wpietri

53 ms·

841.
by wpietri 3y ago
And honestly, that's the part that I've enjoyed the most. Musk's faux "Tony Stark" shtick was always PR. But it was widely believed PR, and it gave him an incredibly low cost of capital and oceans of free marketing.
842.
by wpietri 3y ago
I don't think you're quite getting the moral lesson in telling stories about gods punishing hubris, so let me spell it out: titanic arrogance is bad and comes with consequences, so don't do it, kids. The point is for people t
843.
by wpietri 3y ago
I'm not sure "government agency buys expensive thing" is proof of actual need of said expensive thing. And even if it were, it's not clear to me that the need applies in this case.
844.
by wpietri 3y ago
Your theory was unclear. Don't get cranky when people do their best to interpret your lack of clarity. I did not say my job is dealing with abusive comments. If it were, your theory would still make no sense; being a professional judge
845.
by wpietri 3y ago
Ooh, good idea. People can go build something against the Twitter API! Oh wait! I'm absolutely going to keep enjoying Musk's comeuppance. In this, consider me a traditionalist. As the Greek tragedies show, people have been enjoyin
846.
by wpietri 3y ago
You say that in a tone of contradiction, but sycophants are absolutely trying to earn their pay. They've just decided that their true job is what their context rewards.
847.
by wpietri 3y ago
You're correct that they could have also fired some sycophants. But that doesn't mean the current proportion of sycophants is any lower. I should also add that Musk's management methods are likely to turn any remaining people
848.
by wpietri 3y ago
For sure. I'd add that even super-geniuses get overwhelmed when asked to do too many things at once. Kudos to whoever's still left at Twitter; the current erratic decay is better than I would have expected after this long. But whe
849.
by wpietri 3y ago
Ooh, both of those are very cheery. Thanks for posting them; poking around on my own I was a bit intimidated.
850.
by wpietri 3y ago
You're responding as if I said they were the same, but I was pretty careful to say the opposite. My point is explicitly setting the utility of "AI" aside.
851.
by wpietri 3y ago
That's obviously not true. Legally, for example, both copyright and trademark protect public information from some kinds of use. In many places, artists also have moral rights: https://www.copyrightlaws.com/moral-rights
852.
by wpietri 3y ago
For me that's absolutely the strongest ground for comparison. In recent decades, we've had two big waves of tech advance: the Web and mobile. A lot of people have lived through them both, giving them an expectation that another s
853.
by wpietri 3y ago
Why would you say it wouldn't stand up in court? As long as the agent shows up to say, "Yes, I took these photos of real things that happened," that strikes me as the heart of the evidence.
854.
by wpietri 3y ago
Your theory is that because I have seen abusive content, my sense of humor is now so broken that the things I find funny are objectively bad? That makes no sense at all. Also, it's wild to see that somebody who's been using this s
855.
by wpietri 3y ago
I thought it was funny. They had an experience that amused them and they shared it. Not everything has to be to your personal tastes. If you think that's one of the worst kind of internet comments, you might want to recalibrate a bit.
856.
by wpietri 3y ago
That's what I've always thought too.
857.
by wpietri 3y ago
If you would like to contend that the people at Google couldn't pay their bills if they had kept search more effective, I would like to see some serious numbers there. Absent that, it sounds like the sort of excuse greedy people have a
858.
by wpietri 3y ago
I don't think they cared, but they had to have known. If you drop the cost of producing mediocre-to-bad text to ~zero, I think it's pretty obvious that the people with the lowest standards will be the most eager adopters.
859.
by wpietri 3y ago
Thanks for the details. I will check out the link. I should say that "real advances they were after" is not at all incompatible with "made it mainly to please themselves". The things that pleased them may well have been
860.
by wpietri 3y ago
As they say, never waste a good crisis.
861.
by wpietri 3y ago
My big question: what have you learned while working on this (very cool) project?
862.
by wpietri 3y ago
That last bit is especially what interests me about systemd. From the way you describe it, it sounds like they made it mainly to please themselves, and were then forced to accommodate the actual users and actual users. But that they did so
863.
by wpietri 3y ago
Imagine that I had already read about that and still wrote what I wrote. What might you take from that?
864.
by wpietri 3y ago
I don't think it's "the customer". I think it's you and some other folks who are in a relatively narrow customer niche who are very big on convenience and grew up on paper menus, making those feel convenient. I&#x27
865.
by wpietri 3y ago
You might read some Kuhn. Paradigms change when the old one becomes unsupportable. But the vast increase in computing power per dollar means we can waste a lot of it without it being economically uncomfortable. Well, most of us. A good chec
866.
by wpietri 3y ago
> Systemd has tools for that, such as systemctl cat which shows all applicable configuration and what files they come from. Sure, it could be that systemd does have amazing tooling for helping users with the burdens they have created. Or
867.
by wpietri 3y ago
Sure, the same is true of anything written. But much of that has shifted to digital media because it's more convenient. A print shop has much higher latency and change costs. The newer restaurants in my neighborhood mostly use flexible
868.
by wpietri 3y ago
Well that's hilarious too, in that I just pointed you to a bigger context.
869.
by wpietri 3y ago
Yeah, I really feel like we're in a "horseless carriage" or "radio with pictures" era for computing. We have incredibly powerful machines available. But the dominant paradigm for managing that power is to slice it u
870.
by wpietri 3y ago
> If you find it hilarious it's because you don't understand the reason. I think it's hilarious that you think users are supposed to understand "the reason" at this level of detail. When we make a thing, we make

More ›