alterom
Plastics are genuinely useful. They make a lot of existing things more convenient, and a lot of new things possible. Our world has been absolutely transformed since they became a thing. Things that used to be heirlooms (cutlery, plates) have become literally disposable. They are in every household, on every person, and in every person, whether anyone wants it or not.
It's not just about mass production either; 3D printing wouldn't be there without plastics, and I don't need to tell you how empowering it is.
At the same time, plastics are also fucking up the planet on an unpecedented scale. The waste, the pollution, and the consumerism / disposable culture plastics helped create are unsolved problems.
Plastics are still effectively unregulated; plastic bag bans are not even a band-aid for this problem. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch [1] will outlive all of us, and we have no idea how to get microplastics out of - well, everything now that they are in everything.
And yet, we keep using them.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch
If that's not apparent already.
Yes, the OP's communication style and personality is a factor in their relationship with the community.
And assuming the "unpleasantness" claim is true, one could say this:
"It is unfortunate that someone with OP's skill set has alienated themselves from the rest of the community. *While I sympathize with them*, the reality is that *skills alone are not enough*, and never have been; making amends with others is just as important skill as any other in this field — or any field where a solitary effort isn't the end-all result. Gregory Perelman, perhaps, can afford to be unpleasant; a videogame reverse engineer, however talented, may not, if they want to both thrive and be happy in this line of work.
It's sad, yet that's how the world works. Everyone loses here."
The parent commenter is unable to do that. In their own words (in a follow-up comment), if someone is unpleasant, their sympathy ends.
This is a very common pattern, alas, in non-autistic people.
That said, commonness is not an excuse.
Incorrect.
I'm flaming them for saying that how pleasant the OP is to be around decides the commenter's ability to sympathize with the OP's predicament.
Nobody asked the commenter to be around the OP.
Quite literally, nobody asked that; and their opinion on that subject matter, however common the sentiment may be, is as relevant as discussing the physical attractiveness of a burn victim in an willful negligence case.
It would be one thing to say that the complaint has no merit, or that the outcome was inevitable given how much the environment changed, or even given OP's interactions with the community.
But saying "I can't sympathize with them because they're unpleasant" is another thing.
>If you meant something besides your own moral superiority, say so.
I hope I was clear enough here.
Note that I never said anything about myself here, so "my moral superiority" doesn't come into play.
But since you seem to want to bring my personality into the discussion, I'll say this about myself: I am autistic, and the words that I say express precisely what I mean.
Please take care to read them, and not look for hidden or implied meanings within.
Thank you in advance for understanding, or at least a bonafide effort to attain it.
You're repeating what I already stated: that your sense of sympathy depends on how pleasant someone is (not solely on how unjust or unfair their predicament is).
No need to reiterate that you don't see an issue with that.
Yes [1].
>The only cases I could find are ...
I am aware that Google's search quality has gone down, but surely not to that extent.
Or, as kids say today: skill issue.
> Alex Pretti who was armed at the time and arguably resisting arrest
> arguably
As argued by the people who killed him, of course.
In any case, ICE are not police, i.e. not cops, so I dunno why you would derail the discussion to ICE if you are talking in good faith.
Cheers.
No, he'll merely facilitate that, at scale.
IBM technically didn't kill any Jews too in WW2[1].
[1]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/mar/29/humanities.hig...
That's not a usability nightmare.
That's plainly a nightmare.
Also, the very thing that passkey evangelists were foaming at the mouth 1-2 years ago here assuring me Would Absolutely Never Happen and Is Not A Concern, because the spec says passwords should still work.
To the surprise of exactly no one with half a brain, things didn't play out that way.
> though we're back to a "biometrics as password" problem in many device flows
Meaning if you're detained with the device, you can be legally required (and physically forced) to unlock not just the device, but all your online accounts.
Nothing suspicious here, not like authoritarianism is on the rise or anything, and whoever lives in those countries can get fucked in any case.
>So far, it's about 30% of sites screwing it up...
A year or two ago I was told it'll be 0%.
In 1-2 years, it'll be 90%.
I'm tired.
The Kolmogorov complexity, at best, remains unchanged.
"sudo make an OS" is a different kind of transformation.
It's as much programming as downloading an Ubuntu image, and you don't need to wait a decade to do that.
An anti-recommendation of this sort is all I needed:
>I wanted to be sympathetic [...], but I'm finding it quite difficult to do so when they're this smarmy and unpleasant.
That's one way to boast that your morality, sympathy, and sense of justice are primarily guided by how pleasant the people involved are.
>I would not want to involve this person in any of my endeavours, either.
Nobody asked.
"I wanted to be sympathetic to the burn victim, but it's hard to do so because I don't like her, and I totally wouldn't date her either"
Are you implying that it does not?
If dynamite fishing were deployed on the scale the AI infra is, with VC capital and government backing, we'd run out of fish in a week.
The concept doesn't affect much, deployment of it affects a lot.
>And yet the war which realistically can't be won
...is being fought on many battlefields, including the elections in the US.
And I am not so sure Russia isn't winning that one.
You probably didn't mean it that way, but "almost certainly lethal injection" is indeed what we use today.
In a normal world, lethal injections almost certainly would not be used[1].
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/10/christa-pike-tenne...
The true statement is: "This is not considered treason in the current legal framework of the US".
Which is exactly the point the OP is making: it is not normal.
What Russia is waging against the US is war according to their own doctrinal documents[1].
If we're stupid enough to accept this as peace while they make one gain after another, it's not a basis for saying that Elon's meddling isn't treason.
This should be a wake-up call.
The world has changed. War has changed. And Russia was brazen enough to publish the new rules.
I hope at least people here have the clarity of mind to read them and understand the implications, beyond "the Constitution uses a particular wording to define treason".
[1] https://www.armyupress.army.mil/portals/7/military-review/ar...
That's just what he's brazen enough to do in public.
I'm convinced that if Elon were actually investigated, we'd see enough for him to hang, side by side with the rest of his cohort (POTUS included).
But absolutely, let's assert that the public knowledge that we currently possess isn't quite sufficient to prosecute Elon for treason as defined in the US Constitution, a famously immutable document, which, among other things, captures the nuances of hybrid warfare in perfect clarity.
This is a very reasonable rebuttal to the statement that. if things were normal, Elon would hang for treason.
Now if you think about it, it's almost as if Russia deliberately acts just below the threshold of what constitutes an act of war in any particular state to allow their assets to be, say, hanged for treason. Almost as if Russia's top general, Gerasimov, published a widely cited paper over a decade ago where blurring the line between war and peace was specifically outlined as the modern way of waging war[1], which Russia has successfully been applying since 2014 at the very least.
But let that not cloud our judgment.
Our 250 year old document has a specific definition which means, alas, that our hands (but not Elon's) are tied, and whatever he does is, plainly and simply, NOT treason.
[1] https://www.armyupress.army.mil/portals/7/military-review/ar...
There are a few little differences between human beings and computers that you should know about.
For example, humans are sentient, have agency and can be held accountable.
So when you give humans a bad spec, you can still get what you want, because, with some luck, you're simply delegating the task of thinking and making choices to another human, who, by the very premise, understands the language you are communicating in, and can work out your intents with you.
The whole "this meeting could've been an email" thing, you know.
That meeting could've been a pull request if whoever needed a thing to be done could figure it out on their own.
LLMs can be helpful for figuring things out, sure.
But "sudo make me a sandwich" style of vibe coding is just removing the obstacles to enshrining ambiguities and bad decisions in code.
And if the latter is guaranteed to be interpreted unambiguously...
...Congratulations!
You have invented a programming language!
But now, that requires 20x more typing and 1,000,000x more compute to compile to machine code.
Which is the point of the article.
The entire point of the article was that human language isn't suitable for instructing computers, and you somehow make the leap to "humans instructing humans must be the same thing".
Reading comprehension must be a thing of the past at this point.
The lack of intelligence in the loop is the foolishness the title refers to.
But since you seem to be into that kind of, um, content, just cut to the chase and spare us all from listening to another angry man for an hour:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_Occupation_Government_...
I purchased a domain name from them yesterday, in addition to a few I already had.
This will be the last purchase unless I see some significant traction in the case we're discussing in particular, and company wide in general.
Hope others will do the same. Not punishing this behavior is encouraging such abuse in the entire industry (if Namecheap gets away with that, everyone else will follow).
And as a former Google Maps employee... I'm loving it.
Such security, very rules, wow.
Because an ZIP file with the encrypted key and the password to it in plain text is sooooo much more secure (but it doesn't break the rules, right?).
If you want to see how Scott Adams has gone crazy, watch e.g. Behind the Bastards episode(s) on him:
Never ever seen it in my life though. It was a big "WAS" even then.
The i386-i486 machines we had in middle school were on the Ethernet bus (I remember the BNC cable going along the classroom, with T-joints to the network cards).
IIRC Token Ring wasn't a thing in practice for 100Mbit speeds and beyond, and went the way of the dodo faster than DOS did.
Oh, and hear me out: we have now enough bytes to allow unlimited number of syllables in haiku poems!
Isn't it neat? Now this comment can also be a haiku, and MS Paint can be Photoshop.
Yay progress!
11/10, does exactly what I need it to do.
Anyway I just use Everything by Voidtools[1] for file search because it works instantly and, well, actually works.
Yes you do, if you want to claim it's easy.
Otherwise you're just bullshitting.
>I've skimmed over announcements of the feature becoming available in a product or two
See above. That's not equivalent to "it's easy". You don't have the basis to say that.