smodo

I assume they don’t mean that they are baffled by human nature. The thing that’s sort of unexpected is that, knowing human nature, companies don’t build in safeguards for this kind of sh.

It was a lack of vigilance among the Trojans, actually. The Greeks did the burning an pillaging. So uh OpenAI is the Greeks, ChatGPT is the horse and Microsoft is king Menelaos or something. Achilles is dead, but he did make TempleOS.

Interesting that they are working with one of the Zed people. I’ve been wondering about the Ui framework they use. Opening up this framework could invite a lot of attention since they are dogfooding it in a (imho) solid product.

> For Adam, the successes and lessons are plenty and we are excited to go on this journey with him and his colleagues building the future of living.

I’m sorry, this is a joke right?

I’ve been using Zed for a couple of months. It has replaced eMacs and VSCode for writing Rust. The integration is so well done, it’s like a constant conversation with the compiler. I’ve got ten invites by the way.

One thing I worry about a little is the business model. They want to target teams and charge for the cooperative features. But as a single user I’d love a way to just buy a lifetime license and feel that I can expect at least five years of use. I don’t like when software I love treats me like a casual fling.

We are, as a society, I suppose more or less aware of power asymmetries. Also, ‘other people do X too’ is a poor argument.

Although I also have fond memories of computing in the 90’s, the fears in this article seem to me both a little paranoid and unrealistic.

Paranoid because ‘they’ will take away our freedom, a classic conservative fear reinforced by citing the Nazi minister of propaganda.

Unrealistic because there is no going back in history. The future seems to be headed to a mix of local and remote computing, I’ll grant that. Especially with the looming dominance of GPT etc that so far requires resources not typically available locally.

But what that means and how unfree we will become is not all that clear. I think the main problem with such a statement is that it mixes a political attitude with a capitalist one. It fails to appreciate how disinterested Big Tech really is in politics and people. It will do what it needs to do to make money now and in the future.

There is probably not a lot of profit in prohibiting all kinds of computer usage. Yes, moderation on behalf of governments will remain a battlefield. But in the end no one forced us to go from BBS to Facebook. Enough people wanted to and then things became enshittified. You don’t need to force us, people can make the commons a shitty place all by themselves.

The M1 at its introduction was a little too good at its price point. The cynic in me says it will get hamstrung in software by piling on a lot of useless ‘ML’-crap in the OS that makes it perceivably slower. I’ve had my M1 laptop for two years and it still feels like it just came out of the box. I’m holding off on Ventura for as long as I can. The page showing the new features for MacOS is a laughable piece of marketing, trying desperately to find added value or frame things as such.

I also ran into that suicide phrase. My experiences are not unlike yours and I don't like to think of my friend who committed suicide as a patient who was overcome by disease. Rather, they were very meticulous and precise about ending their life.

It begs the question: can we represent this thing (somebody ends their own life) in precisely the right way? No, language is insufficient. All cases are different.

When I went to school and learned about linguistics and cultural analysis etc the appropriate way to deal with this insufficiency of language was to use many descriptions and ambiguities. So that you create a general field of meaning around the inexpressible thing.

Apparently we were all wrong; we just lacked the proper wording.

Well... In my country there is a well known sociolect among well educated females. It also involves speaking in a low register. Doctors have found that this causes vocal chord scarring for some people. Not all learned behavior is favoured by the body, shall we say.

I've been a linux/osx user for 20+ years so I'm not familiar with Windows memory management. It'd be interesting to know why MS chose this approach and if it has any benefits? Why not just let userspace request whatever it wants?

Yes, but mostly because it is a very weak analogy that teaches us nothing.

A Godwin in two comments, that's pretty wild considering the topic.

If you really want to make sure people can read visualizations with this many colors, please use one of the many palettes designed for color blind/deficient readers. It doesn't detract from your graphs and makes them readable for everyone.

This is why they aren't forced in any euthanasia cases I've heard of. Has this ever actually happened outside of totalitarian regimes? Genuine question.

It doesn't say that's what they think. About Meta though, we know. 'Others are worse' is not a convincing argument.

More likely they'll reason that this tough decision merits some kind of bonus if it ends up benefiting the bottom line for one quarter.

The 'human diorama' plot made the show. Baffling that they threw that overboard so quickly. By the third season it was just vague mumblings about technology.

As a total noob studying Swift and SwiftUI documentation I was wondering about this. But I couldn't believe this huge company would neglect their developer community like that. But as I delved deeper I found everything is beautiful on a surface level and beyond that suddenly there are no standards.

Kinda funny that the website asks the most fundamental question in a giant font, then fails to answer it.

My main take away from this is the importance of getting to grips with the codebase first. This may seem completely obvious but right now I'm in a context where the codebase is spread across different dev teams whose code 'meets in the middle' through an API but is never considered in a holistic fashion. In other words, there is not even a coherent codebase to review. The project is overdue and over budget by 100%, of course.

I wouldn't say using vectorized operations as opposed to for loops is such a good example. You're simply using the right tool for the job. Is using a fork to eat soup suboptimal? Is switching to a spoon optimizing the way you eat?

But what about using a dict or a list or tuple? That kind of decision can make a performance difference down the road, and there are trade offs in ease of development.

Anyway, the whole thing feels a little contrived. Who would ever argue that you shouldn't use numpy from the get-go? Who is the author arguing against?

I'm on 30 years at 1.9% in the Netherlands. Figured rates would go up eventually and wanted to take advantage while I could.

Because you want to be insulated from the trouble renters can cause. Heating breaks at 7 in the morning on saturday? Time to call the landlord. They let mold destroy the bathroom? Better have insurance and now hire someone to take care of it etc.

All of that goes away for a percentage.

You don't choose between them. You just infinitely juggle all of them.

I'm currently on a 6 month streak with Logseq. A daily journal by default with inline todo's is exactly what I need right now. But when a project puts me in a different mode of operation, maybe I'll go back to categorical notes.

The one thing I will never do is put my data somewhere I can't get to it easily. This is why Notion is a no-go for me; it's an instant lock in.