Your phrasing is a little off but I hear your frustration and sympathize with you. App Store creators say what cannot be installed, when it comes to third party apps. They generally don’t auto install things unless they make them OS components. Your phone’s network provider is the one loading apps you can’t uninstall, generally.
My employer does the first, second, fourth, and sixth of those. (And I’m in the uncomfortable position of simultaneously building internal tools to make our AI use more effective, and telling everyone who will listen that we’re just walking blindly into yet another Oracle or Broadcom situation.)
Fun fact: you can actually do mitm-proof end to end encryption between a web server and a client: TLS client authentication. It’s tricky to set up, so this is more useful for e.g. small private web servers with tech savvy users. Any mitm would require cooperation of at least one party.
In windows you manage certs with start / run / mmc, then add snap-in and pick certificates, local machine or current user. And then usually the browser requires you to whitelist the domain so it’ll be allowed to ask for a cert.
You still have to coordinate to exchange cert identities (thumbprint ideally, CN if you really have to).
Agreed. I don’t know if this is the term for it, but I’ve been thinking of all this as “signaling disrespect,” a deliberate attempt to make people think of their peers as lesser, as other.
I feel like either people have been conditioned to do this online all the time for some reason, or maybe there’s some directed attack against civility. I don’t know. But I refuse to let myself be affected by it. I won’t hate people.
Like, to find the canonical DNS name of one of my home lab IPs, 209.180.104.202, you search for a PTR record for 202.104.180.209.in-addr.arpa. (You get git.mspencer.net. Note my username here.) The first A in ARPA stands for something. (That’s how you know I’m not a bot - bots don’t have 25-year-old domain names. . . . I didn’t say I was interesting, I just said I’m not a bot. :-) )
We don’t own it though. We never should - too much concentrated wealth and corruption. Like many technology stories, big wealth (whether Cold War military spending or giant corporations using money to squeeze out more money) creates something for one purpose, but people adapt and convert it for a better purpose. Business computing tech becomes home computing or gaming tech. Military redundant communications research becomes public redundant communication infrastructure.
There are some more current-affairs-y shows that use comedy to make deep dives into difficult-to-understand issues more palatable. I think Comedy Central and HBO both have some.
Posts like this try to twist compassion into hate.
Less hate - people who were convinced to believe in something wrong deserve outreach and compassion, not hate. They’re wrong but they didn’t decide to be monsters.
Cognitive Surrender. I can feel it happening every time I use this employer-mandated Cursor crap. I’m fighting it as hard as I can. Every AI slop pull request I have to review makes me die a little more inside.
(Edit: I’m glad this was so well received, but people are hating on my “assembler isn’t as difficult as people think” post below. Oh well.)
First, I love this analogy. At the end of the day someone is still analyzing and decomposing problems, and whether you use AI primarily to search and summarize, to recommend, or to write some goofy starter unit tests, it should still be the human writing the code.
… and now I can’t unsee this rule of three crap. Ever since I heard about an author getting busted for using AI, and all the talk about how AI generates in “rule of three”, I keep looking at my own writing and saying “wait, I do this too. People are going to think my posts are by an AI.” Every part of this post was written by a human software developer on a cell phone while I should be getting ready for work instead.
Also I feel like pointing out: assembler is the human-accessible version, where you break code into files and procedures, give things useful names, you have a symbol table that gives you the addresses where your names ended up. You can insert things and edit things and all the addresses shift around to accommodate your changes automatically. You add comments, even block comments. You “inline” methods with assembler macros.
I would say assembler is more accessible than people think, and complex programs don’t require as much of the “hold everything in your brain at once” horsepower as people think.
Like the American Squid Game reality show? It uses squibs and has contestants pretending to die in a lamp-shaded way (gets caught, remote controlled squib goes off, looks down disappointed, after a short reaction time and thinking delay they lay down in a safe way - or jump-fall like a stunt person). Maybe they have a bigger special effects budget and don’t interview the “dead” people after?
There’s a lot of “And then for some reason we did this, and it was more complexity” in this paper. I think that’s missing the point of languages, as a conversion layer between machine code and weird, squishy human brains. We think better, hold abstractions in our minds better, when the language maps more closely with how we’re structuring the problem in our minds.
Not sure if you were even looking for paper reviews.
Buying the company usually means buying all of their user information as well. Other companies can change their policies too. I think you should judge them by their actions, and give them a chance to answer your questions before you condemn them.
I’m with you, stuck at a billion dollar software company with an AI fetish. It’s a great search tool, can write some decent unit tests. But God help you if you let it write production code, for any of the “you won’t find this on stackexchange” stuff we all work on.
Traffic shapers can prioritize connections or streams differently, even if they can’t see inside them. Higher priority for quick connections, like interactive web page views, diminished priority for “oops that’s actually a bulk download it seems”.
sigh God forbid I try to disagree in a friendly and supportive way. Fuck, dude, don’t make the internet worse by spreading disrespect please.
Your phrasing is a little off but I hear your frustration and sympathize with you. App Store creators say what cannot be installed, when it comes to third party apps. They generally don’t auto install things unless they make them OS components. Your phone’s network provider is the one loading apps you can’t uninstall, generally.
My employer does the first, second, fourth, and sixth of those. (And I’m in the uncomfortable position of simultaneously building internal tools to make our AI use more effective, and telling everyone who will listen that we’re just walking blindly into yet another Oracle or Broadcom situation.)
Fun fact: you can actually do mitm-proof end to end encryption between a web server and a client: TLS client authentication. It’s tricky to set up, so this is more useful for e.g. small private web servers with tech savvy users. Any mitm would require cooperation of at least one party.
In windows you manage certs with start / run / mmc, then add snap-in and pick certificates, local machine or current user. And then usually the browser requires you to whitelist the domain so it’ll be allowed to ask for a cert.
You still have to coordinate to exchange cert identities (thumbprint ideally, CN if you really have to).
I’m not really fond of signaling disrespect like this. I like to encourage respect.
And If sites start trying to block Firefox, we work around it. User-Agent is still malleable.
Agreed. I don’t know if this is the term for it, but I’ve been thinking of all this as “signaling disrespect,” a deliberate attempt to make people think of their peers as lesser, as other.
I feel like either people have been conditioned to do this online all the time for some reason, or maybe there’s some directed attack against civility. I don’t know. But I refuse to let myself be affected by it. I won’t hate people.
Like, to find the canonical DNS name of one of my home lab IPs, 209.180.104.202, you search for a PTR record for 202.104.180.209.in-addr.arpa. (You get git.mspencer.net. Note my username here.) The first A in ARPA stands for something. (That’s how you know I’m not a bot - bots don’t have 25-year-old domain names. . . . I didn’t say I was interesting, I just said I’m not a bot. :-) )
We don’t own it though. We never should - too much concentrated wealth and corruption. Like many technology stories, big wealth (whether Cold War military spending or giant corporations using money to squeeze out more money) creates something for one purpose, but people adapt and convert it for a better purpose. Business computing tech becomes home computing or gaming tech. Military redundant communications research becomes public redundant communication infrastructure.
There are some more current-affairs-y shows that use comedy to make deep dives into difficult-to-understand issues more palatable. I think Comedy Central and HBO both have some.
Posts like this try to twist compassion into hate.
Less hate - people who were convinced to believe in something wrong deserve outreach and compassion, not hate. They’re wrong but they didn’t decide to be monsters.
I think they crave shared experience, the social activity of watching together, of picking something that everyone wants to watch.
I miss it too, except I never wanted to watch what they wanted to watch. I couldn’t do it either.
Now I just miss them.
Wikipedia has citations. Check out the links at the bottom as well as inline citations.
Cognitive Surrender. I can feel it happening every time I use this employer-mandated Cursor crap. I’m fighting it as hard as I can. Every AI slop pull request I have to review makes me die a little more inside.
(Edit: I’m glad this was so well received, but people are hating on my “assembler isn’t as difficult as people think” post below. Oh well.)
First, I love this analogy. At the end of the day someone is still analyzing and decomposing problems, and whether you use AI primarily to search and summarize, to recommend, or to write some goofy starter unit tests, it should still be the human writing the code.
… and now I can’t unsee this rule of three crap. Ever since I heard about an author getting busted for using AI, and all the talk about how AI generates in “rule of three”, I keep looking at my own writing and saying “wait, I do this too. People are going to think my posts are by an AI.” Every part of this post was written by a human software developer on a cell phone while I should be getting ready for work instead.
Also I feel like pointing out: assembler is the human-accessible version, where you break code into files and procedures, give things useful names, you have a symbol table that gives you the addresses where your names ended up. You can insert things and edit things and all the addresses shift around to accommodate your changes automatically. You add comments, even block comments. You “inline” methods with assembler macros.
I would say assembler is more accessible than people think, and complex programs don’t require as much of the “hold everything in your brain at once” horsepower as people think.
99%? We can get these numbers lower :-)
Like the American Squid Game reality show? It uses squibs and has contestants pretending to die in a lamp-shaded way (gets caught, remote controlled squib goes off, looks down disappointed, after a short reaction time and thinking delay they lay down in a safe way - or jump-fall like a stunt person). Maybe they have a bigger special effects budget and don’t interview the “dead” people after?
What have you tried?
There’s a lot of “And then for some reason we did this, and it was more complexity” in this paper. I think that’s missing the point of languages, as a conversion layer between machine code and weird, squishy human brains. We think better, hold abstractions in our minds better, when the language maps more closely with how we’re structuring the problem in our minds.
Not sure if you were even looking for paper reviews.
Buying the company usually means buying all of their user information as well. Other companies can change their policies too. I think you should judge them by their actions, and give them a chance to answer your questions before you condemn them.
(Did you try asking them about your concerns?)
I’m with you, stuck at a billion dollar software company with an AI fetish. It’s a great search tool, can write some decent unit tests. But God help you if you let it write production code, for any of the “you won’t find this on stackexchange” stuff we all work on.
Traffic shapers can prioritize connections or streams differently, even if they can’t see inside them. Higher priority for quick connections, like interactive web page views, diminished priority for “oops that’s actually a bulk download it seems”.