canadaduane

I get it, but the underlying problem is: we don't have a society-wide, effective solution to counterbalancing extractive systems. Lacking a reliable label, we have to constantly signal what's on the ingredients list.

I think your comment could be more helpful--"You borked it" doesn't describe the problem or what you're expecting to be different.

It is faithful.

Maybe "indirect" modern slavery? First we teach a man how to cult, then we show him how to enslave himself?

There are gradations to failure. And "our governments" and "us" also overlap.

I'm probably more on your side than it sounds based on this comment, but I find it frustrating to encounter learned helplessness dressed in profundity.

This was about a year ago, but I had trouble getting podman to add an nvidia GPU so that the container could use it. It was technically possible (I succeeded) but it was annoying and "different".

I'm curious what you think of as "the mean"? I consider the input training set for an LLM to contain its mean. My hypothesis would be: an LLM alone cannot consistently produce code above the mean of the quality it was trained on.

I posted this elsewhere, but I think it still has a valuable insight to bring to the table: https://halecraft.org/software-engineering-is-the-new-manufa...

> LLMs are regression-to-the-mean machines--they pull junior developers up, and drag senior developers down. Taming them requires trading the romance of 'code as craft' for the physics of manufacturing.

The thing I don't know is: how do we decide which direction is most valuable? I can see arguments in both directions--quality vs quantity, essentially. I think there's a strong argument for the value of both:

- we need more quantity of software: for a long time, the ability to write software has been locked up, confined to a closed cabal of specialists

- we need more quality in software: we depend more and more on software in every aspect of our lives, mistakes are intolerable and should be avoided

I think it depends on which side of the regression-to-the-mean machine that you land on (above or below the mean) for any given skill that is being disrupted by AI. From above, AI is frustrating; from below, it's magical.

https://halecraft.org/software-engineering-is-the-new-manufa...

Isn't this one of the main improvements that Podman has over Docker?

The frequency of choosing to go out to the movies is also about how often I think "I wish I could do this in VR".

Examples:

- Before going on a trip, pre-visiting the destination in Google Earth with VR is very spatially informative & makes directional intuition memorable upon arrival at the real world destination.

- Virtual role-play with environmental cues that cause make-believe to be ever more real.

But most people don't need this very often. Picking up a book or throwing on some earbuds to listen to a book are far more frequent and compatible with simultaneous other activities. VR feels the same--a high-demand focused experience that is infrequently worth the effort.

"Don't look him up, he's not exactly role model material." I don't admire the ethos of putting people in bad boxes.

I like the concept, but I bailed at "GPT 5". The only thing that has given me peace of mind and the ability to journal honestly and successfully is Obsidian, because it lets me own my data (as text files).

> The anti-AI slop that dominates HackerNews doesn't serve anything productive or interesting.

To you. I find the debate quite valuable, as there is a wide open future and we're in the midst of figuring out where "here" is.

FWIW as someone with only a pinky toe in the Zig community, it's quite engaging and interesting to see a blog post like this. It makes me want to learn more, and reminds me that there's a wide tent here (that might even include me!), not just a tight-knit "inside" group.

"Just git pull, and latest fixes it" is not reassuring in this context. Engineers evaluating your claims need real data, not marketing copy.

I don't know the bank they are referring to, but I can cite an example for me: RBC Royal Bank of Canada requires the mobile app. There is nothing you can do on their website without first 2FA via their specific mobile app, and even then only in limited transaction sizes. If you want "full access" (e.g. up to $10k daily transfer via e-transfer) then you MUST use biometrics and the mobile app.

One of the best parts, IMO, is the feeling that comes from contributing something to the community that will last--possibly for decades or centuries. To me, using Linux is an experience of gratitude.

I have this take, too. I tried to show how valuable this is to me via github issue, but the lack of an answer is pretty clearly a "don't care."

Very concise, thank you for sharing this insight.

This is like game of thrones, dev edition. Thanks for the background.

/me up and continues search for good people and good projects.

Paul Chappell considered becoming a shooter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qvqwrcdx9bg

This is brutally honest. In all seriousness, consider that external metrics are not the only way to value life. Economics looks from the outside and judges value. Art looks from the inside and expresses experience. Also, check out Internal Family Systems therapists. I'm learning a lot, and believe this is a very valuable line of inquiry into self & getting unstuck.

I appreciate this, but also wonder if we are in the middle of a transformation where some forms of creativity (note: not necessarily engineering) are being "flattened". Everyone can output beautiful pixels, beautiful audio, beautiful token sequences.

Maybe it's like the transformation of local-to-global that traveling musicians felt in the early 1900s: now what they do can be experienced for free, over the radio waves, by anyone with a radio.

YouTube showed us that video needn't be produced only by those with $10M+ budgets. But we still appreciate Hollywood.

There are new possibilities in this transformation, where we need to adapt. But there are also existing constraints that don't just disappear.

To me, the "Why" is that people want positive experiences. If the only way to get them is to pay experts, then they will. But if they have alternatives, that's fine too.

The critical difference is that (natural) language itself is in the domain of statistical probabilities. The nature of the domain is that multiple outputs can all be correct, with some more correct than others, and variations producing novelty and creative outputs.

This differs from closed-form calculations where a calculator is normally constrained to operate--there is one correct answer. In other words "a random calculation mistake" would be undesirable in a domain of functions (same input yields same output), but would be acceptable and even desirable in a domain of uncertainty.

We are surprised and delighted that LLMs can produce code, but they are more akin to natural language outputs than code outputs--and we're disappointed when they create syntax errors, or worse, intention errors.

They've largely been complementary strengths, with less overlap. But human language is state-of-the-art, after hundreds of thousands of years of "development". It seems like reproducing SOTA (i.e. the current ongoing effort) is a good milestone for a computer algorithm as it gains language overlap with us.

I'm particularly interested in typescript MCP servers, as they integrate well with the web infra ecosystem I work with. Do you foresee a typescript collection of guMCP servers as well?

I agree with your points over all, but lacking a complete "rational argument", I'd just like to outline a few ideas that I'm still working on, and while not a complete fulfillment of your desire for a map from here to there, might be a starting place for ideas. Like you, I see the seeds of a potentially dark future--but maybe it isn't our fate just yet.

I'd start with changing what and how we measure. A move away from single-dimension variables like GDP and simplistic closed-form calculations like the Black-Scholes formula and all it led us to believe.

If we agree simple-but-wrong metrics are bad, then we can (I believe) move towards simulations--not "my simulation" nor "your simulation", but ways to talk about beliefs and outcomes. I think the future will involve AI-assisted computable discussions, where multiple variables and the ability to dynamically incorporate or exclude assumptions from opposing perspectives will lead us to some shared agreement and mutually beneficial outcomes (while allowing for many areas where people will continue to disagree).

I'd propose next that we continue to raise the prominence of evidence showing how cooperation is often better than competition. Nobel prize winner Elinor Ostrom spent her life identifying systems and methods of cooperation. She proposes, "We are neither trapped in inexorable tragedies [e.g. of the commons] nor free of moral responsibility."

Robert Axelrod ran simulations on the iterated prisoner's dilemma and concluded, "forgiveness, cooperation, and reputation" are a stable strategy in most real-world conditions.

Strong ideologies that promote extreme individualism, marketed as scientifically sound, deserve great skepticism IMO, and should be treated with the same wariness as two missionaries knocking on your door.

> What's worse (for the society), is that in this world nobody has an incentive to create wealth, because they know it'll just be taken away.

I know this has been discussed at length in many places, but I just want to point out that it isn't binary. There is some kind of distribution where "sovereign ownership" (full protection, no taxes, no redistribution) would entice the most people to create wealth (and even then, I doubt it would be 100% of the population), all the way to "mob rule" where a minimal number of people would be enticed to create wealth (and I don't think it would be 0%). People do things for multidimensional reasons.

That said, our societies have tried many variations along the spectrum between these two extremes, and I think we have uncovered the importance of protecting wealth and the incentive to create it.

> or at least none has been outlined so far

I love this, thank you for specifying the condition under which you might be convinced otherwise. I respect your position more for this. (And unfortunately as a Star Trek fanatic myself, agree with it so far as well).