I loved the gym and it did help my psyche. That is very clear to me. But now I don't go to the gym anymore, because I have a very stubborn radial tunnel syndrome in my right arm and my knee osteoarthritis is worse than ever. Of course both of those things make me angry and anxious. While I am absolutely positive that exercise helps your psyche, I would not be surprised if the majority of this correlation is actually from a common cause (it might also be stress in general - i.e. no time for exercise), lack of financial resources or just a bad place of living, etc.
I feel like this is ultimately uninteresting. This doesn't change anyone's image of these companies. We know they are evil. They have done worse and they will do worse. They never got a meaningful punishment and I have no reason to believe they will. All they get is outrage on the internet, which is effectively meaningless to them.
The files being examined right now shows me that there is nothing bad enough to actually make anything happen, no matter how absurdly evil it is. Are we too easily distracted? Or are we too used to inhumanity now? Or are the powerful simply more powerful than most of the rest of the planet?
I am sort of questioning my use of LLMs again after, first reluctantly, starting to use them multiple times a day. This story seems like it was intended to be an allegory for LLM-use though I know it couldn't have been.
It's an allegory about trusting "best practices", standardized bodies of knowledge¹, and "that's the way it's always been done". Not that those things necessarily don't work, they do in the story as well as in real life, but they need to adapt to change and the story illustrates what happens when they harden from best practice into unquestioned dogma.
¹ There's even a BoK for software developers, the SWEBOK, but I've never met anybody who's read it.
I think it's more about social stratification than bodies of knowledge. The knowledge is treated as a class signifier, especially by the protanogist. In the bit with the friend, the new training he didn't have was practically useful, but, more than that, it sharpened the gap between the "haves" (went to a good school) and "have-nots".
I liked aider initially, but I keep running into problems, as the project seems largely unmaintained. I wanted to install OpenCode yesterday, but this somewhat turns me off. Are there any good model-agnostic alternatives? I am somewhat shocked there is not a lot of good open source CLI LLM code assistants going around.
I've had serious trouble with my knee and elbow for years and ChatGPT helped me immensely after a good couple dozen of doctors just told me to take Ibuprofen and rest and never talked to me for longer than 3 minutes. I feel like as with most things LLM there are many opponents that say "if you do what an LLM says you will die", which is correct, while most people that look positively towards using LLMs for health advice report that they used ChatGPT to diagnose something. Having a conversation with ChatGPT based on reports and scans and figuring out what follow-up tests to recommend or questions to ask a doctor makes sense for many people. Just like asking an LLM to review your code is awesome and helpful and asking LLM to write your code is an invitation for trouble.
I have recently started re-implementing parts of the standard library myself just to improve compile times (and I did - massively!), but I purposely kept {fmt} around, because I think it's a great library and I thought it would be as fast to compile as you could possibly make it (it likely still is considering what it can do). Also because the dev put a lot of effort into optimizing compile times [1] and seems to be much smarter than me. So I made benchmark to prove you wrong and show you it's not that easy. But it turns out formatting a couple of numbers and strings is much faster with your basic formatting library [2] [3].
Comparing using `hyperfine --warmup 3 "g++ FILE.cpp"` (and some flags for fmt) I get 72ms vs 198ms. So I changed my mind and might take a crack at replacing {fmt} as well. Cool stuff! Thank you.
rikifmt only supports the default formatting which is somewhat limited and in the current implementation cannot even format std::string or FP numbers without data loss. Once more functionality is added the variadic template approach will quickly become the limiting factor both for build speed and binary size. But for toy examples you can definitely do better.
I find this argument hard to agree with. We are seeing unprecedented levels of buffoonery in many governments of the world and people enthusiastically agreeing with (objectively) idiots. Before anyone that does not know how to understand a statement as we are talking about, they will understand it the wrong way, tell everyone they know, create social media content and form organizations that oppose vaccines. I would say that this is more likely to happen many times over than them actually learning how to understand a statement like OPs properly. So as sad as it is, I think you are wrong.
I can understand that this approach seems like the easy quick solution, but the problem is much deeper than that. It's more about a weaponization of language by those who know what they're doing. Getting into a language fight isn't worthless, but doesn't actually resolve the issue, just escalates it.
What's more important IMHO, is raising the general understanding of how this science works and not falling into the trap of feeling like we have to debate this buffoonery on the same level. We're so worried about being called "elites" or whatever that we fight on their terms instead of just straight up calling it out as stupid and manipulative and giving it no more time than that.
GPUs are very fast, but not quite infinite. If you spend your GPU time on text, you can't spend it on something else. And almost always you would like to spend it on something else.
Also the more GPU time you require, the faster the minimum required hardware needs to be. Text is cool and important, but maybe not important enough to lose users or customers.
I always thought that JavaScript cryptomining is a better alternative to ads for monetizing websites (as long as people don't depend on those websites and website owners don't take it too far). I'd much rather give you a second of my CPU instead of space in my brain. Why is this so frowned upon? And in the same way I thought Anubis should just mine crypto instead of wasting power.
I'd imagine it's pretty much impossible to make a crypto system which doesn't introduce unreasonable latency/battery drain on low-end mobile devices which is also sufficiently difficult for scrapers running on bleeding edge hardware.
If you decide that low end devices are a worthy sacrifice then you're creating e-waste. Not to mention the energy burden.
Maybe because while ad tech these days is no less shady than crypto mining, the concept of ads is something people understand. Most people don't really understand crypto so it gets lumped in with "hackers" and "viruses".
Alternatively, for those who do understand ad tech and crypto, crypto mining still subjectively feels (to me at least) more like you're being stolen from than ads. Same with Anubis, wasting power on PoW "feels" more acceptable to me than mining crypto. One of those quirks of the human psyche I guess.
Running proof of work on user machines without their consent is theft of their computing and energy resources. Any site doing so for any purpose whatsoever is serving malware and should be treated as such.
Advertising is theft of attention which is extremely limited in supply. I'd even say it's mind rape. They forcibly insert their brands and trademarks into our minds without our consent. They deliberately ignore and circumvent any and all attempts to resist. It's all "justified" though, business interests excuse everything.
> Advertising is theft of attention which is extremely limited in supply. I'd even say it's mind rape. They forcibly insert their brands and trademarks into our minds without our consent. They deliberately ignore and circumvent any and all attempts to resist.
(1): Attention from any given person is fundamentally limited. Said attention has an inherent value.
(2): Running *any* website costs money, doubly so for video playback. This is not even mentioning the moderation & copyright mechanisms that a video sharing platform like YouTube has to have in order to keep copyright lawsuits away from YouTube itself.
(3): Products do not spawn in with their presence known to the general population. For the product to be successful, people have to know it exists in the first place.
Advertising is the consequence of wanting attention to be drawn to (3), and willing to pay for said attention on a given platform (1). (2)'s costs, alongside any payouts to videographers that garner attention to their videos, can be paid for with the money in (1), by placing ads around/before the video itself.
You're allowed to not have advertising shown to you, but in exchange, the money to pay for (2) & the people who made the video have to come from somewhere.
Yes, and it belongs to us. It's not theirs to sell to the highest bidder.
> Running any website costs money, doubly so for video playback.
> Products do not spawn in with their presence known to the general population.
Not our problem. Business needs do not excuse it. Let all those so called innovators find a way to make it without an attention economy. Let them go bankrupt if they can't.
> Yes, and it belongs to us. It's not theirs to sell to the highest bidder.
Your attention belongs to you, until you give it to someone else.
The videographer has the right to sell sponsorships on their videos in exchange the attention they've attracted. It is also their right to do so.
> Not our problem. Business needs do not excuse it. Let all those so called innovators find a way to make it without an attention economy. Let them go bankrupt if they can't.
Your logic has already been tried: It's called Netflix. And it was overtaken by YouTube.
YouTube has been the wellspring for indie videographers because they have a platform that could (a) handle the video hosting for them for free, where (b) they could post their experiments on without an upfront cost & where an audience can be found because the platform's free.
Your idea seeks upfront payment, which increases the risk cost dramatically from 0 to a fixed value. One-shot experiments with 0 funds are killed under your scheme.
To seek their bankruptcy is nothing short of a fetishistic desire for your ideals to trample on others your your own gloating. Go back to the DVD era.
> The videographer has the right to sell sponsorships on their videos in exchange the attention they've attracted.
As is my right to use uBlock Origin and Sponsor Block to automatically block and skip every single one of those segments. Won't be long until we have AI powered ad blocking that can edit ads out of video streams in real time.
We decide what we pay attention to. Making videos is not a license to dupe us into viewing advertising noise. Baiting us with some interesting topic only to switch to commercial nonsense is just rude, and that's the most charitable interpretation I can offer.
> YouTube has been the wellspring for indie videographers
Because of ads and surveillance capitalism. Those are the root causes of everything that is wrong with the web today. Blocking those will reduce their returns on investment, thereby fixing the web.
> One-shot experiments with 0 funds are killed under your scheme.
Nah. Only the money motivated people will leave. People have been creating things just for the joy of it since the dawn of humanity. Those humans with intrinsic motivation are the ones I really care about. Not these insipid profit driven "content creators".
> As others have also observed, permissions such as MANAGE_EXTERNAL_STORAGE have been rampantly abused in the past, often in horrific ways.
I understand that great care should be taken when this permission is granted to new apps, but NextCloud is well known and on top of that it is a file management app. If anything, apps like that should have this permission.
If you plan to phase it out completely, then the alternatives have to be good enough, which judging from some of the child comments, they are not. I have never developed for Android (and likely never will, because of stuff like this), so I cannot judge properly.
It's also my understanding that the Google Drive App is just some UI over cloud storage. All the interesting bits like Backup are not handled through it and Google Drive gets preferential treatment for this. Additional permissions are required to emulate such functionality.
reply