I think it’s more an indictment of your media bubble than the own you think this is.

So he didn’t literally say it word for word, but the vibes were there.

I think I take issue with the idea that it’s the “chat” interface that makes people shut off their brain and stay in that groove. I feel that the answer is more the very nature of LLMs being one of our attempts to get AI to pass the turing test. Continuing the conversation is such a core part of what an LLM is beyond the UI. If it made you think, you wouldn’t believe it to be a human.

We use Ruby at work, for a team I’m only tangentially involved with, and I’m not a fan. I’d be curious to know what a company that uses it as their primary language looks like. It seems like there’s a lot of funky edge cases especially in templating that have bitten us.

Has it really been 10-15 years since Ruby peaked in popularity? I never really paid much attention but I feel like time is a fiction.

I’m not appealing to authority. I’m pointing out that they’re not a bot. As I said in my first post, I wouldn’t claim it’s entirely human generated, I have no idea one way or another. What I said to start with and now is that it’s worth addressing the Blogpost on its merits not on its use of emdashes.

It’s crazy to me that you think I’m even saying there smart/clever/whatever and could do no wrong. The only thing I’m appealing to is the evidence that they exist.

The author has been a CPPCon presenter, worked at Bloomberg, and has a GitHub history going back at least to 2022 where they were contributing to LLVM. This isn’t coming from their website but from the actual websites.

Based on their history and experience that’s public on their profiles from an era pre ChatGPT, I think you are overreacting and making a fool of yourself.

It’s pretty scary how we live in an era where semi competent writing gets assumed to be AI and you refuse to fact check yourself before shitting on them as being not real.

Honestly it’s a pretty well written and explained article. I hesitate to say that it’s entirely human generated, but I certainly would try and judge it for its content before just writing it off as slop.

Personally I think the author overstates the practicality of using counters for serialization, as the ordering of source code is also a very cosmetic thing and tweaking scenes ruins the save format. There’s no possibility for backward compatibility either in such cases.

It’s hard for me to imagine which direction it would end up going when right now the quality of AI output is so varied.

I think there’s also something to be said to just “doing things” that are in the public eye.

What I mean by that is that (part of) the reason I got the job I’m at right now is because I happened to do something at an org that my boss worked at years prior. It wasn’t a “connection” in the sense that we knew each other or ever crossed paths, but it still got me a foot in the door.

If you can make a meaningful contribution to a well known project or organization that will open doors via “connections” that you never knew existed.

My personal suggestion would be to add initcall_blacklist=algif_aead_init to your kernel arguments. Ebpf is cool, but not a very trivial solution.

I understand the suggestion might apply to a random, unspecified distro but I disapprove of both the exploit authors and the general Internet suggesting fixes that don’t apply to every distro (including copy.fail’s AI slop RHEL distro that doesn’t exist) without caveating it.

The kernel module blacklist won’t work for every situation, if you’re not being specific in telling people where it applies, it’s best to suggest a solution that actually works regardless of distro or explain how to validate when it applies but nobody is doing that.

I continue to protest against this claim. Blacklisting the kernel module does not work for a bunch of distributions including Alma, Rocky, RHEL and others because they have this module built into the kernel. There’s no module to remove. You must use a syscall blacklist or similar mechanism to disable this.

If you’d like evidence of the toxic or extreme side of Lemmy, it’s not hard to find. Are we really disagreeing that this is a problem with Lemmy? Regardless, you’re misrepresenting OP with the “declare the other side is unbiased”.

This conversation started started with pushing back on the idea of using Lemmy as a solution to small site discoverability. The toxicity and social aspects are perfectly relevant.

He’s at -5 at the moment. Depending on what instances you have blocked, you’re going to see different amounts. It doesn’t mean those people aren’t there.

Even here, the guy you’re responding to is getting down voted to oblivion (for Lemmy anyways) for an opinion that I have echoed elsewhere and gotten the opposite response.

Not having the majority opinion of this community seems to mean downvotes too. The only real difference is that reddit has enough staying power for people to put up with it.

That would be true worst case, but you’re never running inference 24/7. It’s no crazier than gaming in that regard.

I have to wonder what kind of child hears someone say that they pay in cash rather than use a card and assume that they’re rich.

I have to imagine you are so fiscally deficient that the 2% or so card transaction fee doesn’t even register to you. Did you know that especially some Mom and Pop shops will charge less when using cash for that very reason? Gas stations even advertise cash rates for gas.

Ignorance and arrogance are a horrible combo.

This is the central reason I choose not to engage with most posts. It’s a toss up whether I’m talking to a rational human being or I happened to walk into the side of the antinatalist hyper accelerationist ML willing to die to defend the most obscure take about consent or something.

I would love a more healthy, less terminally online discourse on Lemmy.

Yes. Quic and other protocols are too new and don’t have a ton of support in firewall and inspection tools that are used by said corpos. It’s even required in the DISA STIG requirements to disable quic at the browser level.

If I’m a military supplier of nukes to the government, I can freely use GPL and there’s no legal issue with that. You cannot request the nuclear launch software or the guidance control software even if they use GPL licensed code within it. Why? Because they don’t distribute said code to the public. If you develop something for private use, and it never gets a public release there’s no obligation or requirement to release the source! This is especially true for a government contractor that only makes software for a single customer (the government).

I think we’re agreeing that your claim was nonsense at this point, but I still don’t understand where people get these strange ideas about how GPL stops commercial or military use outside of very specific and frankly niche ways. If this is your reason for preferring GPL, it’s poorly thought out.

In purely private (or internal) use—with no sales and no distribution—the software code may be modified and parts reused without requiring the source code to be released. For sales or distribution, the entire source code needs to be made available to end users, including any code changes and additions—in that case, copyleft is applied to ensure that end users retain the freedoms defined above.

GPL code can also be used for commercial and military use. What are you smoking where you think that is even remotely true? Genuinely asking. It feels like people on your side of the argument have all learned what you have from the same, ill informed source.