catapart

Maybe try reading the article to are the land sizes they are targeting for this installation.

Then check out the reason they are building these data centers: speculation for a hypothetical future where people can't afford compute hardware (due to this speculation) so they subscribe to a compute hub in their neighborhood, so that all compute is subscription based instead of owned.

I got the libertarianism (or what modern morons claim is libertarianism as cover for their hyper capitalist oligarchy) from the arguments you made, not from the things you claim. Same way it's diagnosed for anyone.

All I got out of any of your comments is 'my psuedo-libertarian disposition has rotted my brain past the ability to understand why the problems with megastructure ghost towns are obvious to and unliked by normal people'

so what makes you think that you aren't responding to a bot intending to sway your opinion by giving a shape to your preconceived notions so that your position crystallizes further, right now?

Wild to see people pretend like this isn't true while we're still in the middle of seeing how badly this shit has already fucked up hardware prices.

in b4 the 'apples and oranges' cope

you nailed it! I tried it on a different machine, just to be sure, and it worked without a problem. So then I did a full restart on the mint machine and I got a whole new error that was talking about missing files. So I uninstalled deno and reinstalled it, and it worked exactly like it did on the other machine.

I actually started this after another user said they couldn't reproduce the issue, but you figured it out before I finished reporting back.

Thanks for straightening me out on this! As I said a few days ago on the Deno Desktop HN Topic, I'm looking forward to this newest version!

here's a dump of the console:

```

catapart@snake:~/Development/magnitce-code-example$ deno install

Warning The following packages are deprecated:

┖─ npm:boolean@3.2.0 (Package no longer supported. Contact Support at https://www.npmjs.com/support for more info.)

catapart@snake:~/Development/magnitce-code-example$ deno task dev

Task dev vite

You are using Node.js 20.11.1. Vite requires Node.js version 20.19+ or 22.12+. Please upgrade your Node.js version. error: Uncaught (in promise) SyntaxError: The requested module 'node:util' does not provide an export named 'parseEnv' at file:///home/catapart/Development/magnitce-code-example/node_modules/.deno/vite@8.1.0/node_modules/vite/dist/node/chunks/node.js:11:46

    at async CAC.<anonymous> (file:///home/catapart/Development/magnitce-code-example/node_modules/.deno/vite@8.1.0/node_modules/vite/dist/node/cli.js:706:27)

```

also: I'm using Linux Mint, if it matters.

unfortunately, while the project is in the public domain, it's pre-alpha so I haven't made the repo public yet.

but the project is structured the same as another public domain project I've built, and I just checked to make sure it has the same issue. I've gone ahead and made that project public so you can give it a try[0].

but, just to be clear, I don't think the message is wrong? The Node version on this machine is out of date. And when comparing the deno.lock file to the bun.lock file, I can see that the deno.lock has a slightly newer version (8.1 vs 8.0) of vite. So I think the message could be correct and is just telling me to update my version of Node, which is perfectly reasonable. It's just the discrepancy between not needing the newer version of vite/node on bun while invoking an error using deno. Feels like I should have either gotten perfectly matching versions, or error messages (with commands) to update node.

in any case, if you're still interested in seeing the error yourself, my steps were: 1. clone the repo 2. run deno install 3. run deno task dev

[0] https://gitlab.com/cynic-devs/magnitce-code-example

EDIT: This was my fault. My machine did not take the update well and I did not confirm that the update worked before complaining about it (burned once before, so I was biased). After testing on a secondary machine and then forcing the upgrade on the initial machine, both machines ran both projects just fine. Great job by the devs! Sorry for the misinformation here.

Original message: --------------------------------

I just tried to migrate using their `deno install` -> `deno task dev` instructions, and I got an error about vite needing a newer version of Node.

I'm not pathologizing deno, and I have (and will continue to) consistently tried to migrate my projects to deno, first from npm, then from pnpm, and now from bun. But every single time I've tried, there has been some kind of stupid "edge case", "simple fix" issue like this that stops me in my tracks. It's not a huge deal, but the simple fact is, when I run the project using bun, it runs. When I try it using deno, it doesn't. That has been a consistent pattern every single time I've tried. Last time, deno blew up because it wasn't able to work out the IndexedDB api calls I was using without some kind of bridge/shim/environment config. These are terribly minor issues, but it's the lack of care for the details that really sours me on this stuff.

Obviously, deno should have used the version of vite that bun did which would have worked with the version of node on this machine. But even barring that, they could have dropped a little note around the instructions that says "if some packages need updates, you can run X command to do that". Even that would have allowed me to just move on, instead of forcing me to query the solution and hope for the best. Like I said, none of this is damning. It's just the exact kind of friction that prevents immediate adoption. At least for me.

Awesome! Looking forward to trying this out.

tough ask, but since we're here: has anyone done this with 16GB of VRAM? I've been getting projects finished with LM Studio, but it definitely could stand to be more efficient. lots of time wasted with trying to get models to understand a problem with so few tokens.

What was smart asssed, or rude, about it? That's what those games are called. GoldenEye was multiplayer. Halo 2 was online multiplayer. If you were asking what to call a game that has P2P multiplayer support using webrtc and therefore only supported countable concurrent players, my honest thought would be to call it an online multiplayer game and forget about the "massive" part because it's just not relevant. Even though it is meant to mimic the gameplay of games that happen to be MMOs doesn't mean it needs to adopt the moniker. Final fantasy 12 mimicked the gameplay of MMOs, but it's just a "single player game".

On the contrary, if you're trying to convey to a mass audience that what you have built resembles something else, the best strategy is to reference that thing by its most familiar name.

Sorry if I came off as petty. Was just trying to answer honestly, and realized I didn't have the right context.

"Multiplayer" or "Online Multiplayer". Pretty common in the days before WoW. They didn't invent "MMO" (was that Ultima?), but people called those a lot of different things, like "MUD" or "MUCK", because the niches played differently. MMO became a catch all around the time of WoW, though. Made for a clear, simple distinction between internet scale player count games and countable concurrent player games.

Edit: didn't realize you were the author, asking a practical question about how to describe your project. Sorry about that. For that, I personally think you're fine. You're trying to tell people what it is, not be super technically accurate.

this is the whiniest of whines. 'do not even ask for compensation, because I am tired of being advertised to'. you're not even willing to see an advertisement. one without sound or graphics at all. could you be more high-maintenance?

the simple fact is you, you'll never get what you don't ask for. I hate when youtubers ask me to like and subscribe, but I'll never hold it against a single one of them. You never know which person you convinced that time and that time alone. The tone in your voice, the season around the viewer, literally any number of factors change people's decisions to do something kind for a relative stranger on the internet. if you don't give them an easy way to do it, and a reminder that you would appreciate it, the likelihood of it happening is a lot lower. if it helps, you can think of it less like using capitalism to support hosting the subject, and more like your free speech to give tangible support to a subject you appreciate. some people don't have any commentary or judgement that isn't more succinctly said with cold hard cash. no reason not to make your blog accessible to those people.

lol. any of them - literally just ONE - could have a full blown UI so that you wouldn't have to build projects using a command line like it's 1985. or maybe one of them could just invest in packaging custom html elements, instead of assuming I'm going to use one of a handful of unnecessary "component" libraries, or assuming that I won't be using components at all.

there's plenty of places for these tools to go, but none of them have any appetite to go there. likely because people already have something that's so "good enough" that they don't even bother looking for what "could be better". obviously exacerbated by the management class of development outfits deciding that developers shouldn't actually touch the codebase anymore, in lieu of LLMs doing the actual lifting, so they're building out all kinds of chicanerous nonsense to satisfy "agents". and that doesn't necessarily make things more difficult for devs, but that seems to be the trend. forcing your LLM to comply with tortured and arcane concatenations of character-perfect strings is so much easier than having it navigate anything like a filthy human. so the practical result is less accommodating stuff for humans and more accommodating stuff for robots.

all of which is to say: I disagree. I think there's things they could meaningfully achieve for humans. And I think they are deeply uninterested in doing those things.

I would love to see some analysis of this because based on the sales pitch, it sounds pretty sweet. But, sales pitches do tend to chase that quality.

yikes! that's pretty gross. I hope there's some appropriate consequences.

I wonder how long it will be before we see politician/celebrity houses with full 3d walkthroughs made from gaussian splats that source from this kind of "every type of interior in the world" mass data set. I wonder if that will prompt some kind of legislative action against this type of service.

a bit too simplistic for my tastes. I wouldn't call being inebriated the same as being dumb; but I would absolutely agree that being inebriated is way more fun, easy, and fulfilling than being sober. I would choose being inebriated over being sober almost every time, regardless of the mechanism of inebriation.

that said, inebriation is pathetic in measure of performance against being sober. there's nothing I can get done inebriated that I can't get done better, faster, and with more focus when I'm sober. with the minor caveat of non-mind-altering drugs like caffeine and sugar being super helpful for a sober mind, any actual inebriate (rather than just a 'drug') only slows things down.

so, personally, I just see them as two modes that any particular person can engage, regardless of how "smart" or "dumb" someone might consider them (whatever that means).

where I always find myself frustrated is that I have my best ideas and make my best connections when I'm inebriated, but I have my best structuralization and conceptions of those ideas only when I'm sober. so I have to remember the inebriated stuff to be able to craft it when sober. which is honestly kind of a drag to capture while inebriated and kind of a slog to read back while sober.

steelman, don't strawman. pushback on someone being rude by requesting something they could have looked up doesn't look like "let me google that for you" 95% of the time. it's far more likely to come out as "I'm not sure, honestly. I worked on X, but I didn't really need to get in to Y, so I'm not as familiar. Personally, I'd just do a google search, since I'm a little behind on that."

not rude. not implying anything about the questioner. still the general sentiment of "google it; that's not my job". if you admonish people as being "incredibly rude", you should be talking about things that people actually do with enough regularity to make the point worth making. that is pretty widely understood.

the bitch of it, though, is that it doesn't only work if people listen to it. it also works if a bunch of AI bots can convincingly fake people listening to it. and, of course, those types of bots exist and have financial incentive to continue faking it, too.

at some point, these two competing interests are going to find out that they're paying each other to stare at each other's dwindling profits, but my bet is that it's going to be a while yet before that wake up call. and it will be an even longer churn into something else because no one is going to admit that they were funneling money into nonsense for years. they're going to "adjust strategies" to "modernize against changing markets" for "new potential growth". all shit that takes a long time to do because it's a half measure aimed at saving face to investors. so it'll work for a long time just based on the momentum of bullshit. =/

hell yeah! Thanks for pointing me towards this! Hadn't heard of it before. This looks great!

no, you seem to have me confused with someone else? I'm pissed because the CEO of a social media company said 'fuck the users' and then, when called out about it not only refused to apologize for that sentiment, but doubled down on being shitty because the users weren't paying her for it. that is, very simply, bad behavior. and I see no reason to reward it. since the tangled co-founder jumped in there with a +1, I see no reason to reward them.

the point is that whomever you are going to be doing business with (giving your data to) is eventually going to let their true colors show. happened with jack and twitter, happened with mark and facebook. if bsky is any good now - which is not a claim I'm making - it will eventually get worse because the ideology behind what they do is a toxic one that prioritizes growth and self-aggrandizement, or at the very least deprioritizes the value that individual users have to the success of an organization.

so I choose not to do business with people who are telegraphing, loudly, that one day they'll choose themselves over me, at my expense if I'll let them. and remind myself of that and let others know about it. I think I do it relatively fairly - by providing a balanced take on the practical features vs the abstract moralizing. simple as.

ETA: as far as spiting my own face, I...uh.. I still use git? I just use it elsewhere. not sure where I'm losing the practical battle here. there is no feature tangled provides that I miss out on by hosting my git elsewhere. and there are honestly a few features that I gain from doing so. so... if anyone's being impractical here, it's not me.

It's mostly a trust thing. You're asking why I don't trust that if I "turn it off" it will be off. So the answer to that is: every US company I've ever dealt with (eventually, in some cases). I don't want to trust you. I don't want you to trust me. I want to provide you with pure transparency, and I want you to provide me with that. And, if they did that, I would trust them more. Maybe even enough to install something that they swear turns off, if I tell it to (and won't ever, even accidentally, even across sessions/devices/locations/etc). But without that transparency, I don't trust them any more than I trust facebook or google, and I consider any prompting to "just trust them, bro" as simp shit. you trust them. I'm good.

I don't. I'm asking them to let me make my own fork, like I can do with VSCode.

RESPONSE EDIT (clear and intentional rate-limit evasion): hey thanks! that changes things quite a bit! Now I'm curious how well Claude could vibe-code the AI out of that project. Mostly just for the irony of it, but I can't deny that it would probably be faster than doing it myself - at least to start.

anyway, I appreciate the simple and straightforward solution without getting side-tracked by how my ignorance and misunderstandings made you feel.

I need more than that because I have no guarantee that its true. I need the source. Or I at least need them to provide a build that they promise doesn't have that stuff in it at all, so that if any analysis was done on a decompilation, there would be some level of certainty that they were telling the truth. Anything that leaves any of it in complicates that effort and makes the certainty that less certain.

RESPONSE EDIT (clear and intentional rate-limit evasion): It's not paranoia; I'm not concerned if they "take" my content. I write open source, CC0 licensed software. I couldn't give a fuck about anyone doing literally anything they want to do with the code I write. Literally take it and call it your own, for all I care. If I can return the interrogation, why are you so concerned with ownership? Why was that the first place your mind jumped to? Paraphrasing: where is the need for this insane level of "if you've got nothing to hide..." submission?

Like I said: it's about trust. They want me to trust them. You, for some inexplicable reason, seem really upset that I won't trust them. Neither of the parties have given me any reason to trust them. Just insistence that I should, if I want to use their product. And while I entirely agree with that rationale, I don't understand why I get clapbacks for stating that I intend to adhere to that agreement entirely! Won't use the product because they won't give me what I need to trust them. That should be making everyone happy, right? I know I'm happy with the arrangement, at least.

Aside from all that, and far more relevant to my actual comments: another user pointed out the repository where they DO offer the transparency that I'm asking for. So your entire hissy fit is moot when you could have just pointed out that I was wrong in my understanding of what they offered. I mean, that would have gotten in the way of your sycophantic leap to the defense of the company I was so hellaciously attacking, so I understand why a good capitalist bootlicker might not think of that first, but at least now we both know!

very cool, thanks! And since I can't respond to that poster, I'll say it here: thanks for that detailed answer! That definitely seems like a pretty anonymous system. I'm convinced that monero is a pretty private coin!

so would that be a feature of monero-to-monero transactions? I'm still confused as to how it would actually be anonymous? like if I used another coin to exchange for monero, that's obviously traceable. so then I use monero to purchase something else which I then sell for other monero (or I just trade monero directly? if that's possible?). and I'm to believe that there's no way to trace that back and say "okay, monero from wallet X was traded to wallet Y" or whatever other intermediate steps (like"monero was spent on X from wallet A, and then X was resold using monero from wallet B")? like, assuming they don't get in to my wallet, no one would be able to track down a transaction on the chain to a wallet? Or they would be able to track it to a wallet, but they couldn't tie that wallet to me for... some reason?

sorry to ask, but the website seems very light on any actual technical detail about how they are achieving their privacy claims - at least in terms I can parse to make them understandable to me.

wouldn't that defeat the privacy purpose? wouldn't someone be able to see that it was your card in the ATM, when they traced back the monero as exchanged for a coin that was exchanged for your fiat?

ETA: just to be clear - that's a genuine question. I don't know much about monero, so if it really is possible to have untraceable money, that seems like a prudent investment for precaution. I've just always assumed that digital money is inherently traceable, so I always assumed genuine privacy is a mirage. I assume I'm wrong about that, somehow, so I'm curious about the mechanisms of that anonymity.

right on. I certainly empathize with your frustrations about "AGI". but rest assurred, I'm firmly in the camp of "not in my lifetime" and even further in the camp of "not without at least 3 more massive breakthroughs about things we currently do not understand at all". so sorry if it sounded like I was asking "what about when local llms get SUPER GOOD", or something. that's not at all what I meant. All I was asking was - "Claude Code can currently be pointed to a directory and then be chatted with about what it needs to do in that directory to make a full code project. That ability is already available on local machines through a ton of convoluted setup, but it's almost certainly going to be a packaged solution within a year (and possibly within the next few months/weeks/days). So when that packaged solution arrives and the choices are 'use the llm for scaffolding which takes 3 hours of unattended time' or 'build the scaffolding myself which takes 6 hours of deep focus time', what will still be objectionable about choosing the former?"

and, to be clear, it's an earnest question. like I've said elsewhere, I have concerns about over-reliance on the tech, but once it all moves local, a lot of those concerns become much more trivial. so I'm curious if other people have concerns that remain pressing and practical.

ETA: I'm aware that Claude wouldn't take 3 hours to do this, while using its massive warehouses of GPUS. I'm estimating what I think is a reasonable time for a single-gpu device to produce something workable.

completely fair, and I agree. but let's talk 6 months/a year down the line - when a local LLM will be able to offer what claude code does only slower and a smaller context window. then do you whip out the local llm to handle the project, or is it still objectionable?