2,386 karma · joined January 13, 2017
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/grayhatter; my proof: https://keybase.io/grayhatter/sigs/j8azbrA5Q7W1ecOwaYaZfMwmWh95MA06i5YpVRIhmno ]
Firefox used to release features that improved privacy. Today they add features that reduce privacy. Enabled by default, with no easy way to disable or remove the spyware link.
The tone should shift, in step with how much disrespect companies decide to inflict on their users.
For most people the point is to be respected by people who's opinion you value. Which is often distinctly different from the opinion of genpop.
I've never called them MircoSlop before, I haven't even written the word. But it's now my exclusive word for the company.
All I can hear is, it's working.
> Is Show HN dead? No, but it's drowning
Is spam on topic? and are AI codegen bots part of the community?
To me, the value of Show HN was rarely the thing, it was the work and attention that someone put into it. AI bot's don't do work. (What they do is worth it's own word, but it's not the same as work).
> I don't want to exclude these projects, because (1) some of them are good,
Most of them are barely passable at best, but I say that as a very biased person. But I'll reiterate my previous point. I'm willing to share my attention with people who've invested significant amounts of their own time. SIGNIFICANT amounts, of their time, not their tokens.
> (2) there's nothing wrong with more people being able to create and share things
This is true, only in isolation. Here, the topic is more, what to do about all this new noise, (not; should people share things they think are cool). If the noise drowns out the signal, you're allowed that noise to ruin something that was useful.
> (3) it's foolish to fight the future
coward!
I do hope you take that as the tongue-in-cheek way I meant it, because I say it as a friend would; but I refuse to resign myself completely to fatalism. Fighting the future is different from letting people doing something different ruin the good thing you currently have. Sure electric cars are the future, but that's no reason to welcome them in a group that loves rebuilding classic hot rods.
> (4) there's no obvious way to exclude them anyhow.
You got me there. But then, I just have to take your word for it, because it's not a problem I've spent a lot of time figuring out. But even then, I'd say it's a cultural problem. If people ahem, in a leadership position, comment ShowHN is reserved for projects that took a lot of time investment, and not just ideas with code... eventually the problem would solve itself, no? The inertia may take some time, but then this whole comment is about time...
I know it's not anymore, but to me, HN still somehow, feels a niche community. Given that, I'd like to encourage you to optimize for the people who want to invest time into getting good at something. A very small number of these projects could become those, but trying to optimize for best fairness to everyone, time spent be damned... I believe will turn the people who lift the quality of HN away.
Ignore that feeling, it's wrong. Because it's not what I'm arguing for. Reasonable is a load bearing qualifier.
It doesn't feel like the people making the decisions that meaningfully contribute to causing harm to other people, ever have to deal with the fallout or repercussions for their unfortunate choices. Deincentivizing that behavior is my goal. And I'll unfortunately take iterative or suboptimal options at this point. I don't like it, but I do want to try to be realistic.
Literally, and intentionally avoiding any attempt to examine the implications? No probably not.
But reasonable punishment discourages bad behavior. And software engineers have a habit of ignoring the implications of a defective design. I think apocalyptic fines applied to the companies creating the systems for automated cars would also create the correct incentives, but I find that to be less likely than imprisonment.
What I want is software and systems to not suck ass. I don't want to deal with defective... everything, because it was faster to deliver. That's especially true when it contributes to the death or injury of a person that didn't do anything wrong.
I don't care what works, but people being afraid of going to jail for hurting someone absolutely does work. And 'administrative fines' don't work.
This is true *only* in isolation. The pain of going through said depth of detail, is what builds the intuition for the whole system. Once and twice may not be noticeable, but a new habit, and that new habit's corresponding extreme downtime because no one understands the quirks anymore... Despite a few engineers who stake their life on the testing system, tests can't catch all issues. And it's extremely difficult to stop an oil tanker.
I would probably say a shell is "the correct tool for the job" but other than the appeal to authority, or appeal to tradition. There's not a great argument for a shell script over a language you're already comfortable with.
There are hundreds of examples that are easier or faster in python than shell.
Engineers are bad at making tooling, we're even worse making ephemeral tooling we're willing to throw away. Contrasted with other makers, you have machinests who gladly make a one off tool to make a single process easier.
The more 'correct way' than a shell script, is something simple and composable. A large unwieldy shell script that you can't make simple changes in, is terrible design, and it's a mistake to allow that inertia to gain speed.
It's not exactly a complete refutation but something I've been thinking about recently.
> How do you deal with that?
You teach yourself to say no, to the things you don't want to do.
I considered leaving just that pithy reply, because that's really it. But some of the extra context; It's not a bother to ask someone to hold the door they're already going through because your hands are full. Starting a conversation is about as intrusive as that. The vast majority of people don't mind making some small talk, and ontop of that, the majority can make an excuse if they don't have time. You only assume they can't politely decline, because you can't. Once you learn to say no thanks, politely, but explicitly and directly. You'll actually understand and expect others to return the favor.
That's a much more fair way to interact with people too.
In the context of a software engineer, yes obviously?
> I don’t get paid to write code, and you probably don’t either.
I feel like you're rejecting the premise of the argument. You're talking about becoming a manager, as if that track is somehow relevant to software engineers. I used to be a nurse, I'm not anymore. My skills have definitely atrophied. I would now be a shitty and dangerous nurse. How does that apply to my skills at software engineering? When you stop being a software engineer, it's expected your skills at interacting with code will fall away. But the article you're arguing against isn't written for nurses, and equally isn't written engineering managers.
Assuming you're not tripping over some hardware defect, it sounds like you're using a gcc hack that llvm doesn't support
for a display update, sounds like memory ordering
If a typical page can be shown to be prima facie safe to well formed parsers, without obvious shell code. It would require a response if there was additional evidence google was using in their determination.
> I'm asking whether they are knowingly deceiving people or whether they have deluded themselves into believing what they are saying.
I'd bet it's both. Engineers/people making it, are drowning in the hype. Combined with the notion of how hard it is understand something when your salary, or your stock options are based on your lack of understanding. I suspect they care more about building the cool thing, than the nuance they're ignoring to make all the misleading or optimistic claims; whichever side you take depending on how much you actually believe of the inevitability... which look exactly like lies if you're not drinking the koolaid. But expected excitement when your life is all about this "magic"
You can never figure out if the people selling something are lying about it's capabilities, or if they've actually invented a new form of intelligence that can rival or surpass billions of years of evolution?
I'd like to introduce you to Occam Razor
> At which point the question becomes: is it them who are deluded, or is it you?
Given the current very asymptotic curve of LLM quality by training, and how most of the recent improvements have been better non LLM harnesses and scaffolding. I don't find the argument that transformer based Generative LLMs are likely to ever reach something these labs would agree is AGI (unless they're also selling it as it)
Then, you can apply the same argument to Natural General Intelligence. Humans can do both impressive and scary stuff.
I'll ignore the made up 5 and 25%, and instead suggest that pragmatic and optimistic/predictive world views don't conflict. You can predict the magic word box you feel like you enjoy is special and important, making it obvious to you AGI is coming. While it also doesn't feel like a given to people unimpressed by it's painfully average output. The problem being the optimism that Transformer LLMs will evolve into AGI requires a break through that the current trend of evidence doesn't support.
Will humans invent AGI? I'd bet it's a near certainty. Is general intelligence impressive and powerful? Absolutely, I mean look, Organic general intelligence invented artificial general intelligence in the future... assuming we don't end civilization with nuclear winter first...
No, it's not.
You're welcome to cite case law if you want to insist. Otherwise, unsafe (in the context of infosec) has a definition of likely or able to cause harm or malfunction. Something that is provable or falsifiable with evidence.
Yes, but that yes depends on your goals. Your name is reliabilityguy so I'm going to assume you've read the 500Mile email lore already. A responsible person will dig in and engage and try to figure out why emails only work for 500 miles. Even though that's clearly absurd, and they don't have any concrete evidence that's what's going on.
Which is exactly what you're doing. "Your evidence doesn't fit into my context or check my boxes so you obviously don't know anything!"
That's that's the behavior of children, and people who care more about proving their ego over learning something new. You could choose to ask open questions, or ignore people who aren't trying equall...
> Sure, lol. So, what do you do with other "evidence" that does not fit the prediction you are trying to make? You just discard it as "error"?
> No, I understood you quite well. You said that I am just argumentative for the sake of it,
> I do. I open minded. Show me the evidence of your claim, and let's discuss it on its merits. Not "heuristics" and "predictions".
then from higher in the thread
> Show me the tweet please this is all I am asking
> So, basically, you are saying that they are openly racist?
> I didn’t make my mind. I’m very much against racism, and any other form of discrimination. I’m also against intellectually lazy forms of debate.
but mostly, you respond like an argumentive asshole. None of these are open or exploratory comments. They all seek to win the debate, not to learn anything.
I guess the end of it is; the conversation you have with someone is exactly on you as much as you want it to be. You say that you are, but you definitely are not understanding what I'm trying to explain. Right, doesn't matter in this context, so right or wrong, part of that is on me, and part of that is on you. Xkcd has a comic for you already https://xkcd.com/1984/ You're welcome to shout "WRONG" into the microphone before wandering off on a tangent. But you don't learn anything that way.
the 500 Mile email, in case you haven't read this lore already http://web.mit.edu/jemorris/humor/500-miles
No, you have completely misunderstood.
> it’s enough to use prior behavior and common sense to deduce the conclusion.
Yes? It's not a difficult concept that you can use pattern recognition to predict how someone, or something will behave. It works especially well the more moving parts there are. The more moving parts, the more likely you are to find conflicting bits. So in that case, if you want to predict or explain the root cause of the behavior, you're going to need to use heuristics.
I really enjoy my friends description: He explained is as "I don't actually believe that Trump is a foreign asset. But given there's no daylight in between his behavior and the behavior of a foreign asset; you can just assume he is, and his decisions make sense." Feel free to substitute racist for asset if you'd like. The point is, your demand for magical proof is a red herring, you can predict correctly without it. Thus it's useful to describe them by the way they behave.
Technically, I guess you don't need to, you're arguments are a perfect counter example, about how you can just ignore the parts that make you feel icky, or conflict with what you assume you understand. Most people you talk to will not be able to perfectly explain the ideas they hold so if you want to learn what they might have to teach, you need to make some kind of attempt to engage with them, even if in the end you find you still disagree, you're very likely to learn something. But given how transparently you don't want to, I thought it might be nice to point out how obvious it is to anyone who might have something useful to explain, that you're just looking to get off on the one sided argument.
> and you want me to accept it? I’m sorry, but it sounds like BS.
I personally don't care what you accept. My reply wasn't attempting to convince you of anything. Just wanted to point out how obvious it is you're not even trying, just for the slim chance that you actually might want to.
But even if I assume it's all true. It does appear that CBS is paying what I might call bribes to the current administration. In this case, the incentives created what you describe as a gentle reminder, are such that CBS is now making decisions I think are dishonest and problematic. I expect my government to be extraordinarily careful with how they decide to put their finger on the scale, especially given how much influence they're able to represent, and how strong the incentives they manufacture can be.
> You don't like that CBS decided to put interview on YouTube to avoid triggering the obligation to also give airtime to another politician? Take it up with CBS.
Root cause analysis shows the problem started from the current administration's new actions that measurably diverge from their previous policies and decisions. While I agree that CBS should be held to account for their shitty decisions. Only an idiot would suggest addressing only the symptom of CBS behaving badly, when the root cause is something completely different.
It actually is evidence. Just not conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt. I suspect you're not going to get the better responses that might actually convince you. 1) because you're clearly being argumentative (nothing wrong with that) but primarily 2) because the people smart enough to read through the bullshit and construct an argument with real evidence and citations, are already smart enough to know you're not actually interested in the reasonably convincing argument they might produce.
You're demanding, repeatedly, for concrete evidence. You're not going to get whatever impossible standard you're asking for. Which does seem to be your intent. You don't appear to want to understand because you refuse to engage with anything other than perfect undeniable proof. That's actually an absurd way to behave.
Imagine you're talking to your friend, they think their spouse is cheating on them. Their spouse used to joke about that kinda thing, they're constantly leaving for business trips that they seem to be searching for, they never used to lock their phone but now it's constantly locked, or hidden away when they walk into the room. Oh and you then find out that they've cheated on their previous spouse before their first divorce.
Are they cheating again?
Here I'm sure you'd demand video proof of them having sex with someone other than their spouse, ideally with a newspaper in the frame so you know it's not from before, right?
That's not what a reasonable person would demand. You've right to demand a higher standard when you're going to convict someone in a legal proceeding. It's inane to place that standard on every single observation or conclusion. If one idea is a better predictor of future actions and outcomes. It's reasonable to use that until you get better evidence. Burying your head in the sand and pretending [thing you don't like] isn't true because no one has concrete evidence of them admitting guilt... is the dumbest thing I've read today. It's still early but I'm hoping you still win, because holy shit dude!
These are not mutually exclusive. But i'm glad you're considering shareholder value!
> I’m guessing you have absolutely no empathy for people who run small single person or small team business and our overwhelmed by all the regulatory traps they can fall into at any point in time.
Sigh... yeah, lack of empathy is the core problem here.
> The general thrust of the underlying messagr is not dishonest just because you say so.
Comparing suicide of an individual to administrative fines on a corporation for needlessly destroying textiles is rhetorically dishonest. There's so many disparities and meaningful differences that trying to equate them without discussing any of them is counter productive to a beneficial conversation. It's a cheap impotent shot trying to stir up an emotional reaction where one doesn't belong. Or given how strongly you seem to feel, a completely different reaction is deserved. Making a misleading or inappropriate comparison is dishonest, not because I say it is, but because being misleading, even carelessly, lacks rhetorical integrity, or honesty.
Four more examples, of rhetorical dishonesty suggesting I'm acting in bad faith, and lack empathy, or sympathy for the balance of weight for smaller companies (without cause)
Saying again without argument or evidence that my position is a self righteous one devoid of pragmatic function.
Mischaracterizating my opposition to your comments as shallow or opinionated rather than a different core issue you've been unable to identify or reply to.
And then my top reply to yours, suggesting that all you care about is shareholder value. But at least I'm only saying so because it's become a common joke, but also because your first comment feels irreverent towards S/SI, or humans. And the sum total of your next reply ignores the core point of my objections, and drones on about the financial cost towards companies. So maybe it's not that dishonest.
Depending on your language preference; Zig has issues[citation needed], but 1) it's still version 0 and 2) and this is the important part: who cares?
I get you have a pattern and shape you like a lot. But there's less value in that existing shape, than there is in being mildly uncomfortable, and expanding your world view and trying things in ways you wouldn't normally do.
If you tried it and didn't like it, cool, go back to the language you're already used to. But for everyone else. I'd encourage you to try doing things "wrong" for a while and seeing if you can't learn something from forcing yourself to do so.
Something especially true for a language that HN likes to pretend is just a toy and can't compete with [ language you already decided won ]