phuff · HackerTrans

kemarin duludiscuss

I wondered about this because I used a keyboard to do it. But then I thought maybe krick used mobile and there's no onscreen keyboard. But then I realized that krick said mouse skills and so is probably on a desktop. I think maybe just some graphical indicator that you can type would be helpful for first time users.

phuff

22 hari yang laludiscuss

> I don't think this rule is universal.

Counterpoint: Most workplaces would be best served by a team of developers who help up level each other without causing morale issues when knowledge gaps, which everyone has, inevitably show up.

This type of environment is the best for software development organizations specifically because most software development shops that have more than one person working on a codebase or system or set of systems have already reached the point where no single person can keep the whole thing in their head at once.

Maybe that person really worked in an environment where they didn't have to think about pointer arithmetic. Reframing closing knowledge gaps as a beneficial and necessary part of a healthy development system makes it so when somebody doesn't know something and needs help they are willing to get it quickly. And that they will talk about knowledge gaps openly so they can be filled with the collective pool of the organization .

Shutting that down even by just "narc-ing" on the person just makes it that much harder when others need to know something they don't to get a job done, slowing down the system over time.

phuff

bulan laludiscuss

> [C]onsumers, on the other hand, are mostly looking to waste time, which is why attention- harvesting advertising is the only software business model that works at scale for consumer services.

I came here to talk about this, like some other commenters did, too :) I think that this _is_ a predominant view amongst most of Silicon Valley but I think it's kind of a local maxima view... Easy to agree with, easy to see that it's a functional idea, but... people... (i.e. consumers) do lots more than just waste time on their phones even though I bet that's a huge amount of what people are doing across the US right now.

I guess the thing that _is_ true about this nugget is the "at scale" part. It's hard to find things _at scale_ that people would pay for on a phone. So the phone sort of falls back into this easy to monetize thing via advertising. But I think people (qua consumers) probably can clearly be a sustainable market for way more than attention harvesting (or dopamine fracking!) but it requires a lot more effort to think of things that you can build a market out of there. So people sort of lazy-back into attention harvesting via ads.

phuff

2 bulan yang laludiscuss

I think that this is an attack on the understanding of the LLM _potentially_ but it doesn't seem like it's likely to standup to legal scrutiny?

Seems like this is pretty clearly a case of fraudulent misrepresentation (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fraudulent_misrepresentation) which kinda nullifies the contract, if I understand correctly:

  Fraudulent misrepresentation is a tort claim, typically arising in the field of contract law, that occurs when a defendant makes a intentional or reckless misrepresentation of fact or opinion with the intention to coerce a party into action or inaction on the basis of that misrepresentation.
  To determine whether fraudulent misrepresentation occurred, the court will look for six factors:
    A representation was made
    The representation was false 
    That when made, the defendant knew that the representation was false or that the defendant made the statement recklessly without knowledge of its truth
    That the fraudulent misrepresentation was made with the intention that the plaintiff rely on it
    That the plaintiff did rely on the fraudulent misrepresentation
    That the plaintiff suffered harm as a result of the fraudulent misrepresentation
  Like most claims under contract law, the standard remedy for fraudulent misrepresentation is damages.

phuff

2 bulan yang laludiscuss

This is a great bug report! I am not a kernel expert by any means even though I have read some about it... 10+ years ago. And I was able to follow along and see what was going on.

It does make me scared for what other dangers lurk since this was a really bad one and it was so little work to find.

Also of note: so many security issues lately have been done using AI. This report makes me think two things:

1. Expertise is still immensely valuable, the more niche, the more valuable.

2. There are lots of niches still where AI doesn't dominate...

comments