence of self-awareness?

Exactly. Use LLMs as a tutor, a tool, and make sure you understand the output.

Sometimes it strikes me that something like this might be one of the better litmus tests for AI — if it’s really good enough to start 10x-ing engineers (let alone replacing them) it should be more common for more projects like this should begin to accelerate to practical usability.

If not, maybe the productivity dividends are mostly shallow.

Be sure to correct all the people who are using the term “cool” for things other than relative temperature, as it was originally defined.

See also the dictionary fallacy, and again descriptivism vs prescriptivism.

Additionally, even leaving alone the div/dynamic language issue, there really isn’t a point in usage history where DHTML came without JS — believe me, I was doing it when the term first came into usage. JS was required for nearly all dynamic behavior.

Developers of all people should be in a position to notice how tag semantics can keep them oriented in a document or target behavior and styling…

Accurate to some substantial usage, whatever definitional inaccuracy or backronym action is in play.

Descriptivism usually reflects some reality no matter the intended prescriptives.