alt187

> Linux is free, but you pay for it with your time.

People like to repeat this thought terminating cliché because they think it makes them sound smart and insightful, to doubt that a free thing is really free. But it's an uniquely naive opinion.

On Windows or MacOS, it's more often than not that, when you meet a problem, the only thing you can do is throw your hands into the air, and suffer the problem. This is paying with your time. Every single time you have to sit and wait through a forced update, this is paying with your time, in the realest sense of the word. You give your time for continued use of the product, and nothing else.

What people mean with the idiotic folk-wisdom is that you spend lots of time with the internals of Linux.

That's not true, but let's assume it is. The internals of Linux are likely a thing you'll really want to learn in depth if you're professionally into any computers science related job, because the market has settled on that.

If you're not, it's also something you'll want to learn, because Linux's design makes a single skill you learnt applicable in a lot of different workflows. So stuff you learnt while troubleshooting, you may adapt in other situations.

You don't pay with your time, you invest your time. Like all investments, it has an initial cost and dividends. It's a pretty good investment.

If you don't buy into the acquired, existing knowledge of neuroscience and the role of lymph nodes in learning, you can do whatever you want in your free time, but don't call it my theory, because it's neither mine nor a theory.

For the rest, maybe you're the chosen one, who doesn't need to expend any cognitive load to learn a subject, and just glide on your curiosity. Good for you. There are, to a degree of approximation, zero other people who work this way.

It's more complex than that. The three pillars of learning are theory (finding out about the thing), practice (doing the thing) and metacognition (being right, or more importantly, wrong. And correcting yourself.). Each of those steps reinforce neural pathways. They're all essential in some form or another.

Literacy, books, saving your knowledge somewhere else removes the burden of remembering everything in your head. But they don't come into effect into any of those processes. So it's an immensely bad metaphor. A more apt one is the GPS, that only leaves you with practice.

That's where LLMs come in, and obliterate every single one of those pillars on any mental skill. You never have to learn a thing deeply, because it's doing the knowing for you. You never have to practice, because the LLM does all the writing for you. And of course, when it's wrong, you're not wrong. So nothing you learn.

There are ways to exploit LLMs to make your brain grow, instead of shrink. You could make them into personalized teachers, catering to each student at their own rhythm. Make them give you problems, instead of ready-made solutions. Only employ them for tasks you already know how to make perfectly. Don't depend on them.

But this isn't the future OpenAI or Anthropic are gonna gift us. Not today, and not in a hundred years, because it's always gonna be more profitable to run a sycophant.

If we want LLMs to be the "better" instead of the "worse", we'll have to fight for it.

Yes, I wrote this comment under someone else's comment before, but it seems to apply to yours even better.

I love the lowkey vibe that if you want quality software, you either have to pay for it or wait for FAANG money.

Just ignore the most widely used operating system!

To be fair, even after reading the other guy's post, I'm still mad about it. They even sell APL keyboards now. The indignity.

Definitely, but it won't be a creation of any known AI companies, anytime soon. I have a hard time to see how this would be profitable.

It also goes against the main ethos of the AI sect to "stress-test" the AI against everything and everyone, so there's that.

It's more complex than that. The three pillars of learning are theory (finding out about the thing), practice (doing the thing) and metacognition (being right, or more importantly, wrong. And correcting yourself.). Each of those steps reinforce neural pathways. They're all essential in some form or another.

Literacy, books, saving your knowledge somewhere else removes the burden of remembering everything in your head. But they don't come into effect into any of those processes. So it's an immensely bad metaphor. A more apt one is the GPS, that only leaves you with practice.

That's where LLMs come in, and obliterate every single one of those pillars on any mental skill. You never have to learn a thing deeply, because it's doing the knowing for you. You never have to practice, because the LLM does all the writing for you. And of course, when it's wrong, you're not wrong. So nothing you learn.

There are ways to exploit LLMs to make your brain grow, instead of shrink. You could make them into personalized teachers, catering to each student at their own rhythm. Make them give you problems, instead of ready-made solutions. Only employ them for tasks you already know how to make perfectly. Don't depend on them.

But this isn't the future OpenAI or Anthropic are gonna gift us. Not today, and not in a hundred years, because it's always gonna be more profitable to run a sycophant.

If we want LLMs to be the "better" instead of the "worse", we'll have to fight for it.

Becoming a moron is a different way of writing code?

Thank heavens I have you to stop me from trying to step out of my comfort zone.

Holy cows, same. But it's not PTSD. People think you can tell because of ternary rhythm, —, big-words and other shenanigans. These are tactics over strategy, obsessing over the minutiae. But I think what you're feeling (and what I sure fucking am) is a lack of voice.

This writing says something, has a point, and you could even say it has a correct way to get to the point, but it lacks any voice, any personality. I may be wrong -I stopped reading midway- but I really don't think so.

That sums up pretty much how I think about that. I don't have any opinion about XSLT either way... I'm just so tired. If Google decided to kill HTML tomorrow- who could stop them?

Yeah, if you consider the Python interpreter "your own code".

> If there is something of suspicion or not lies in the eye of the beholder.

That may tell more about the beholder than you think.

> Only LinkedIn showed the link between the HN profile and the Github profile, because it lists both the project mentioned on the HN profile as well as the project listed in the Github profile.

What if there was no link between the HN profile and GitHub, then? Would you conclude that, because you can't reliably link the HN profile to the GitHub profile (that was independently already trustworthy), this would make the project seem suspicious?

In other words -- Would your projects be more suspicious, if I, a total stranger, made Show HNs about them?

You're seeing my point, don't you?

The point is that there was exactly nothing of suspicion.

This was to correct the doubt that the HN poster was not the same person as the GitHub user.

Conceding to you that a search can be useful, GP could've stopped at "The github is old and the person has other reputable projects". There was no reason to expand to the LinkedIn.

Looking is. Sharing, I'm not so sure? At least for me, it crosses a boundary.

Especially since it's looking and sharing for something as irrelevant as "HN name doesn't check out!"

Frankly, I second that sentiment.

I'm not sure how extensive your search was to find OP's LinkedIn, but it's clearly not in his HN profile, and that's enough to be unwarranted imho.

So if the random guy who posted it on HN wasn't the OP, it would've been a thousand times more untrustworthy, obviously?

I don't see your point, and I squinted very hard.

This is pretty much how I feel about the whole ordeal too. Vote with your wallet, and all of that.

Thanks for sharing.

No.

Basically, this response doesn't acknowledge any of the concerns marsf mentioned.

> I'm sorry for how you and the Japanese community feel [...]

He's not talking about what he feels - but a very real change, detrimental change of workflow. Simply not addressed.

You might be glad to learn a number of studies (mostly commissioked by the European Union) agree on the fact that piracy doesn't hurt sales.

The main consensus is that people who illegally access content wouldn't have bought it otherwise, and that they still advertise it (thus, still driving up sales).

These studies have then been systematically strong-armed into silence by the EU and constituent countries' anti-piracy organisms.

This is probably because the war on piracy, too, is a billion-dollar industry. I'd be glad to blow it all up and give it all to the starving artists and their families.

Wow, this is incredible.

It probably takes a week to get used to ugly pants too. OP's point is a matter of aesthetic judgement. I don't mind it either, but = |&I: can| -> Agree { Rust::Syntax }; is.a(Bit(&mut chaotic);

The (retired?) head of a project trying to port Linux on Mac. I avoid naming names, not to be cryptic but because a lot of people like to stumble on these kinds of posts via search. Or moderate them. I'm not agreeing, but I can see why it's easier.

People are (understandably) sick of the fact that for whatever reason, the biggest proponents of Rust are insufferable.

Personally, I'm simply bothered by the fact that (one of?) the most famous figure of Rust on Linux and Rust Forever consumes and advocates for pornography that's illegal in my country, without being held accountable by the community.

From what I could piece together, the only group who ever cried wolf about this is a forum full of contemptious little angry men who spend weeks researching people they hate on the internet. No one seems to want to touch the subject from fear of being associated with them.

I'll give it to you, this is not a great time.

I agree, I like my CSS good and saved in a .css file.

Maybe they just really need the 555 shekels or so.

ChatGPT isn't an author, so it shouldn't be listed. Instead, every single piece of human creation that's been sloshed and slurried to produce this drab drivel should be put as authors. That would be fair.

Obviously illegal lowbrow schemes asixe, it's hilarious that the company has to SEND money to Israel to notify them of a breach.

I'm not absolutely certain the spring() function would be in the top 1500 of things that are hard to implement in a grassroots browser engine.