4 ms·

Using computers more freely and safely (2023)

101 points by surprisetalk 1y ago

layer8 1y ago
Original discussion (67 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36113115 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36113115
rpdillon 1y ago
This approach has been my central philosophy for years, and is why I dislike central app stores so much: they put significant downward pressure on hobby coders releasing their work, which leaves the store with a bunch of primarily commercial software, which aligns incentives around extracting data or money from users. F-Droid is a great counter-example that highlights this. I think my decisions have panned out pretty well, in a /r/stallmanwasright sort of way. I caught a lot of side glances for using Linux back in the late 90s and early 00s (I wanted to load it onto some computers on LHD-4 during my tour aboard, but the command said it was a "hacker" operating system), but these days, looking at what Apple and Microsoft are doing, I'm thrilled to be using System76 machines for me and my kids. Emacs has been a consistent friend over the years, and I still go back to it for anything text-centric. It's made the transition to the LLM-era quite gracefully. Tiddlywiki has also been a reliable source of value over the years. I tend to not install apps for sites on my phones. They offer less control than a browser I can add uBlock to and just visit the site. Not always (I use the Amazon app, for example), but mostly. In general, I've cultivated an attitude of reverse-entitlement: sometimes I really want things, but I have to stay real with myself that I don't need them. Some examples that folks will probably argue with, but are good illustrations of the idea: I'm a huge fan of VR, and have had amazing times in Beat Saber and a few other games. I bought Quest and Quest 2, but when Meta locked me out due to a SNAFU with the Oculus/FB account mess up, and I was unable to file a ticket to get the account unlocked (because I couldn't log in), I lost $1000 in hardware and a couple thousand in VR software, but I just walked away. I realize the relationship was abusive, and that I didn't need Meta in my life. That was 2 years ago, and I still miss Beat Saber, but it was a good decision. I had a LinkedIn account, and gave my name and email when I signed up. When my phone fried and I didn't have backup MFA, they demanded my state-issued ID to let me back in (rather than, say, verifying by email). I don't trust MS with my ID - they said they would delete it, but I didn't believe them (prior data breaches at ID vendors motivated me). But more importantly, it was an escalation: they didn't verify my identity when I signed up. So they should be trying to confirm that I'm the person who signed up. But they instead wanted me to verify I'm rpdillon, which is moving the goalposts. They're doing it as a transparent data grab. So I walked away. That was a few years ago; turns out I don't need LinkedIn! There are probably dozens of examples like this, but I'll stop here, since this is already too long. My core point here is: it turns out I don't need most of the stuff these companies offer, and they do seem to be getting increasingly abusive. I read about the WebRTC backdoor in Meta's apps last night, but I quit Facebook in 2009, because the writing was on the wall. I think the article offers a good perspective. This is quite at adds with opinions I read here all the time ("Libreoffice is a useless replacement for Excel", "It's literally impossible to program unless I have my liquid retina display", "Unless I'm rendering at 144Hz, it's like a slideshow", etc.), so it might be a _highly_ individual thing, but I thought it was worth mentioning, since it might be a fun discussion about how folks think of these tradeoffs.
- fifticon 1y ago
  intereatingly, for apps you mention '..they offer less control ..' Maybe for the user, but for the corporation, they offer more control..
- tempodox 1y ago
  > they do seem to be getting increasingly abusive. Positively, I can confirm. Cory Doctorow's Lecture on Enshittification describes it perfectly: https://doctorow.medium.com/my-mcluhan-lecture-on-enshittification-ea343342b9bc https://doctorow.medium.com/my-mcluhan-lecture-on-enshittifi...
jay_kyburz 1y ago
Upvote for Love and Lua!
GMoromisato 1y ago
I'm sure this article resonates with many people; it doesn't resonate with me. I get value out of (and even enjoy) lots of software, commercial and otherwise (except for Microsoft Teams--that's an abomination). Ultimately, everything (not just software) is a trade-off. It has benefits and hazards. As long as the benefits outweigh the hazards, I use it. [The one frustration is, of course, when an employer forces a negative-value trade-off on you--that sucks.] I'm suspicious of articles that talk about drawbacks in isolation, without weighing the benefits: "vaccines have side-effects", "police arrest the wrong people", "electric cars harm the environment". Ironically, the best answer to many of the article's suggestions (thousands rather than millions, easy to modify, etc.) is to write your own software with LLMs. The future everyone wants is, I think, one where users can ask the computer to do anything, and the computer immediately complies. Will that bring about a software paradise free from the buggy, one-size-fits-none, extractive software of today? I don't know. I guess we'll see. We live in interesting times.
- bevr1337 1y ago
  > As long as the benefits outweigh the hazards, I use it. You and the author may be in agreement but with differing risk tolerance. > Ironically, the best answer to many of the article's suggestions... is to write your own software with LLMs. I don't think it's ironic but I do think it's false. How do LLMs satisfy a single requirement from the author's punchline list?
  - nothrabannosir 1y ago
    LLMs don’t but the problems you write for yourself using LLMs, do.
  - GMoromisato 1y ago
    > You and the author may be in agreement but with differing risk tolerance. I agree. And I'm not saying the author is wrong--they have their preferences. I'm just saying that for me the benefits outweigh the risks, and I'm betting most people are like me (at least outside HN). > I don't think it's ironic but I do think it's false. How do LLMs satisfy a single requirement from the author's punchline list? The main suggestion from the author is to write your own custom software tuned to your needs instead of relying on a mass-market, one-size-fits-all piece of complex, expensive software that has to be monetized by dark patterns. I guess in a world where everyone knows how to program, and has the time and desire to do so, that would work. But in the real world, the only way to get the bulk of humanity to write their own software is with LLMs. I think it's ironic because I bet the author does not like LLMs.

101 points by surprisetalk 1y ago

Original discussion (67 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36113115 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36113115

rpdillon 1y ago

This approach has been my central philosophy for years, and is why I dislike central app stores so much: they put significant downward pressure on hobby coders releasing their work, which leaves the store with a bunch of primarily commercial software, which aligns incentives around extracting data or money from users. F-Droid is a great counter-example that highlights this. I think my decisions have panned out pretty well, in a /r/stallmanwasright sort of way. I caught a lot of side glances for using Linux back in the late 90s and early 00s (I wanted to load it onto some computers on LHD-4 during my tour aboard, but the command said it was a "hacker" operating system), but these days, looking at what Apple and Microsoft are doing, I'm thrilled to be using System76 machines for me and my kids. Emacs has been a consistent friend over the years, and I still go back to it for anything text-centric. It's made the transition to the LLM-era quite gracefully. Tiddlywiki has also been a reliable source of value over the years. I tend to not install apps for sites on my phones. They offer less control than a browser I can add uBlock to and just visit the site. Not always (I use the Amazon app, for example), but mostly. In general, I've cultivated an attitude of reverse-entitlement: sometimes I really want things, but I have to stay real with myself that I don't need them. Some examples that folks will probably argue with, but are good illustrations of the idea: I'm a huge fan of VR, and have had amazing times in Beat Saber and a few other games. I bought Quest and Quest 2, but when Meta locked me out due to a SNAFU with the Oculus/FB account mess up, and I was unable to file a ticket to get the account unlocked (because I couldn't log in), I lost $1000 in hardware and a couple thousand in VR software, but I just walked away. I realize the relationship was abusive, and that I didn't need Meta in my life. That was 2 years ago, and I still miss Beat Saber, but it was a good decision. I had a LinkedIn account, and gave my name and email when I signed up. When my phone fried and I didn't have backup MFA, they demanded my state-issued ID to let me back in (rather than, say, verifying by email). I don't trust MS with my ID - they said they would delete it, but I didn't believe them (prior data breaches at ID vendors motivated me). But more importantly, it was an escalation: they didn't verify my identity when I signed up. So they should be trying to confirm that I'm the person who signed up. But they instead wanted me to verify I'm rpdillon, which is moving the goalposts. They're doing it as a transparent data grab. So I walked away. That was a few years ago; turns out I don't need LinkedIn! There are probably dozens of examples like this, but I'll stop here, since this is already too long. My core point here is: it turns out I don't need most of the stuff these companies offer, and they do seem to be getting increasingly abusive. I read about the WebRTC backdoor in Meta's apps last night, but I quit Facebook in 2009, because the writing was on the wall. I think the article offers a good perspective. This is quite at adds with opinions I read here all the time ("Libreoffice is a useless replacement for Excel", "It's literally impossible to program unless I have my liquid retina display", "Unless I'm rendering at 144Hz, it's like a slideshow", etc.), so it might be a _highly_ individual thing, but I thought it was worth mentioning, since it might be a fun discussion about how folks think of these tradeoffs.

fifticon 1y ago
intereatingly, for apps you mention '..they offer less control ..' Maybe for the user, but for the corporation, they offer more control..
tempodox 1y ago
> they do seem to be getting increasingly abusive. Positively, I can confirm. Cory Doctorow's Lecture on Enshittification describes it perfectly: https://doctorow.medium.com/my-mcluhan-lecture-on-enshittification-ea343342b9bc https://doctorow.medium.com/my-mcluhan-lecture-on-enshittifi...

jay_kyburz 1y ago

Upvote for Love and Lua!

GMoromisato 1y ago

I'm sure this article resonates with many people; it doesn't resonate with me. I get value out of (and even enjoy) lots of software, commercial and otherwise (except for Microsoft Teams--that's an abomination). Ultimately, everything (not just software) is a trade-off. It has benefits and hazards. As long as the benefits outweigh the hazards, I use it. [The one frustration is, of course, when an employer forces a negative-value trade-off on you--that sucks.] I'm suspicious of articles that talk about drawbacks in isolation, without weighing the benefits: "vaccines have side-effects", "police arrest the wrong people", "electric cars harm the environment". Ironically, the best answer to many of the article's suggestions (thousands rather than millions, easy to modify, etc.) is to write your own software with LLMs. The future everyone wants is, I think, one where users can ask the computer to do anything, and the computer immediately complies. Will that bring about a software paradise free from the buggy, one-size-fits-none, extractive software of today? I don't know. I guess we'll see. We live in interesting times.

bevr1337 1y ago
> As long as the benefits outweigh the hazards, I use it. You and the author may be in agreement but with differing risk tolerance. > Ironically, the best answer to many of the article's suggestions... is to write your own software with LLMs. I don't think it's ironic but I do think it's false. How do LLMs satisfy a single requirement from the author's punchline list?
- nothrabannosir 1y ago
  LLMs don’t but the problems you write for yourself using LLMs, do.
- GMoromisato 1y ago
  > You and the author may be in agreement but with differing risk tolerance. I agree. And I'm not saying the author is wrong--they have their preferences. I'm just saying that for me the benefits outweigh the risks, and I'm betting most people are like me (at least outside HN). > I don't think it's ironic but I do think it's false. How do LLMs satisfy a single requirement from the author's punchline list? The main suggestion from the author is to write your own custom software tuned to your needs instead of relying on a mass-market, one-size-fits-all piece of complex, expensive software that has to be monetized by dark patterns. I guess in a world where everyone knows how to program, and has the time and desire to do so, that would work. But in the real world, the only way to get the bulk of humanity to write their own software is with LLMs. I think it's ironic because I bet the author does not like LLMs.