shevy-java

Well - many people with a personality disorder don't even have kids, so perhaps you did something better than these; or, different, if better does not serve here.

I would not want to give any advice to anyone about their own personal lives, but surely the story you show here must be incomplete. Unless your daughter never spoke to you to begin with.

Even for people without any disorder, communication is not always trivial - some find it easy, others find it hard. For me it is hugely difficult to do small-talk and fake-talk. My brain does not work like that. Whereas if something is interesting, I can talk and listen easily.

He appears to have a rather mild form of down syndrome.

Now - Down Syndrome is typically called trisomy 21, that is, you have three copies of chromosome 21 when normally people have two copies of each chromosome, excluding XY in regular males (2n = 46 in humans, the diploid state; naturally females would have XX, whereas humans would normally have XY, unless there would be a genetic change leading to a different ploidy state here as well; normally those with Down Syndrome have regular XX or XY condition for that chromosome, only chromosome 21 has a +1 higher count). If you, however had, look at as many examples as possible for people with Down Syndrome, you notice a huge range of differences here. That is, some are affected by the condition a LOT; others have an almost normal life, compared to perhaps average to a bit below average "regular" humans. I also noticed something similar for the progeria disease. Now, progeria is much more problematic and severe than Down syndrome; but there is a huge range of people with different symptoms here. Adalia Rose had a severe variant and did not survive past age 15, whereas Tiffany Wedekind has a less severe variant (but also exercises a lot and tries to keep healthy, despite already facing significant health problems, at age 48 this year now).

So we see a huge pleiotropy of different genetic conditions. In most cases exercises, activity and mental mood improves things, but there are hard caps and limits. For instance, Adalia could not have done as Tiffany did, simply due the genetic status being different. It reminds me of the movie Gattaca (now almost 30 years old) - it's a bit slow and a bit over-drama, but has great actors and an even greater take-home message aka "The Underdog who never gives up". Good to have seen it at the least once, too.

I think ideally a product should not need customer service in the first place.

I had wildly different results. A lot of customer service sucked, other customer service was ok-ish. But in general it always takes away my time. Often a really well-designed manual, FAQ etc... solves most issues. Only in a few instances I had to rely on customer services.

I am noticing more and more people resist the AI slop attack. I like it.

It may not be realistic, but I am slowly changing my own approach - I simply don't want to have anything to do with AI slop. It taints and corrupts. It destroys (some) projects.

I am not at all claiming AI use has no use case - yes there are use cases. But there are also hugely negative parts. The fact that AI is used to zero out or reduce human interaction is a negative part.

I had a bit of fun lately with regards to Ginux, aka can AI slop auto-generate an operating system (or at the least the kernel, such as the linux kernel or an equivalent; see https://itsfoss.com/news/ginux/, I was surprised to see that's already a week old, I did not notice it initially). I think projects such as AI linux 2.0, will fail in various non-technical areas. People won't jump on board with AI meta-designing things - or, more accurately one guy using AI to slop-spam-generate operating system software (assuming it works on real hardware eventually; right now Ginux does not, if I recall correctly, only via VM).

Resistance to AI slop is not futile - it is mandatory. Imagine if the Star Trek Borg would have used AI slop. They would have failed. But AI could improve eventually, quality-wise, and then things become more interesting again. Resistance to AI slop may eventually not be futile, the moment it is no longer slop.

It is kind of sad to see how many webpages vanished.

This includes old games. Many vanished. Some made a cameo, coming back, but it is often no longer the same. Case in point: The Reincarnation (TR), as a follow-up to the old Mari Archmage (AM) game. It was great in the late 1990s. Mari went bankrupt, TR came about and improved on many things, but also made a few things worse. Player population declined, then they had that genius "idea" to add bots. That was when I retired. I can not want to be bothered to "interact" with code.

Now ... the title is catchy and I will state upfront that Ginux is not about to replace Linux - at the least not anytime soon. But probably also not in the future, as the Linux kernel having a team of real human behind itself, is IMO a stronger foundation than a ChatGPT-created Operating System, such as Ginux.

Anyway - the article is still quite interesting.

"In 11 days, I built a new Linux-compatible operating system kernel that boots Rocky Linux 10 with systemd, all using Human-Directed Agentic Engineering (HDAE)."

This is quite interesting though. Imagine if it would take 11 days only, to replace all Top 500 supercomputers running Linux with Ginux or anything similar. Again, not saying this is likely right now but I think sooner or later this may happen. Or at the least "real" competition.

Of course Ginux right now is nowhere an equivalent:

"Ginux runs only in a QEMU virtual machine, with no physical hardware profile"

And solving the hardware problem is big; HaikuOS still struggles here, ReactOS even more.

But this is also a finite problem set; soone or later AI slop agents will have figured that out. And then it will become more interesting.

Personally I have no interest in AI-linux or AI-operating-systems, but you can see that omarchy slop built by DHH is popular (see distrowatch, it is on rank #11 or something like that; yes, that is only a partial view, but TIOBE is also only a partial view, but still not 100% rubbish, just ... 80% rubbish 20% interesting).

Of course peer review by humans is more important than self-promo description by the human creator of Ginux, but I think sooner or later that'll also be solved.

> distros run by volunteers (Debian, Arch, Alpine...) hve shipped the fix.

Well - Ubuntu sold out to marketing rather than engineering.

Happened to Google too. Compare Google Search to 10 or 15 years ago. Totally useless nowadays.

I can see the tags!

I noticed a problem in the "AI is our future!" crowd.

What they do, does not really interest me. With that I mean it is nice that they can solve many problems as-is, and that will probably become more important - but I am just not interested in looking at AI project. It is totally meaningless to me.

In the past, when you, say, have a project written by a real human author on github, this could be interesting. With AI generated projects, I just don't have the slightest interest in "connecting". I also don't think to be the only one; you notice this on youtube too. Some people no longer have an interest in AI-generated videos and avoid them. I am curious when the AI hype phase will go down; right now it seems to not come down but I think it eventually will.

> Supposedly very technocatric governments end up being more corrupt than average

Hardly. But it depends on who is on board.

Corruption exists everywhere. Do you think that Vukic was less corrupt? I am pretty certain you will find many people in Serbia who want to fix the country. Other Europeans would ask: why let only poor countries join? They drain money from richer countries. Switzerland and Norway will never join and they know why. Hint: there is a reason they are rich. Second hint: they got rich without the EU.

Which country got rich with the EU? I don't know of a single one. Germany was already wealthy before the EU was founded. France is now in debt crisis from which it can not escape, so it will drag the whole EU down.

They need to translate the election victory into tangible improvements and results. Otherwise voters in Serbia would not see any difference to the cleptocracy established by Vukic.

Hungary has this problem by the way - people thought Péter Magyar will fix, and change, Hungary. Recently Hungary signed a "we are ultra-right servants of Trump" in the USA (see https://telex.hu/english/2026/10/30/hungarian-fm-and-rubio-s...), thus validating all those who pointed out that Peter is just a younger face but the same Orban 2.0 in the end.

Corruption runs very, very deep. I am also certain the Epstein network is not only much bigger than known, but has different actors and beneficiaries. To this day the US court system can not explain why only Maxwell is in prison. That makes logically - and logistically - no sense at all.

> Stewart, of course, was far more than Picard. He anchored the X-Men film franchise and was for decades a dynamo on stage.

Actually, Patrick's biggest impact, IMO, was via theatre. It's where his skills originated from. You can notice it in his performance - in Star Trek TNG, he had a stronger presence on the screen, without necessarily overacting. Jonathan Frakes was also an excellent actor, but Patrick was IMO better. His roles had a much stronger screen-presence.

In the wolverine franchise, he could not do as much as he did in Star Trek, and in Logan I noticed his health was getting worse, e. g. he looked increasingly frail. That was about ten years ago. I think his health was worse than he conveyed, with his somewhat surprising recent death really. You typically don't die as quickly from Alzheimer, so I guess there may have been some additional neurological issue.

Overall I think his role in Star Trek was the most impactful though. He and the others kind of resurrected Roddenberry's idea to some extent. (Roddenberry was more impacted from the cold war, so his views became a bit more outdated compared to the 1990s and beyond. But watch what Nichelle Nichols had to say here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSq_UIuxba8)

AI skynet slop is murdering people left and right.

The problem is that the explanation given here makes only little sense. I am not going to rely or depend on AI slop, so there is now one less option for me.

I think humans need to stop believing in AI slop as the new religion for everyone. Some people have a complete anti-AI policy and pull it through, too.

I used to watch Star Trek TNG back in the 1990s. Patrick was great as Captain Picard.

I did notice that in the latest Wolverine he seemed to be doing not so well with his physical status, looking quite frail and his voice was also no longer strong as it used to be (that was in Logan 2017, so already 10 years ago). Dementia is kind of eating away at the neurons.

Evil is what Evil does.

Does any of us have any insight in Google manipulating the world?

I notice this with ruby right now, where claude took over development. But it is not confined to just ruby. AI slop eliminates human contributors. Why would I want to even try to interact with AI slop meta-designing software? If I go to another developer and ask "hey many, how did you add this great feature #123"? I'd get the reply "claude slop". Wowsers. Now tell me this is healthy to a community ...

I wonder how people work with omarchyslop (the linux distribution spam-slopped by DHH). Do they have any real community outside of paid fanboi accounts? If so, how do they interact? I feel that there is no real exchange of e. g. code since claude slop just autogenerates that. It must be strange for them.

Google successfully trained this human to click on ads.

Thankfully I never see any ads - ublock origin kills these off. That includes the horrible UI choices Google made on its search interface. A custom ublock origin rule filters away the pointless "others also searched for pink cats" while I was searching for epic skyscrapers. Evidently Google tries to link-lose me here, wasting my time.

Google Search sucks nowadays.

What is even stranger, though, is ... the alternatives suck even more.

I don't know where to even start. Take qwant. Well, first check they do is "are you a bot". That's wasting my time. I am not a bot. But, while this may be a minor annoyance, qwant also yields crap results. It does, however had, which is quite interesting, also yield results that Google search does not yield. I had some good results here with regards to images. But in general, searching the www for useful information, really took a dive in the last 5-10 years. And a HUGE dive. Many people noticed this. There are tons of webpages pointing this out. And videos on youtube too (owned by Google, the monster that ruined its search engine).

I am surprised google search still yields any money to Google, considering how crap it has become. In the past I could even read webforum entries in behind the "you must be logged in". I did this, for instance, on a text-based MUD I retired from many years before that, but I was still curious what kind of changes they made. Then google removed that feature - and many more - deliberately. That was when Google decided to cripple its search engine. Then came AI slop and slop-degraded the remaining rest. The nuclear slop holocaust eradicating useful information. Thankfully Wikipedia still exists, and while it has several issues, quality-wise it is a blessing compared to what we typically see nowadays.

We need one final video codec.

Otherwise we will have this:

https://xkcd.com/927/

The only question I have:

Should I use H.264 or H.265?

Well nano pico atto ... the name makes it comparable. Why would you expect people to not draw that connection?

I think the main take-away is that vi/vim is too complicated for many folks. I use nano a lot on the commandline. For quick editing it is so much more convenient than vim.

> Everyone experiences chemotherapy differently. Just as every body is different, so is the reaction to the chemicals that are killing the cancer.

Well, this is true, but generic chemotherapeutics target pretty much all cells. That's why there are so many side effects.

There are some partial work arounds, e. g. targeting some specific cells via monoclonal antibodies, but even these have side effects. I understand the rationale of stopping uncontrolled cell growth, but chemotherapeutics are hugely damaging to all cells, not just cancer cells. And it is often unclear whether these have a really profound positive impact. For instance, if you kill 80% of the cancer cells but the cost is that the other cells are significantly weakened, leading to a death due to that, then you have a trade-off that isn't so great.

That is true, but it is definitely about profit. The prior comment made that question via "I don't think it is for profit". Very clearly it is.

Of course it is for profit. Tokens cost money. Just the energy cost alone.

I don't understand this "analysis". Why would it not be about profit?

"Features for internal users" makes no sense here, as it does not apply to the case. "Useful features" is also debatable - LLMs providing user data upstream to Anthropic is a use case for Anthropic, but less so for downstream users and token burners.

Claude is a spy.

One can reason that it is useful, e. g. saves the time of people (see how Claude is now the number #1 committer in Ruby) but ultimately all that data is used by private companies, making them richer in the process. So, first you pay for the tokens; and then others benefit from it without giving you any money. It is a brilliant scheme since it works so well. People are sold to their AI overlords now.

Well, 2) is often a honey pot trap since some projects have no documentation, or only so little documentation that spending time trying to figure out a project is a waste of time. There is a reason why SO got important in the first place. Horrible documentation was one reason.

Yes that was my impression too. SO already died before the rise of AI.

SO died some time ago already though; I'd say even before AI.

I remember that I once asked a question about dual-licencing MIT and GPL 2.0 in the same project. Within an hour or two, it was downvoted to -7. Now this alone is already quite concerning (it was a genuine question), but what was even more annoying was that not a single person who downvoted this, explained as to why. So, if my time investment here for asking a question, gets negative karma without any explanation, and then subsequently no useful answer at all: what is the point of SO? I still answered a few questions here or there, but the whole karma system just discourages contributions and I stopped using it with regards to both asking anything or giving answers.

SO is not useless since some answers still hold useful answers, but they really should have started to fix SO early on. Instead they just gave up.

It is not though. Moderators aren't as crazy on HN as they were on reddit.

The interface is also worse. I preferred old.reddit.com. Hackernews has this weird "you post too much" limitation, which is so annoying.

Reddit meanwhile killed old.reddit.com anyway; logging in defeats the point of using reddit. Things always get worse - and never seem to get better.