dwb

6 ms·

61.
by dwb 4mo ago
You are either refusing to address the central point or your reading comprehension needs a lot of work. A premise of your original post was that libraries have newer devices than some users. I maintain that libraries should not have to be a
62.
by dwb 4mo ago
Public libraries are great and there should be a lot more of them and everyone should enjoy them, but they should absolutely not be a substitute for respectful, accessible web design and engineering. The elitism is that only people with the
63.
by dwb 4mo ago
What a depressingly elitist and exclusionary view. The modern web browser contains all the technology right there to make fast, maximally-accessible websites and even some “app”-like things, but nah you can’t be bothered, screw the less-for
64.
by dwb 4mo ago
Totally wrong, re-read the article. React requires JavaScript, which the new page doesn’t. That’s a strict accessibility improvement. (And I’m not a React hater!)
65.
by dwb 4mo ago
What? Almost everyone who has a Mac uses macOS.
66.
by dwb 4mo ago
Implementation details matter! Especially when reviewing the implementation.
67.
by dwb 4mo ago
The Economist is very much part of the establishment, whoever they are owned by. It is not surprising that they would want to play down any idea that the UK is less “democratic”. Furthermore, The Economist is one of the main mouthpieces of
68.
by dwb 4mo ago
> The latest frontier models will write code better than you and more elegant They often do, but they often don’t. I regularly have to push for more elegant, or less lazy solutions.
69.
by dwb 4mo ago
> Someone was obviously "in charge" lol I don’t find that obvious from what you’ve described. Agreeing on weights and measures is well within plausibility of a society where power was pretty evenly distributed. I don’t remember
70.
by dwb 5mo ago
I knew you were speaking more technically about economic efficiency, but what does that matter when the real processes are often so inefficient? Or when it results in so many bad outcomes? I won’t be taking “writing tips” from you; my words
71.
by dwb 5mo ago
Hilarious; such ugly arrogance. Of course it “works” to the extent that you describe, otherwise we wouldn’t be in exactly the situation that I’m against. Where you came from doesn’t matter at all. The system is working for you so you are fo
72.
by dwb 5mo ago
Are you saying that you’re right because you’re rich? The equity of the economy is not very similar at all to a game.
73.
by dwb 5mo ago
A CEO is not "just a really well paid worker", don't be ridiculous. If you have the power of hiring and firing, or have enough money to not have to work for your subsistence, you are not a worker in any leftist sense.
74.
by dwb 5mo ago
Yeah and a lot of far less powerful people got fucked over from the crash. Is that what a successful, functioning economy looks like to you?
75.
by dwb 5mo ago
Keep peddling that capitalist realism. “There is no alternative!” The market may not misallocate capital, by definition, but it very clearly and routinely misallocates resources. Let me guess: you’re doing relatively well for yourself?
76.
by dwb 5mo ago
“Sign in to play”, Google auth only - no thank you. Close tab.
77.
by dwb 5mo ago
Exactly. A detailed-enough spec is just code that you can’t run. If models and agents got to a point where doing a good job in Claude Code plan mode meant that I didn’t have to keep an eye on them in implementation, then I would be interest
78.
by dwb 5mo ago
LLM agents are also very capable of using npm and build systems, and also get the same benefits from them as humans do. For very very simple things (again, just like for humans), it may be viable. But in anything non-trivial I would be horr
79.
by dwb 5mo ago
This makes no sense. LLMs and agents benefit from (good) abstraction as much as humans do.
80.
by dwb 5mo ago
False dichotomy. We should tax the lot of them until they are not wealthy any more.
81.
by dwb 5mo ago
Of course running a vegetable shop is political. Politics is the question of who gets what. There have been countless societies across history, and still exist many, where the political formations meant the very concepts of “shop”, “busines
82.
by dwb 5mo ago
Why do so many people talk as if we have to increase the rate of code production without limit? In “It’s the only thing that scales”, you assume that scaling is good. Clearly LLM code generation has sped up a lot of things and that’s very u
83.
by dwb 5mo ago
I think it would illustrate more to expand the abbreviations. In almost all these uses, it’s just a short version of the “obvious” dictionary-definition apology. For example, point two’s “sorry?” is short for “I’m sorry I didn’t hear you, c
84.
by dwb 5mo ago
Yes, I have a generic dimmer plug for a table lamp, integrated so works with scenes, and my generic 433 MHz radio doorbell gets picked up by an SDR USB stick, then rtl-443 and a small custom extension, so I get doorbell push notifications w
85.
by dwb 5mo ago
You can't see the appeal of integrating all your devices into one interface? Not sure many will be able to help you, then. Mine is on a little Raspberry Pi 2 and, like the devices that it manages, is down on the rare occasions when the
86.
by dwb 5mo ago
LLMs make my job easier on balance and I hardly drink beer any more, but I would choose beer over data centres every single time.
87.
by dwb 5mo ago
If that’s the case, and it certainly isn’t for Emacs, my preferred editor, then it should become non-standard.
88.
by dwb 5mo ago
I disagree that it’s conceivable that a computer could somehow exist without a conscious maker. It’s so unlikely that it may as well be impossible. If something non-human that was capable of consciousness did form in the universe, through k
89.
by dwb 5mo ago
It's not arbitrary because people are making exactly this distinction in order to argue that it's possible for computers to be conscious, which this paper argues against. So the distinction exists at least for the purposes of this
90.
by dwb 5mo ago
The computer and the program wouldn't exist without us, though. They only exist to be interpreted by us. The physical properties of the circuits outside of what we cajole them into doing are irrelevant, meaningless. The circuits only d

More ›