jj4211

@jj4211@lemmy.world

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Elon Musk’s SpaceX Starship explodes on test stand⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m making a note here: Huge Success

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What do you think the solution to selling progressive politics to young men is ?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Frankly the online stuff doesn’t get to me, but I could see how the generalizations could leave a person succeptible to a narrative. Online interactions tend to have some people taking the easy way and espousing simplified generalizations and on the receiving end are a lot of people that may take the online stuff too serious.

  The false dichotomy works because those are the two loudest viewpoints online, that men are villains without a clear path to being accepted or to embrace horribly harmful toxic masculinity to get some screwed up sense of belonging and success. Young men online are at risk of being ill equipped to navigate the nuance That tends to be quieter over the noise of the two more passionate perspectives.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What do you think the solution to selling progressive politics to young men is ?⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  I apologize in advance if I missed some very bad0 comments by not going into the deeply down voted comments.

  But at least some of the concerns are about the young men being declared the “villains” and the other side declaring them to be the victims of injustice and they will gravitate toward the more workable message.

  Like bystanders seeing the people making life hard for women and being jerks, but not themselves participating and the commentary is less “that guy is a dick” and more “why are all men so terrible?”

  Sure a lot of guys are terrible, but the generalizations can make it feel like you can’t win.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Plex has paywalled my server!⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  This sounds like a whole lot of convoluted bullshit to use Plex locally and “looking local” through VPN solutions when you could just roll a Jellyfin instance and do things a more straightforward way…

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YSK: Non-violent protests are 2x likely to succeed and no non-violent movement that has involved more than 3.5% of the country population has ever failed⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  If a protest of a billion people happens, then it cannot be ignored by the media.

  I know, it was hyperbole, but the point is that if 12 million people are on the street, it’s not that the 12 million people need to get people’s attention, they are indicative that the people already have that perspective and are showing it in the streets.

  A small protest has a goal of getting attention on a problem that people may lack awareness. A multi-million person protest isn’t about a need to raise awareness anymore, it’s about showing the awareness and commitment that is already there. For whatever volume of people actively protest, you can be sure there’s a singnificant multiple of that number of people who agree with the protestors but didn’t take it to the streets for one reason or another.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YSK: Non-violent protests are 2x likely to succeed and no non-violent movement that has involved more than 3.5% of the country population has ever failed⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Well I meant the more rhetorical “pushing”, but yes, some of the activity of the claimed non-violence seems a bit violent.

  I would say that I doubt you can have millions of people protest and manage to be completely non-violent. Some folks will take it to violence in the name of the cause, some will opportunisticly do it under the cover of the movement, and finally some might “false flag” to try to discredit the movement.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YSK: Non-violent protests are 2x likely to succeed and no non-violent movement that has involved more than 3.5% of the country population has ever failed⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  On the one hand, most of those incidents cited were in the face of a regime that also didn’t want to care. Just hard to ignore circumstances if 3.5% of your people are out on the streets and likely most of the people off the streets agree with them.

  On the other hand, they base this on very few instances, so it’s hardly a statistical slam dunk, it’s vaguely supportive of some concepts, but anyone taking note of specific numbers is really overextending the research beyond what it can possibly say.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YSK: Non-violent protests are 2x likely to succeed and no non-violent movement that has involved more than 3.5% of the country population has ever failed⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  I think it’s not “3.5% of people want an outcome” but “protests of significant magnitude to have 3.5% actively on the streets pushing” correlate with a very very large population that agrees, but not enough to be out on the streets.

  So even if 40 million people want single payer, there are not 12 million in the streets.

  But again, this is based on a scant handful of “movements”, so it’s pretty useless on specifics. Most I can see as a takeaway is perhaps that a violent movement may be too high stakes for people and a largely non-violent movement can attract more people and more people usually matter more than more violence.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YSK: Non-violent protests are 2x likely to succeed and no non-violent movement that has involved more than 3.5% of the country population has ever failed⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Based on the article “no non-violent movement that has involved more than 3.5% of a population has ever failed” has the caveat of “we only look at 3 of them, and those 3 worked”.

  So their overall sample size is small, and the 3.5% sample size is just 3. Further, those 3 had no idea someone in the vague future would retroactively measure their participation to declare it a rock solid threshold.

  I think the broader takeaway is that number of people seems to matter more than degree of violence, and violence seems to alienate people that might have otherwise participated.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Salt Lake City, plans to implement AI-assisted 911 call triaging to handle ~30% of about 450K non-emergency calls per year⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  One thing left unclear is how the determination is made about emergency versus non emergency.

  If it’s a separate number, ok, seems clear cut enough.

  If it’s human always answers and if it’s some bullshit they just click a button to punt to AI instead of just hanging up, ok.

  If they are saying the AI answers and does the triage and hands off immediately to a human when “emergency detected”, then I could see how that promise could fail.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨We went from LEARN TO CODE to NO ONE LEARN TO CODE GET A CONSTRUCTION JOB in about a 3 year span.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Being able to just cut off access to the application means a customer has little choice.

  For a competitor to pass them, they first have to catch up. To catch up, the customer needs to be able to extract the data from the application to give competition a chance. If they get closer to catching up, they tend to be bought out. Lot of speedbumps to discourage competition. Also, to get funding those competitors have to pretty much promise investors they will also do “as a service”.

  For assets versus expense, I see a pendulum, largely based on how appreciation/depreciation pans out versus acquisition cost and loan interest rates, as well as uncertain start up versus steady business. I’m not sure software is giving enough choice in the matter the let that swing.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨We went from LEARN TO CODE to NO ONE LEARN TO CODE GET A CONSTRUCTION JOB in about a 3 year span.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  While “any” is a bit much, I do anticipate a rather dramatic decline.

  One is that there are a large chunk of programming jobs that I do think LLM can displace. Think of those dumb unimaginative mobile games that bleed out a few dollars a week from folks. I think LLM has a good chance at cranking those out. If you’ve seen companies that have utterly trivial yet somehow subtly unique internal applications, LLMs can probably crank out a lot of those to. There’s a lot of stupid trivial stuff that has been done a million times before that still gets done by people.

  Another is that a lot of software teams have overhired anyway. Business folk think more developers mean better results, so they want to hire up to success, as long as their funding permits. This isn’t how programming really works, but explanations that fewer people can do more than more people in some cases can’t crack through how counter-intuitive that is. AI offers a rationalization for a lot of those folks to finally arrive at the efficient conclusion.

  Finally, the software industry has significantly converted transactional purchases to subscription. With perpetual license, you needed to provide some value to drive that customer who bought from you 5 years ago a reason to upgrade. Now with subscription models, you just have to coast and keep the lights on for those customers. Often with effective lock-in of the customers data to make it extra hard or impossible for them to jump to a competitor, even if competitors could reverse-engineer your proprietary formats, the customer might not even be able to download their actual data files. So a company that acheived “good enough” with subscription might severely curtail investment because it makes no difference to their bottom line if they are delivering awesome new capability or just same old same old. Anticipate a log of stagnation as they shuffle around things like design language to give a feeling of progress while things just kinda plateau out.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨We went from LEARN TO CODE to NO ONE LEARN TO CODE GET A CONSTRUCTION JOB in about a 3 year span.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  I think AI is a component of the decline.

  For decades, companies have operated under the misunderstanding that more software developers equals more success, despite countless works explaining that’s not how it works. As a result many of these companies have employed an order of magnitude more than they probably should have and got worse results than they would have. However the fact they got subpar results with 10x a good number just convinced them that they didn’t hire enough. Smaller team produce better results made zero sense.

  So now the AI companies come along and give a plausible rationalization to decrease team size. Even if the LLM hypothetically does zero to provide direct value, the reduced teams start yielding better results, because of mitigating the problems of “make sure everyone is utilized, make sure these cheap unqualified offshored programmers are giving you value, communicate and plan, reach consensus along a set up people who might all have viable approaches, but development into arguments over which way to go”.

  AI gives then a rationalization to do what they should have done from the onset.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Fresh Proxmox install w/ full disk encryption—so install Debian first, then Proxmox on top?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  You can use one of a few ways to use the TPM to auto decrypt on boot without passphrase. Systems crypt enroll is my favorite.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Fresh Proxmox install w/ full disk encryption—so install Debian first, then Proxmox on top?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Because it says to do so?

  Proxmox uses Debian as the OS and for several scenarios it says do Debian to get that done and just add the proxmox software. It’s managing qemu kvm on the normal Debian kernel…

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Were people happier in the past?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Note this experience is specific to the US and Western Europe. A great deal of relief and prosperity. Things get more complicated for the former Soviet centered world as they tried to navigate the new situation

  Putin came to power basically because post soviet Russia failed to reach the sort of prosperity they hoped for.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Were people happier in the past?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  He mentions creating more problems than we’ve solved, which like you I disagree, but on the other hand he asked if the world was, presumably on average, “happier”.

  I think that could be a tougher call. On the one hand, the average life experience is by any rational consideration better now, but as communication has advanced now everyone gets to know about the most miserable news that they would have previously been completely oblivious to.

  So while atrocities always were happening, 50 miles away people would have no idea. Now any such event on the other side of the world has instant awareness.

  So we get exposed to harsh realities constantly and if we have any shred of empathy we get burdened with that. Those realities may be smaller compared to the population than before, but their emotional impact is far broader.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Alternatively⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Put them on a board for people using a thumbtack.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨ChatGPT 'got absolutely wrecked' by Atari 2600 in beginner's chess match — OpenAI's newest model bamboozled by 1970s logic⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  I’d say that those details that vary tend not to vary within a language and ecosystem, so a fairly dumb correlative relationship is enough to generally be fine. There’s no way to use logic to infer that it’s obvious that in language X you need to do mylist.join(string) but in language Y you need to do string.join(mylist), but it’s super easy to recognize tokens that suggest those things and a correlation to the vocabulary that matches the context.

  Rinse and repeat for things like do I need to specify type and what is the vocabulary for the best type for a numeric value, This variable that makes sense is missing a declaration, does this look to actually be a new distinct variable or just a typo of one that was declared.

  But again, I’m thinking mostly in what kind of sort of can work, my experience personally is that it’s wrong so often as to be annoying and get in the way of more traditional completion behaviors that play it safe, though with less help particularly for languages like python or javascript.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨ChatGPT 'got absolutely wrecked' by Atari 2600 in beginner's chess match — OpenAI's newest model bamboozled by 1970s logic⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Oh man, I feel this. A couple of times I’ve had to field questions about some REST API I support and they ask why they get errors when they supply a specific attribute. Now that attribute never existed, not in our code, not in our documentation, we never thought of it. So I say “Well, that attribute is invalid, I’m not sure where you saw to do that”. They get insistent that the code is generated by a very good LLM, so we must be missing something…

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨ChatGPT 'got absolutely wrecked' by Atari 2600 in beginner's chess match — OpenAI's newest model bamboozled by 1970s logic⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  To be fair, a decent chunk of coding is stupid boilerplate/minutia that varies environment to environment, language to language, library to library.

  So LLM can do some code completion, filling out a bunch of boilerplate that is blatantly obvious, generating the redundant text mandated by certain patterns, and keeping straight details between languages like “does this language want join as a method on a list with a string argument, or vice versa?”

  Problem is this can be sometimes more annoying than it’s worth, as miscompletions are annoying.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Apple just proved AI "reasoning" models like Claude, DeepSeek-R1, and o3-mini don't actually reason at all.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Without being explicit with well researched material, then the marketing presentation gets to stand largely unopposed.

  So this is good even if most experts in the field consider it an obvious result.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Apple just proved AI "reasoning" models like Claude, DeepSeek-R1, and o3-mini don't actually reason at all.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Particularly to counter some more baseless marketing assertions about the nature of the technology.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Apple just proved AI "reasoning" models like Claude, DeepSeek-R1, and o3-mini don't actually reason at all.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  And that’s pretty damn useful, but obnoxious to have expectations wildly set incorrectly.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨That's a good question⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I think we all can get a metaphor, but when someone lives a super safe and convenient life keeping they’re head low even in the face of some things with sticking your neck out over… and then wears a cross to claim they too carry a cross like Jesus just because they put on a little trinket…

  That metaphor in context cheapens the concept. Particularly as the meaning is somewhat inverted. The “cross” was for people that went against authority. Now the cross is more aligned with following authority. The executionor may wear a cross while they definitely kill the person using anything but crucification.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨That's a good question⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I feel though like wearing a token cross in honor of being told to take up a more literal cross seems like paying lip service to a very serious call to action with very low actual stakes.

  Like being told to stand up to the guns of an army to stand firm for justice and then wearing little rifle pendants instead claiming that means you look to live your life consistent with that principle even as you start well away from actual fighting.

  You may personally of course live your life consistent with the values and that is just a symbol, but it’s broadly a symbol that has been cheapened by casual overuse, and to some extent corrupted by folks using it as a symbol of their alignment to God and implied divine authority granted by that association.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨That's a good question⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  A difference exists in that those sentiments has less implications for daily life. People sharing spiritual speculation about the greater universe with the humility to recognize they have no way of knowing better than anyone else, fine.

  I’m not bothered by the faith in something beyond what we can see in and out itself. But the bits where self asserted alignment to a silent but divine authority as a way to decide value and authority among people… There’s the problem.

  I do not question the authority of someone’s God, I question the authority of the people claiming that God agrees with them.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What did Musk and Trump fall out over?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Yes, as long as you were on the side that benefits from success, it was better to leave things “simple” and not challenge the incorrect stuff out loud you aren’t going to “well actually…” the “expert” if it risks your job and/or the wrong stuff isn’t too important or too hard to overcome when the rubber meets the road.

  Still, sitting in a room or otherwise being a party to a conversation where an executive is constantly being confidently incorrect constantly and still praised as a smart expert likely making 7 figures is maddening.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Hell⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I didn’t generally mind this quite so much …

  Then someone just could calls me without even texting first… While I’m already in a meeting actively taking to someone else…

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What did Musk and Trump fall out over?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  While I have not reviewed a lot of Musk speak, let alone armed with enough to credibly review his commentary, but based on my own field and “respected technical leaders” that interview with customers and the press, with broad acknowledgement that they really know their stuff…

  Most of them I’ve known can sound very confident and credible while saying completely incorrect stuff. No one tries to correct them because them being actually correct doesn’t add value and trying to fix that is more trouble than it’s worth much of the time. The people paying attention don’t know well enough to recognize they are wrong… usually…

  Upon occasion my company throws one of these “geniuses” at a customer that actually knows what they are doing. Then I got to see our executive basically try to gaslight the audience when they challenged his competency. The sales people has to last minute pull in the actual technical people to try to repair our image after the customer interacted with the executive…

  Now one would think, clearly, after such an embarrassment, surely the company learned to field the actual technical experts to deal with technical questions… But no, for every smart customer that is turned off by that executive, there’s 10 more clients that don’t know any better and respond so much better to his baseless confidence than actual competent discussion. Also, those 10 suckers will also get suckered into more high margin stuff versus the smart customer, that will be really good at getting the most cost effective products, with low margin and skipping the pointless addions.