nirui

> ...instead of injecting $2 trillion and counting into a few AI companies...

Similar to the "why we spend money exploring space when there are hungry people on Earth?" question, I don't think this is a This Or That argument.

People and companies have different interests, some don't/can't care about education etc so they don't invest in those fields. Forcing these people/companies to invest in areas they don't interested in usually results in bad outcomes that is way worse than just let them be.

But some, do invest in education or civil infrastructure projects. It's not as hot, because... well, usually it makes less money from those things.

The core problem is still that, it is hard to figure out how to invest in such way that it could help the disadvantaged people, while at the same time maintaining a 10 or even 100x growth in the next 5 years.

From the company's perspective, there's no dilemma here, it's 100x growth potential ahead of everything else.

    > "hey, boss, can we install action X?"
    > "Hey, boss, I am going to install action X."

They are literally the same thing to me.

The tone change don't really effect my decision path, both triggers "reviewing of the XYZ problem", a.k.a "why?". People who don't do that either trusts you a lot, or never worked professionally before and maybe about to learn a lesson from it.

Facebook is not just a "evolution of this concept". I would argue they, along with Twitter (currently know as X) and other similar service is completely different from blogs.

The main different is the designs Facebook has employed manipulated their users to adopt this "scroll down" method of reading. Each item of information is only displayed just a few seconds on user's screen, unless user stopped scrolling at the item they really interested in (and then maybe tap to open it).

That's not the same design used by blogs. Think of blogs as mini news sites, it encourages their readers to open the content in a full page to read it without interruptions. And, the readers has to calm their heats down to read long statements, this costs time and demands focus.

If you port the design used by blogs and apply it to display Facebook posts, that will be user-hostile, because user has to click each post only to read a potentially very short content.

The opposite is true too. You can't encourage user to "scroll down" a wall of long texts just to read the next wall of long texts, because that will be exhausting. You can't even create the anticipation that there's more stuff down, because that will just manipulates the user to keep scrolling down and skip.

That's why I think even you technically can aggregate blogs and social media in one app, you should probably be careful about it.

Well... they certainly did not show that in the video.

Oh and yeah, there are more difficult problem. For example, if the platform moves to lower/lift people in or out the water, some people will probably fail to remain still or even start panic. This might effect the final image.

Not sure if Midjourney has way to counter that. Great if they do.

I watched the video first without reading the text and thought, wow, Midjourney has gotten really good, they generated debris in the water exactly like what would happen in real life if the water is reused enough.

Then I started reading the text, and realize it's not an ad for their video generating tool? Cool if each of it can do ~120000 scans per-month. But if I have to step in to a tank filled with debris and discharges from ~3,999 other people (assuming the machine is maintained daily), I think I might have to wear protection and you must not lower me beyond my mouth.

But, if the claim is real, then yea, it could really help. So many health problems can be discovered early with ultrasound scan, only if it can be made easy, cheap and fast. Not sure about resolution and other specs, if it can be as good as CT, then more lives can be saved.

Qwen is still controlled by Alibaba, one company. We can't let the future be in the hands of a few companies, can we?

Fun fact: Qwen was not initially a Apache Licensed project, it was based on a custom license from Alibaba that restricts commercial use: https://github.com/QwenLM/Qwen/blob/ba2d85a13b28ed1ee0dde2d6.... There's no guarantee that they won't just switch it back later.

Kudos for them for switching to Apache License, of course. BUT, they're still a for-profit company. So as DeepSeek btw.

> we have no reason to believe their statements about risks are insincere

Why? Because they said it a few times? Then if they know the risk, why do they still making it? Comes out the "some one will do it eventually, better be us 'good' people to do it first" talking point?

See? It is a marketing strategy after all. These all talks, it's all to fit themselves into the "'good' people" narrative. It's a centuries old strategy to shield it's user from responsibilities while luring the support from the stupid.

However, the most harmful damage, which is mass layoffs, is already partially done. This could really kill, a massive genocide even, by making people jobless and potentially incomeless. And it is shown that these tech CEOs, they don't care any bit of that beyond the point "I've already told you so".

> If you have undefined behavior in your code your bug might become a heisenbug

OR, the OS might kick in and throw a segmentation fault etc, often with some information associated to it.

Again, if a LLM can output 100% correct code, no bug of whatever kind should exist. Seeing a segfault could just invalidate that assumption completely and definitively. That's the point.

> Rust guarantees lack of undefined behavior in safe code

And that don't guarantee heisenbug-free, that just means your heisenbug was fully checked by Rust compiler and is now managed by the language runtime/facilities.

So, now instead of a crashed program and a "sever" DoS vulnerably, you got a disconnected user every time they trigger the bug. The user might assume it's the network, so does your logging stack. After a few times, the user starts bitching about your stupid network, and left for your competitor's product, while you busily trying to figure out why the network suddenly ain't as good as it used to.

> 70%[1][2] is tiny?

It really depends on how they define what counts as "vulnerably", or in Chrome's case, "'high severity' security bugs" which is very specific. Microsoft probably have many decades-old code written before the invention of better checkers, that contributed to the problem.

> Speaks volumes to the strengths of the language

Memory safety is just a tiny part of over all security. If a LLM can transcode correctly, then it should also output 100% correct C code.

On the other hand, If a LLM cannot correctly transcode, then using Rust may just make the bug soundless, because the language runtime/code-gen "avoided" usual punishments that might make the bug (and bug report) obvious.

Pity. I recently started a fun activity to rebrush my math my where I tries to solve problems while asking Gemini Live mode for confirmation and suggestions, sometimes step by step.

It kinda was fun, like a very patient professor stand right besides you. It was the one of the best math learning experience I've ever had, and you don't even need to send bribe/gift to Gemini to keep you in it's favor.

On the other hand, if you ask a LLM to completely finish the work without thinking it through by yourself, then it sounded like cheating, to yourself.

The most disappointing part is not the price alone, it's that despite the price increase, the quality of the modules are still the same or even worsened.

> and then abscond to China

I'm a Chinese, from what I learned, you probably don't see the situation clearly.

The problem is influence. America wants to solve the Cuba (and Iran) problem since very long ago, and right now, while China is busy patching up their economic slop/mismanagement and Russia is trapped in Ukraine, is simply the best time to do so.

With Cuba is cleared out, the Americas continent will be cleared of major (and loud) threats against America. That alone is beneficial.

It's the same but opposite reason why America is supporting Japan, Taiwan and Europe etc, to control the influence of their competitors like China, Russia, India, Brazil etc (a.k.a Global South). It also allow Americans to keep a tap on Japan, Taiwan and Europe (etc) so they remains in American control.

That's probably the 4-D chess you talked about.

Also, the "Trump the 'Nation Builder'" part: In China, "Nation Builder" was a popular forename, it means "someone who contributes to their own country/nation". In the Trump context, it means that Trump's policies is benefiting China's goal. That is, when compare to Biden's policy which is much sophisticated and on point (while Trump's is blunt and wasteful).

But I don't think American's soft gesture towards China will last after Cuba and Iran is dealt with (if) in a American victory though. Unlike what the "New World Order" conspiracy suggests, I don't think this world is stupid enough to not to pursue the maximums goal when possible. That's probably why Americans are working towards the maximums goal inches by inches.

> Weaponizing Bureaucracy

Don't over interpret this. You can also weaponize efficiency too, just like what USSR did to itself, hyper optimizing their industrial sector and leaving everything else to a free dry.

Truth is, keep something alive is just hard. It dies if you overdo, and it also dies if you underdo. A sabotage could just tip the balance, that's all.

Sometimes hiding internals is reasonable, but it could cause inconvenient. Exposing everything could make it harder to do interface management etc.

It's really a system design problem rather than access control: if you separate functional modules in a reasonable way, then it can be better reused.

> It confuses easiness with simplicity

A lot of libs/packages in Go's stdlib also has this problem. They like to package everything in a very tight interface (very obvious example includes crypto/* and http), without exposing implementation detail to the end user.

Doing this of course has it's benefits, but if the feature provided by the stdlib slightly don't fit you needs, then you might have to write your own (potentially unsafe and/or less performant) one from zero.

Rust is great overall, but there's some oddities. For example their lib.rs / `mod` is very, very unintuitive, it felt overdesigned and unnecessarily complex (just see [their book]). I like what Go or Java did to their lib/package systems, it's much better that way.

[their book]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/book/ch07-05-separating-mod...

If I remember it correctly, the "Java-lite" part comes rather late. PHP was more close to Perl and/or other old-days scripting language, it allows you to quickly launch a web page. Just

    <p><?php echo(htmlspecialchars($_GET['user'])); ?></p>

and you get a hello page with a parameter specifiable via `?user=` query.

But then people started to actually use it to build big sites, `echo($_GET['user'])` alone is not enough, it has to be:

    <?php
    $user = "guest";
    if (!empty($_GET['user'])) { // Have to remember to do this check everytime when handling $_GET/$_POST etc
        ... safety check etc etc
        $user = htmlspecialchars($_GET['user'], ...more parameters...);
    }
    ...

So people started to add module/components as well as ways to load and use those components, to enable them to write code like:

   <?php

   use My\Beautiful\InputFilter;
   use My\Beautiful\InputFilters\Integer;

   function get_page_num_from_query(InputFilter $f, array $source, string $name): bool {
     return $f->is_valid(new Integer(0, 100), $source, $name);
   } // Or something like that, hasn't write a single line since PHP5.

That's when it got it's Java look.

> We can stop reading LLM-generated code just like we don’t read assembly, or bytecode, or transpiled JavaScript; our high-level language source would now be another form of machine code.

My opinion is very close to this. Currently the reason that it's bad to not reviewing/testing the code LLMs generated is because the LLMs can sometime generate bad codes. But it's a bug that can be improved. One day you'll have LLMs generating code consistently better than what a human could write. And then you just stop needing to review them. (And that's probably also the time where most programmers/developers got fired too)

Don't get surprised if anyday the LLMs starts to generate binaries directly. THAT will be impossible to read and costs more time to analyze.

The "benefits all of humanity" narrative was interesting.

If Elon Musk remained the silly/goofy outsider character he was, then the narrative that he naively invested in OpenAI for the good of all mankind is somewhat believable.

However, he really turned himself a serious shitball in the past few years and did some really harmful things intentionally. Maybe his trying to test the boundaries or something? But it does made his "kindness" somewhat hard to believe.

Also, I can't see any outcome where the general labor (which most of us are) can benefit from AI development, given the context that the world is suffering from population decline and economic crisis, which could reduce overall opportunity and at the same time make living harder.

After all, AI is different than other tech in that, the end gold for AI is to eliminate all "frictions".

What is frictions? Well, say if you want to go to a place, the getting up and leave, the driving, the parking, the walking, that's all friction. In a frictionless world, you want to go to a place, and you already there, it's done right as you finishes your wishing.

Here's the thing: as general labors, most services we provide is also to reduce friction, we exchange that for money to survive. That's how we got a share of the wealth of the world. So if there's less friction, then will translate to less opportunity, in that scene, "we all lost" too.

BTW: in my (Chinese) education, we were told that when productivity is advanced enough, communism will become the final and only choice of humanity. The silly communists never realized that if productivity is really that advanced, then there's a chance that the life of most people could become some redundant waste to be eliminated.

It is hard to replace the old thing with another old thing. Search engine is already a fine tuned business, new comers will have hard time in it, no matter their tech stack.

It's like trying to raise better horses, while the other side has already built a empire on that and weaponized it.

The way out of here is to find something better than search engine, just like how cars replaced horses. But it's the same reason Google Search is replacing itself with AI too, they're already trying to replace their horses with cars.

Extended read: A Super El Niño Is Increasingly Likely, And It Could Be Record Strong (https://weather.com/news/climate/news/2026-05-07-super-el-ni...)

If true, this summer and maybe winter maybe brutal.

You know, yeah, you can crack down "addictive design", but then what?

If you don't provide better alternative, the "kids" (and please, stop using "kids" as excuse because everybody can see through it now) will just stick on these platforms because, believe or not, these platforms are much MUCH safer than the alternatives.

How about, let's see the real problem here: 24% of EU children at poverty risk or social exclusion (2024), see https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/d.... That's not just a statistic about children, it's also about their parents.

Do you know that if you go outside, then there's this huge risk of having to PAY for stuff you don't actually need to live? Like transportation to go to place that don't bring you wealth, like drink that you drink even you're not that thirsty, like movie tickets just so it will not be too awkward after all the dialogue options are exhausted? Does these politicians just somehow forgot all of these costs money, in this economy that they helped to create?

And that is not to mention the REAL risk, such as drugs the bad ones, rude or crazy drivers, unpleasant adults who's only life purpose is to earn enough money to keep them going a little bit longer, just to name a few.

..... ORRRR, you can just stay in your conformable home, sit on your soft and warm sofa/couch, and swipe your life away on TikTok or Instagram for free, safely.

You see the problem here?

I'm really sick and tired of these politicians putting up this act pretending to "love children", when in the reality what they do is putting up easy patches to hide the real problem, which is poverty and inequality, that's the real problem.

In case people no longer remember, when China started to require websites to register for a license before be allowed to operate, it was for "protecting the children" too.

This simple policy then goes on to silence most individual publisher(/self-media) and consolidated the industry into the hands of the few, with no opportunity left for smaller entrepreneurs. This is arguably much worse than allowing children to watch porn online, because this will for sure effect people's whole life in a negative way.

Also, if EU really wants "VPN services to be restricted to adults only", they should just fine the children who uses it, or their parent for allowing it to happen. The same way you fine drivers for traffic violation, but not the road.

And if EU still think that's not enough, maybe they should just cut the cable, like what North Korea did.

> irresponsible the maintainers are

Today it's 0.1%, tomorrow it might become 100%. User demand is hard to anticipate, so it's reasonable to include small features that don't cost a lot to run by default.

It's not ideal, but you really don't want to prevent user from finishing their task, because maybe then they'll just give you a bad name and switch to another distro.

That's to say, it's not "irresponsible", it's reasonably maximums (at least trying to be).

How about this: a "vulnerability" is a "vulnerability", but after it was identified and verified to cause problem, that's when it should be called a "bug", because it could make the software do unwanted things.

I like the idea of creating a OSS project, and then build extra on top of it for selling.

The OSS part ensured that even if I went full Sam Altman, the user will still have an absolute baseline they can fallback on. And given how lazy I am, the OSS is often basically 70% of the project. This also has the benefit that the significant part of the code can be audited for security/etc, sometimes even for free.

> but I didn't like being a professional software developer for a huge tech company

This feeling is probably shared by many lefties people. They love to work, they just don't like to be restricted/manipulated into working under a highly specified and standardized environment, especially when every bit of their performance is measured for competition.

But I have grown to understand the environment of the "big tech" companies. It is hard to manage a project as it expands, and the result of human work is hard to predict, so often there's two ways to choose: 1) only hire people who's "on the same channel", highly talented "rock star" programmer, or 2) regulate everything to the detail, and "filter out" (a.k.a. firing) those who's incapable of fitting. Both are brutal, but effective and cheap to implement at scale.

If you don't like to work for big companies, maybe try start one of your own. But then of course you'll have to find some kind of financial support, maybe it's from "value extracting", but maybe it's something else.

BTW, I don't think "value extracting" == "user hostile". A lot of people go overboard with their religious beliefs, thinking rich is bad. But your time on this Earth is limited, and this is the only adventure you'll ever have. Thus your labor must be fairly compensated, so you can continue your journey a bit more freely. Otherwise it's a zero-sum game, more you "give out", less chance for yourself. How can you be so sure that other people would utilize their time better than you?

Selling your produce for financial isn't "user hostile". It will be if you're predatory, but it won't be if you're being fair.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic -- Clarke's three laws

HOWEVER, sometimes, if a technology is sounded like a magic too much, then maybe it just is, without any technology in it.

It's simple, there's this "Star" feature on Thunderbird, so if I'm not ready to handle the mail now, I'll just click the star to mark it as important, and undo the star after I've done handling it.

Or, just like what @atrus said, don't receive emails if you have other higher-priorities.

> This person has a family. This person has hobbies. This person is, at this moment, crying.

Reminded me one benefit of email-based workflow.

If I started receiving email, that's usually because I'm in the right mood to doing so. In such mood, I'll be more focused because I expect nothing else to interrupt my work.

My problem with notification is that there's a pull towards clearing them as they show up. But there's no guarantee I have the right energy at the moment.

Also, I found that most notification systems on the web are poor mimics of what email client has already archived decades ago. Maybe the old folks really got it right for using emails.

Great. Coming just in time when people think the "main stream" browsers are too boring.

I'm actually glad to see Mozilla has grown a little bit "predatorial" if it can bring good to the users. The implementation is polite too, as it lets you know there was an ad been muted.

There's a lot of things that can still be done in the browser space. For example, one-click login even without entering email, easy purchase without the website ever collecting your card number (or other financial detail beyond necessary), etc etc. Ads can also be improved too, by making them not violating nor annoying.

The possibilities are still great, I hope Mozilla can figure out a way to tap into it.