In the linked thread (currently on the second page) someone called mendax, who is defending Artist, says:
tango is an entitled DEI hire who's just short of demanding reparations for getting the boot from Artix
Someone called mikadonakado then replies with:
Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if you are a luddite, you are the lefty DEI hire, or whatever. Every luddite and neo-luddite community is tied to ShareBlue and CCP in some way. The CCP is behind the push to not build more data centers and slow down AI development.
Meanwhile everyone who is a libertarian and everyone who loves Javier Milei also loves AI. You can point out some exceptions, but in general, this statement is completely true. You cannot be a luddite and then accusing other people of being DEI hires.
So this seems like an absolutely delightful community.
To add to this: Writing code is easier than reading code.
This is why we have comments: understanding the intent helps guide the reader and makes it easier to see where the implementation does not match the intent.
This is one of the biggest reasons why we have code review: so that at least one person has read the code before it lands, to make sure that it is possible to understand it by reading it.
Reading code is harder than writing code even when that code is written by someone who is trying to make it clear what the code does and why.
LLMs make it easier to write code but harder to read because they produce statistically plausible code, which means code that looks right. Spotting bugs is harder. The code is often commented but the comments don’t reflect what it does, they direct you to misunderstand what the code does in subtle ways.
But even if they generated code that is as easy to read as a good human programmer, they would not be solving the right problem.
And, yes, LLMs can ‘explain’ code. And sometimes those explanations are correct and not subtly misleading. Often enough that they allow skills to atrophy, but not often enough that they’re trustworthy. They are a perfect example of The Paradox of Automation.
I was never excited by VR because I’m in the 10-20% of the population that uses some of the visual cues for depth that VR doesn’t mimic and so gets motion sick.
I was excited by AR. The technology is almost good enough to be useful. It’s currently at the stage smartphones were when I owned a Nokia N80: not actually useful, but you can see the potential. But, for it to actually be useful, it needs to be designed with private as the number one requirement and that’s not something I’d trust big tech to do, so I don’t see the interesting use cases appearing any time soon.
Machines that confidently generate wrong answers? I’ve dealt with enough humans like that to not want to see it automated.
It is an American company, therefore bound to US law, which means NSA involvement, which means guaranteed backdoors to encryption.
That’s a very strong assertion and, given an open-source client and a documented protocol, one that is very easy to prove if true. So I presume you can point at what, in the Signal protocol, is a backdoor in the encryption.
I just wanted to say: it's great seeing the first screenshot on macOS, and thank you all for making the effort to create great cross-platform software.
It's far easier to convince someone to move to a different OS if all of their existing apps work. Replacing each program that they depend on one at a time can be done slowly, over multiple years, and at some point you realise that you're not locked into an OS at all.
@winterschon@bsd.cafe Oh, does that boot now? It didn’t last time I tried: without /etc mounted, you can’t mount other filesystems. I guess the kernel is doing slightly more for ZFS mounts on boot than it used to (doesn’t work for non-ZFS systems because fstab is in /etc, it used to also not work for ZFS, I think, because something in rc.d was needed to mount additional filesystems).
@winterschon@bsd.cafe @fwaggle@moodoo.org There really isn’t a reason to use UFS unless your machine has less than 64 MiB of RAM. We should remove it from the installer. If you’re not building an appliance image (in which case you won’t use the installer), UFS is almost certainly the wrong tool for the job.
@fwaggle@moodoo.org @winterschon@bsd.cafe Yes, the problem is that this will give changes for the entire boot environment (see problem previously mentioned) when you actually just want config file changes and rollback.
@winterschon@bsd.cafe I think 1-3 are covered by freebsd-update IDS. 4 would be nice to add.
In my ideal world, we'd separate out the bits in /etc that users touch from the ones that are provided by the system and allow /etc to be a separate ZFS dataset. Unfortunately, the lack of this separation means /etc doesn't get mounted if you try because the scripts that mount all of the non-root ZFS datasets are in /etc.
@harrysintonen@infosec.exchange Does this mean that you can't finish setting up a Windows machine without an Internet connection? That's going to cause flashbacks for a lot of us who remember installing XP during Slammer and having the new install compromised before you could even try running Windows Update, so needed to install, log in, and then install updates from a CD-R before you connected the network cable.
@cybernews@infosec.exchange If critical infrastructure is vulnerable to attacks by teenagers, I’m sure it will be totally fine against a nation-state adversary.
@e8d79 @BlueMonday1984
In the linked thread (currently on the second page) someone called mendax, who is defending Artist, says:
Someone called mikadonakado then replies with:
So this seems like an absolutely delightful community.
@tyler @Magister
To add to this: Writing code is easier than reading code.
This is why we have comments: understanding the intent helps guide the reader and makes it easier to see where the implementation does not match the intent.
This is one of the biggest reasons why we have code review: so that at least one person has read the code before it lands, to make sure that it is possible to understand it by reading it.
Reading code is harder than writing code even when that code is written by someone who is trying to make it clear what the code does and why.
LLMs make it easier to write code but harder to read because they produce statistically plausible code, which means code that looks right. Spotting bugs is harder. The code is often commented but the comments don’t reflect what it does, they direct you to misunderstand what the code does in subtle ways.
But even if they generated code that is as easy to read as a good human programmer, they would not be solving the right problem.
And, yes, LLMs can ‘explain’ code. And sometimes those explanations are correct and not subtly misleading. Often enough that they allow skills to atrophy, but not often enough that they’re trustworthy. They are a perfect example of The Paradox of Automation.
@yuman @zdhzm2pgp
I was never excited by VR because I’m in the 10-20% of the population that uses some of the visual cues for depth that VR doesn’t mimic and so gets motion sick.
I was excited by AR. The technology is almost good enough to be useful. It’s currently at the stage smartphones were when I owned a Nokia N80: not actually useful, but you can see the potential. But, for it to actually be useful, it needs to be designed with private as the number one requirement and that’s not something I’d trust big tech to do, so I don’t see the interesting use cases appearing any time soon.
Machines that confidently generate wrong answers? I’ve dealt with enough humans like that to not want to see it automated.
@sjosjo @GMac @JensSpahnpasta
That’s a very strong assertion and, given an open-source client and a documented protocol, one that is very easy to prove if true. So I presume you can point at what, in the Signal protocol, is a backdoor in the encryption.
@kde@floss.social @kde@lemmy.kde.social
I just wanted to say: it's great seeing the first screenshot on macOS, and thank you all for making the effort to create great cross-platform software.
It's far easier to convince someone to move to a different OS if all of their existing apps work. Replacing each program that they depend on one at a time can be done slowly, over multiple years, and at some point you realise that you're not locked into an OS at all.
@winterschon@bsd.cafe Oh, does that boot now? It didn’t last time I tried: without /etc mounted, you can’t mount other filesystems. I guess the kernel is doing slightly more for ZFS mounts on boot than it used to (doesn’t work for non-ZFS systems because fstab is in /etc, it used to also not work for ZFS, I think, because something in rc.d was needed to mount additional filesystems).
@winterschon@bsd.cafe @fwaggle@moodoo.org There really isn’t a reason to use UFS unless your machine has less than 64 MiB of RAM. We should remove it from the installer. If you’re not building an appliance image (in which case you won’t use the installer), UFS is almost certainly the wrong tool for the job.
@fwaggle@moodoo.org @winterschon@bsd.cafe Yes, the problem is that this will give changes for the entire boot environment (see problem previously mentioned) when you actually just want config file changes and rollback.
@winterschon@bsd.cafe I think 1-3 are covered by
freebsd-update IDS. 4 would be nice to add.In my ideal world, we'd separate out the bits in
/etcthat users touch from the ones that are provided by the system and allow/etcto be a separate ZFS dataset. Unfortunately, the lack of this separation means/etcdoesn't get mounted if you try because the scripts that mount all of the non-root ZFS datasets are in/etc.@harrysintonen@infosec.exchange Does this mean that you can't finish setting up a Windows machine without an Internet connection? That's going to cause flashbacks for a lot of us who remember installing XP during Slammer and having the new install compromised before you could even try running Windows Update, so needed to install, log in, and then install updates from a CD-R before you connected the network cable.
@cybernews@infosec.exchange If critical infrastructure is vulnerable to attacks by teenagers, I’m sure it will be totally fine against a nation-state adversary.