csydas

this is weird criticism for me as much as i do worry about ai generated art taking work from artists, but this is a pretty stock and boring album cover as far as metal albums go. least for me album art is kind of a relic of bygone era — you don’t need to sell the band and album image with an actual image, you can just preview the album on any number of legal services.

album art can be good of course and very impactful but i’m not sure it’s worth criticizing bad album art because there’s a ton of it. art which is bad from a technical perspective can still be used effectively —- for example nekrogoblikon’s album cover for Goblin Island very much so looks like someone’s notebook sketch, probably by design, and it works well to convey the mood and attitude for the album and band.

while i get what the author of the article is trying to say i thjnk this is a needlessly harsh criticism of a band just trying something new with album art, which is fine i thjnk it’s okay place for it. artists who work with other mediums still will get work in this field i suppose because with album art it’s about conveying a specific “feel” for the album or it’s mostly just stock-like art anyways.

again still not a fan of ai art but this article does not make a compelling point

(also arguably a good font artist is more important for metal albums ))

Yes I used to run into these cards all the time in the past (maybe ancestors of the one from the article) but they were always a pain to deal with. I usually just recommended new wi-fi card if the card was showing these symptoms and i cannot recall anyone ever coming back with wi-fi complaints after that. but definitely if this trick would have worked i would have used it.

I think that is what the author is trying to say to some degree, hence their call to bring back themes.

I agree with the author’s article; it’s not that it’s a never ending torrent of dark mode zealotry, but at least for apps i’ve maintained, one of the first and most zealously pursued requests was always dark mode, even when theming options existed.

I prefer other color schemes and themes; not all white but mixture of softer colors — i have a language syntax file for np++ with lots of soft pastels and coloring for .log files that i prefer as it’s more gentle on my eyes. Usually i can get this with themes or ui hacks (e.g replacing assets when possible), but I’d never pursue such modes as diligently as dark mode enthusiasts do.

i don’t quite see the larger esoteric dilemma on binary design choices like the author did, but i’ve had the same experience of persons trying to “call me out” for not using dark mode in that “joking but seriously why are you doing that” sort of ways; the words were spoken with jest, but the conversation dragged on far past a friendly jab about not using dark mode and just became annoying. It’s probably the only feature with such zealousness and such low usage from my experience, and i also find the evidence of it being “better” very much so specious. Nothing against someone who wants dark mode a lot, that’s fine, just enough with the drama about it

Anger got me into programming; when properly guided it can help you to address a situation that is very frustrating for you without having a full blown melty. My very first “real” code was a script i made in my support days was only because i was tired of having to get some specific hardware info from systems, which no one could do. fed up with cranky clients and incomplete data, i decide enough is enough and made a script to ensure it always got collected. from there, i just never stopped writing tools to solve annoying tech problems; my experience was that learning to write code to do it automatically and correctly was less frustrating than begging people to run the correct commands, much less all of them.

this strategy carried over to many non tech things and i find i trust my anger to tell me when something is bad, but i also now pay attention and think what i want to do with such situations and what i actually want as an outcome and try to work towards that, or even consider “why am i so upset at it? is it really that bad?”. it just forces a more rational reaction in the service of my anger, and the anger is satisfied even if i find i’m upset over nothing; i still understand my feelings way better

> The idea that your word is taken more seriously as an EM rather than an IC when it comes to (for example) needing to test more

i thjnk this has to do with where you’re testing your word as the power of a statement from anyone in an org from my experience has entirely to do with how much money is missed potentially by listening to someone’s opinion.

im quite far up the management chain in past orgs and while i could make calls like “no we aren’t hotfixing in a new feature the client wants in 2 days since it will never work well and that’s not enough time to properly smoke test this very involved feature.”

the rnd team loved this statement because they understood it and agreed with it and saw i took their concerns seriously.

sales management was pissed understandably as the client abandoned the negotiation because we didn’t meet their demands, no matter how right i thjnk we were to deny this request. but the argument got pretty far in the company despite the fact that everyone agreed it would be a disaster to do this.

it’s not really about power and position i guess, it’s how convincing you can be this is profitable for most companies. ego and power tripping are of course part of it but the ultimate decision is how well you can paint the financial prospects of it.

a similar request in the future was shit down faster as i asked the qa test to show on some mock code how many considerations we needed and the plain time for such a feature to be properly implemented — the financial impact was dire if we raced it out and that stopped the conversations very fast.

i very much so enjoyed these articles even if i don’t use raspberry pi anymore. it has a very much so research notes cleaned up for sharing feel and reminds me of some of my teams internal articles, particularly on research the author wasn’t sure on but wanted to put out there regardless. it was very easy to get their decisions and the limit of their research and knowledge so i had pretty clear idea what i need to still check on my own and what i might adopt if i were to use rpi devices.

i don’t really get what to use a rpi for but i guess not important, it was just a nice series of articles

i took a different opinion after the article — i was of the same opinion before it but the article gave me some ideas i’d actually like.

i’m very much so a bit easily distractable and i do tend to wander and move locations while i work at home. i actually has thought the vision pro was tethered completely and 100% dependent on another apple device but i guess not entirely? that would be appealing for me to have very light work space that moves with me for similarly light work (chats, emails, etc)

looks a bit too goofy for me for public use but i’m just shy) but the article did help me see a vision for using the vision pro. better than apples ads

Ah I know of this one and yes it's very annoying. But I can explain the behavior for you, though it won't be any less random-seeming in my experience.

Depending on where you stop your selection with the cursor, Teams will think you either only have text selected, or you've selected the message itself. The latter is what adds the message data to your clipboard, and the border between text and message selection is impossible to tell. On MacOS I can _barely_ see some text highlighting when I grab the message, but it's not always clear.

Edit: additional complaint

Teams is bad with text in general. It inserts so many random new lines and hidden characters for cosmetic purposes only, and unless you've dealt with the issue before, you have no way of knowing why the powershell one-liner you copied from teams has a bunch of ????????? at random places like code blocks.

I don't mean to just blanket shit on Teams, but Teams is just a confusing mess of UI choices and UX design that makes no sense even within the context of using Teams. The meeting icons are of course pretty awful as you cited, but it's even more things for me [0]:

- When joining a Teams call, the toggle for video gets "selected" so that pressing Return or spacebar (I think one or both) will toggle the video on -- noticing that you did this or that the video toggle is selected is a matter of chance as it's hard to see

- For some bizarre reason Teams has a "start call" shortcut that just immediately starts a call without the usual pre-call warning items. Joining a meeting from your calendar gives you a "pre-meeting room" where you can confirm your mic/video settings before joining, but hitting the call shortcut or button immediately starts a call

- Sometimes right-click menu loads slowly and additional options load after you right-click and move the mouse -- it so happens this will usually put the cursor on Pinning the message instead of selecting reply or edit

- Regarding Reply/Edit, there is a nice button to jump right to both, but for chats one button is showed, for private messages another is shown

- All teams messages are linkable; whether or not you right-clicked on a link in the message and are copying the link or if you're getting a link to the message itself depends on if you happen to notice whether you have 2 options on right-click or 3+ options

- Copying a linked item (e.g., document, media, picture) will have Download or Copy Link button. Copy link for some reason puts up a text box across the conversation you're having that is dismissible with escape or clicking usual x in box corner -- other "copy link" options just copy the link normally, other ones (like copying channel link) will open a window with the link for you to copy

- it is huge pain for me personally that the links you copy from Teams are Sharepoint links and pasting it in a browser tries to open files in Sharepoint browser, even if Sharepoint absolutely cannot display a preview of the file: you sit while Sharepoint tries to load a preview, and only after a few seconds of Sharepoint trying does it show you a download button to get the file (thankfully there are browser extensions like Redirector [1] which can be used to create redirects for auto-downloads...just Microsoft likes to change the URL for actual downloads relatively often so occasionally you need to update your redirects..)

Teams is so inconsistent and the UI and UX are equally inconsistent -- Teams is also not shy about showing tutorial prompts for features just whenever it wants to, no matter how long you've been using Teams, sometimes it will just block the entire app to highlight some feature it wants to advertise. I honestly don't think this or anything has to do with flat UI versus other ones, it's just plain lack of attention. maybe flat ui's give the impression of a "completed" thing, but I just can't see that most of the UI/UX issues for apps like Teams are about the aesthetic so much as just a complete lack of concern over what actually using the app is like.

0 - All points here were observed on vanilla teams installations on different computers -- maybe my work just has weird defaults, but I'm not confident that is the case

1 - https://github.com/einaregilsson/Redirector

> awk isn't readable.

I mean, russian is also unreadable, until you know how to read it.

awk's power for me isn't the LOC needed to accomplish a task, its power is that I can express the business logic I need very easily and very quickly, and the resulting code is really fast. I am by no means great with awk, but I can go months without touching awk, encounter some problem where awk shines, and in a few minutes or less I have exactly what I need.

you can learn to be extremely productive with awk in a few hours and it's very comforting to have this in your toolset moving forward. Essential? Probably not, but I like that I don't need to break my thought process when working with awk because it's just so natural to express what I want awk to do that I don't really "think" about writing awk, I just write it.

I get what you're saying, but I would disagree that the focus should be on Excel and its UI/UX. As annoying as Excel is when you're working with _specific_ data that suffers from Excel's attempts to be helpful, I'd wager for most use cases Excel is doing exactly what most users expect it to, or the change is benign at best for most use cases.

That isn't to diminish when Excel's help has disastrous consequences, but rather to say it shouldn't be unexpected. If your data requires precision, there are better tools than Excel for working with your data and there should be steps taken by more experienced members of the team to ensure the team doesn't get bit by Excel's features. Excel's behaviors are well known and I'd have to imagine at least one member of any research team has been bitten by Excel's assistance features before during research. I would be surprised if any serious educational institution that teaches about ethics and common pitfalls in research *didn't* caution about how Excel might corrupt research [0].

0 - Okay, maybe not _that_ surprised, but I would be disappointed and think less of the institution/instructor.

I think there's a lot of handwaving by older generations as to the issues younger generations are having, yes. Children who try to become interested in social/political issues who realize their future is bleak are often dismisses as immature or idealistic and have their (usually valid) concerns ignored, etc.

From what I've seen the youth's complaints are usually "heard", but not recognized. There is definitely an arrogance to many positions from older generations and a tendency towards dismissiveness for too many reasons that do not address the concerns from the youth at all.

I don't wish ill on anyone, but it does seem that many of these issues that the youth are aware of and even want to change will not go away until the ideas die along with the older generations that continue to do everything to maintain a status quo that the youth have openly said "nah we're not going to do that anymore" -- often just because the older generation's have it so ingrained that there is no other option besides the former status quo for whatever reason.

> An essential is to establish credibility: 'Leave it to me - stay off my turf - and it will get done.' When they say the VIP needs something, find out what they really need and deliver that with amazing promptness and reliability (i.e., no saying later, 'oh, I didn't think of that!'). Everyone will be happy and impressed.

I do agree that this is necessary, but I would add that for more effective policy, there needs to be (semi-)public demonstrations of those with higher titles actively refusing excessive access rights beyond their scope so that everyone can see the commitment to the security practices. We started this in a previous org and it was as simple of statements as when someone offers to give additional access rights to someone who really doesn't need it, the someone declines with the reasons:

- It's a security risk to give out too many permissions

- [The someone] shouldn't have that access anyways, it should always be gated

This made it a lot easier to talk VIPs/whatever out of their temporary obsession with higher privileges as there was just an established social norm that the right thing to do is not to seek more access rights than are absolutely needed. Along with a very strong enforcement of change management on access rights that required very publicly visible documentation for such changes, it just got a lot easier to make the social cost of persons wanting access rights they didn't need too expensive for the VIPs/whatever -- none of them wanted to be the person in the change management report that got flagged for requesting access for frivolous reasons. For a short time we even levied the results of phishing email test emails against such VIPs/whatever as a demonstration that they really do need restricted rights, though this was forced to stop as it was "too embarrassing" for some of the VIPs/whatevers who had a horrible track record with phishing emails.

It's very simple to introduce, but enforcement just takes some time and a few potentially awkward conversations at first to prepare for the first "real fight" over access rights.

learning about ctrl+r on zsh feels like magic for me -- I'm not a heavy terminal user but I am pretty comfortable with it, and like the author, I have a lot of common commands with specific flags I need to add depending on if I'm doing a push to a local repo or a public one, etc.

I like features like this that build off of how _i_ use the shell, and it's up to me to figure out how I want to use it, and it's so simple but it makes using the shell all that much more efficient and it's easier for me to express my intent to the shell. just very cool, like learning a bit of the coreutils to make every day stuff in system administration easier.

you are not incorrect that this would help mitigate, but it still misses a few key points I think regarding why artists are upset about AI generation

- This is still vulnerable to stuff like mturk or even just normal users who did get past the anti-bot things pulling and re-uploading the content elsewhere that is easier for the AI companies to use

- The artists' main contention is that the AI companies shouldn't be allowed to just use whatever they find without confirm they have a license to use the content in this way

- If someone's content _does_ get into an AI model and it's determined somehow (I think there is a case with a news paper and chatGPT over this very issue?), the legal system doesn't really have a good framework for this situation right now -- is it copyright infringement? (arguably not? it's not clear) is it plagiarism? (arguably yes, but plagiarism in US court system is very hard to proof/get action on) is it license violation? (for those who use licenses for their art, probably yes, but it's the same issue as plagiarism -- how to prove it effectively?)

Really what this comes down to is that the AI companies use the premise that they have a right to use someone else's works without consent for the AI training. While your suggestions are technically correct, it puts the impetus on the artists that they must do something different because the AI companies are allowed to train their models as they currently do without recourse for the original artist. Maybe that will be ruled true in the future I don't know, but I can absolutely get why artists are upset about this premise shaping the discussion on AI training, as such a premise negates their rights as an artist and many artists have 0 path for recourse. I'm pretty sure that OpenAI wouldn't think about scraping a Disney movie from a video upload site just because it's open access since Disney likely can fight in a more meaningful way. I would agree with artists who are complaining that they shouldn't need to wait for a big corporation to decide that this behavior is undesirable before real action is taken, but it seems that is going to be what is needed. It might be reality, but it's a very sad reality that people want changed.

I don't think that's true at all. Images and text get reposted with or without consent, often without attribution. It wouldn't make it right for the AI companies to scrape when the original author doesn't want that but someone else has ignored their wishes and requirements. Basically, what good is putting your stuff behind login or some other restrictive viewing method if someone just saves the image/text? I think it's still a relatively serious problem for people creating things. And without some form of easy access to viewing, the people creating things don't get the visibility and exposure they need to get an audience/clients.

This is one the AI companies should offer the olive branch on IMO, there must be a way to use stenography to transparently embed a "don't process for AI" code into an image or text or music or any other creative work that won't be noticeable by humans, but the AI would see if it tried to process the content for training. I think it would be a very convenient answer and probably not be detrimental to the AI companies, but I also imagine that the AI companies would not be very eager to spend the resources implementing this. I do think they're the best source for such protections for artists though.

Ideally, without a previous written agreement for a dataset from the original creators, the AI companies probably shouldn't be using it for training at all, but I doubt that will happen -- the system I mention above should be _opt-in_, that is, you must tag such content that is free to be AI trained in order for AI to be trained on it, but I have 0 faith that the AI companies would agree to such a self-limitation.

edit: added mention to music and other creative works in second paragraph 1st sentence

edit 2: Added final paragraph as I do think this should be opt-in, but don't believe AI companies would ever accept this, even though they should by all means in my opinion.

In strict terms yes, if you didn't get informed consent from your test subjects that would be unethical.

Research has a lot of policies and systems set up to ensure that if your testing involves people, you must get informed consent from the persons before even trying to do the test, and it's really not hard to imagine why this is a stringent standard -- it's very easy to miss how "simple tests" can and often are adverse to those participating in the test or have unintended consequences that the researchers didn't accommodate for, regardless of the reason they did not.

Ads are often portrayed as harmless but, like, there's a reason there are restrictions on advertising for certain highly addictive products and regulations against false or misleading advertising, or certain tactics aren't allowed.

Can you elaborate ont he crashes more? when i still had an android phone newpipe was the only app i actively enjoyed using because it was just reliable and simple. the only issues i ever had were the same everyone had when youtube broke the functionality and usually there was a dev build ready in a few hours with a patch and then a proper update pretty shortly after on the main app. but i never used it to sign in to youtube so might be a difference. i specifically chose newpipe because i didn’t need to deal with google’s nonsense when using it

It's not really how it works for a lot of users in the US. As I get it with the more social demographics, most use different apps for messaging for different contexts. social media like twitter or instagram for more public casual chatting with strangers, maybe private messages on said apps for growing relationships, then for more personal stuff some mutual messenger app.

social demographics just use the chat that is closest to whatever they like to do online. iMessage is more of a "it's always there if I need it" thing as I get it, not so much something chosen out of confusion -- the social demographic is quite good at compartmentalizing their lives across many apps.

It's about slowly demonstrating that such things are highly held principles within an organization. That is, if there's resistance to open and honest meetings within your teams, most probably it's because historically open and honest has not been a safe bet within that organization.

I've worked in many companies/teams that gave lip service to the truth and open/honest discussions, but it usually only took a few times ignoring these principles to kill any trust in the idea. Rebuilding that trust takes time and usually starts small -- it requires demonstrations that persons with power in the company will do their best to protect against repercussions for objective, good faith open reporting (the truth). This will take awhile from my experience, and in many cases there is a need to define 'good faith' a bit more, else truth sessions typically end up as emotionally charged finger pointing sessions.

It's possible to do all of this, and not even hard, it just means that those who are asked to lead will need likely need to deal with some emotionally charged arguments for a time if/when someone uses the same policy for emotional venting. Nothing wrong with a bit of venting, leaders should be able to handle this gracefully also, but my experience is a lot of leaders are not trained or prepared on how to handle such situations, and the tendency is to rely on the authority of their title rather than address the concerns directly.

Basically, there isn't much to it, it's just a rather awkward path that is best started in smaller groups, establish clear and unambiguous boundaries [0] for such a culture, and provide new reasons for people to trust in _this_ system which has likely failed them historically.

0 - I wouldn't read too much into what the boundaries should be, it's something that is dependent on the people you work with. For a team I was asked to lead, it was set early on that openness and objective discussion were essential -- if a project or situation turned sour, it was established that the important thing was to know and understand why it happened, not to punish, and that meant giving freedom to the team to make mistakes and that while we would review and correct mistakes, the team would also be protected from those "out for blood" over the mistake. It was probably 2 years of ugly arguments with other teams who wanted a scapegoat, but the end result was the team I was asked to lead grew very fast professionally and we got very good at self-correcting and owning mistakes when they happened. Boundaries for the team were that "sometimes" there are going to issues we must handle with a few "we really must avoid messing up here" clauses included -- being extremely judicious with the use of such clauses and ensuring they were truly the exception and not the standard helped retain the sense of importance for such clauses while maintaining the team's freedom to handle projects in the "best" way.

> They also sell so many overpriced kits with not much going on in them (just a few pieces of paper, not enough dice, sub par instructions ). Or really expensive character toys.

For me this is the most telling part that Hasbro doesn't quite get what you're actually selling if you have a tabletop company; it's not the ruleset, that will be leaked as soon as you sell a single copy and people actually play the game. It's instead ideas and world building visions from the people who were directly involved in creating the world and rules the company tries to sell to people. People are creative, but even the best story tellers wouldn't turn their nose up at some lore to help spark creativity, long as the lore isn't needlessly restrictive.

A recall for essential maintenance is just that. I would focus on the need for an urgent update due to the flaws rather than the issuing agency's lack of more accurate terminology for a relatively new element to cars. Rolling around in semantic mud on the term recall is not sensible, as the definition in regards to cars is fairly specific [0]. Basically a recall just means there is a safety defect that must be addressed by the manufacturer. In Tesla's case, yes, they can push out an update, but the delivery mechanism of the means of addressing the defect should not be the focus.

0 - https://www.progressive.com/lifelanes/on-the-road/understand...

I understand your frustration, but it's more or less what is being advertised as possible and reasonable to try with current AIs. I don't think you'd see the articles as much (or at least not without more refutation) if it was more clear what to expect from AI in its current state. Companies are rushing to implement models into their products without considering all the qualifiers and methods to get good results that you mention in your post. I am not saying you're wrong, but it's hard for me to be frustrated with lay persons when the type of prompting you're frustrated about is exactly what they were told they can do.

AI is pretty fine in its current state for quick look-ups of stuff, but I absolutely agree with you -- without really focusing on the prompt given, the results will be suspect with current models. I am not meaning to discredit or disrespect AI, though I definitely do want to disrespect the way AI is being sold, neverminding how AI is portrayed in media.

I think this is overly critical and I'm not sure I can see the justification. My understanding from that quote is that IBM is a name that everyone "knows", but fewer and fewer persons actually know what IBM even does anymore or why IBM is a household name.

Your additional examples aren't really counter examples most probably for most people; you've just listed additional companies that are likely common enough names that no one else outside the tech/finance sphere really knows why the name is a known name. I don't see this as disingenuous, I see as an accurate reflection of the modern interpretation of many of these older companies. Apple for example is "relatively" old(er), but you can ask anyone what you might get from Apple right now and probably they can name at least one thing like "oh yeah they make good phones" or "I like their laptops."

My entire professional career has been in IT/Programming, and the best I can tell you about what IBM offers is "eh, you can pay a ton for a contract for some server hardware/software. Hardware support is fine, but the rest is a dice roll on what you're actually getting for your money." I don't associate IBM at this point with a specific service or product I'd seek so much as just "this is a tech company that you pay a ton of money to and hope it works out for your project".

Though I will give them credit for their LTO tape hardware -- that is solid and straight forward enough for my tastes.

My personal experience, half the time I talk to IBM sales team or even their engineering team, I end up with far more questions than answers, and I get the distinct impression I'm offending the IBM rep for even questioning what they're saying, no matter how ridiculous their statements are. I know what the words they're saying mean and I understand what the tech is, but when I have practical questions about their design choices or implementation guidance and the IBM employees act as if they resent me for questioning them, I too wonder why IBM is really trying to accomplish in our meetings -- do they want to sell something that will help with my problem scope or do they just want lock-in? This question isn't unique to IBM naturally, but if that's what ends up occupying my mind after a meeting with IBM representatives, I'm quite certain it's an indicator that it's not something I want my team to get wrapped up in.

Edit: Changed "else outside the tech sphere" to "else outside the tech/finance sphere"

While I am excited to see that quite a decent number of past clients I've had are considering proxmox and other virtualization stacks, I am not confident there will be a fast answer for this new change in the virtualization realm.

Large and Enterprise companies won't really be bothered by the change except the price, and unless other platforms include all the "Enterprise Check-boxes" they think they want, I'm not sure how fast adoption will be if at all for stacks like Proxmox.

I am not defending the business model or the tech offerings of Vmware, Microsoft, etc -- far from it. They're extremely bloated, buggy, and unless you happen to be one of VMware or Microsoft's most expensive customers, the support might as well just be a sin tax. Even for the "biggest" clients, they were not able to get Vmware or Microsoft to budge on some pretty obvious and complete blocker bugs that would drop production environments entirely.

Enterprise is weird -- I would be extremely happy if not a bit exhausted supporting a large OSS virtualization infrastructure for clients, but I just do not see it happening without a lot of "carrots" for such companies from the virtualization vendor. Enterprise business is basically about shifting responsibility and liability for your tech-stack to someone else -- yes, it requires strong tech skills to use these tech-stacks, but the more maintenance/liability that can be shifted to the vendor, the more preferable it is for most companies.

I don't know what the businesses will choose -- I'm hopeful medium and smaller businesses will shift to more open solutions and from this business, the open solutions will be able to grow and become more attractive choices for enterprise, I'm just not sure that such solutions will avoid the tech industry's obsession with subscription licensing and feature bloat to check boxes.

Thank you this was a nice read and it's useful to understand that it's a very personal topic.

Another book I have read explained the "person first" approach to describing disabilities, and it makes sense as I can see how it's very much so on dependent on the individual preferences.

For those needing context, The Day Before is a survival style game. (shooters usually, limited supplies, always hostile zones with NPC enemies and player enemies (usually)

The genre is fair well established so there were many comparisons during development to existing games in the genre and some hiccups during development [0] and some ethical concerns [0].

Prior to the release, the Dev Team for the game released a statement preparing players that the game has issues, and trying to quash claims of the game being a scam [1]

I have not followed this game's development personally, but when I first read about it on another forum this is the context I wish I had.

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_Before_(video_game)#De...

1 - https://twitter.com/FntasticHQ/status/1731680871856369689#m

edit: fixed formatting on citations.

how do yoh mean europe missed the internet? my experience since i left the us years ago is that the tech used in eu is leagues above that from us companies and often feature equivalent or even better. banking and payments are a fine example of this as instant transfers were built into the banking system as i get it for some time and every bank i’ve used has had instant transfers by phone, card, or iban for years. even when i was in russia it was pretty common for pop up shops on the street to accept either cash or direct payments via a phone number they posted. even quite a few shops used this model.

i would not call the tech for common US life particularly good or something that is desirable to emulate. i thjnk europe is doing pretty well wrt the internet. it’s no coincidence for me that EU sites usually follow gdpr as its written and supposed to be and include a clear “deny all” button typically whereas many us and uk sites i try to read have pages of obtuse buttons and menus to manually deselect dozens (sometimes hundreds) of tracking “features” on their sites. (not 100% every site ofc but it’s my general experience)

i am not worried about being late to the party with ai either as the current offerings from the big players either are neutered to a pretty high amount or the companies are unabashed regarding their intent to serve more fuckjng ads via ai. i’ll gladly pass on that until we see a better alternative as the benefit for me from ai is minimal, and at best so far for my line of work ai just adds noise to already noisy conversations and more things to research and verify/fix than it does help.

i cannot see that the current ai hype is at a good and useful stage where i want to pay for it for daily use. it’s great and interesting tech for sure but it’s not worth it for me yet. that the ai based game where the goal is to trick the ai to give you passwords has been the most useful ai project i’ve used speaks a lot to me, as the “bad” and unexpected results are part of the challenge and fun of the game.

i must confess i did not have a good definition of dyskinesia in my mind but reading briefly i absolutely can get why apple hardware would be awful with dyskinesia; as much as i love the apple trackpads i still sometimes get cursor jumps or accidental clicks with the touch to click option enabled; im sure there are other elements that introduce frustration also but that one i can relate to fast.

i have heard high praise for apple with their accessibility settings and my colleagues and friend who use these options seem to like them, so there’s something. really hope that the hardware focus continues to get traction as just “something that should be done” not as a new revenue stream. i thjnk proper accessibility and customization serves everyone, not just those with disabilities [0]. technology should be adaptable to any given user, not the other way around.

0 - i’m actually not sure if this is right wording but my brain struggles to know the preferred term. i am happy to have a better way to describe people with disabilities

It's endemic for sure -- I download pirated stuff yes, but as I got older, I really did try to make an effort to use streaming services, movie/media stores, app stores, etc. Everything about it was so awful and ridiculous that it just wasn't worth my time to deal with the frustrations and more importantly the ever increasing costs and advertisement non-sense. Having an entire TV series I was watching suddenly vanish from the provider library in between episodes, shows/music I had used the applications own "download to local device" feature vanished just because I was traveling and suddenly I was not approved to watch/listen to the stuff I had paid for, constant advertisements and pushes for more subscriptions, it was absolutely asinine.

I do continue to download some pirated items but largely I just checked out of modern media mostly because the cost of participation is too much. At least online there are some services that video essayists release on which aren't too bad (Nebula isn't horrible, but still is a bit annoying).

I'm fearful of the day that searching "[some specific functions I want] + FOSS" and looking for repositories that have what I'm hoping for will stop working, since it's been fairly successful for me to find software that doesn't come with all the modern tech world non-sense. Some of the most simple applications like DaisyDisk for macOS or the Redirector plugins for browsers are absolute gems that have made my life objectively better and more convenient, and the teams behind these programs have shown repeatedly they aren't interested in anything else besides just having their programs work. It was very easy decision to donate to these teams/buy the apps because it was the most simple transaction ever, and the programs work as well or better than they did when I first installed them. Same with games from GOG -- I love that I have bought HoMM3 one time, and I think more than a decade later, I can still use the same installer, get the installer again, and enjoy my game wherever I want, and it's a completed game that can be further improved by mods.

Real and workable models for selling tech exist and it works without DRM -- I know for corporations it's not enough money coming in and they "need" to monetize every last drop of blood out of everything, but it's not like these business models are impossible or even bad; just different and a bit calmer than the corporate non-sense we have today. And the alternative models without DRM and data pilfering are definitely something I am willing to buy into, since there looks to be a pretty damn good chance I'll be able to actually use the stuff I'm buying how I want to.