HiPhish

In Germany I have a monthly plan. I got a physical card with an NFC chip inside it. No app shenanigans. I can pause and renew my plan from home: log into the Bahn website, go to my account settings and adjust things there.

The real issue is not smartphones, iOS and Android or apps. The issue is that independent technical standards are intentionally ignored. There is no reason that I should not be able to set my plan through curl and hand-draw the QR code with pen and paper. Sure, I would not want to actually do it like that, that's not the point. The point is: if I can use curl and pen & paper, then I can use whatever else I want. If I want to use a smartphone I should be able to code my own app according to a well-documented public API. Those APIs already do exist, otherwise the official app would not work, so it's no extra work for the service provider.

We need a law that mandates open specifications for access to all publicly available services.

It's not about veto power, it's about consulting technical experts to evaluate whether the legal proposal even makes sense. The EU Cyber Resilience Act is a good example: experts stepped in and made sure that the term "supplier" was accurately defined so some random Joe Shmoe could not be held liable for bugs in some piece of code he threw over the wall on GitHub. The law still got passed, but after being refined.

> Utah's VPN law demands a technical impossibility

How does legislation work in the US? How can an impossible law pass? Is it just some boomer stomping his feet like a toddler "I know what I want, and I want it now" without consulting any technical experts, and then private organizations like the EFF and courts have to clean up the mess?

> I'd say enshitification is a good enough word.

Enshittification is when the perpetrator intentionally does make a product worse, like locking previously free features behind a paywall with a firmware update, or covers components of an electric device with some goop to make it unrepairable.

Verschlimmbesserung is when the perpetrator has good but ultimately misguided intentions. For example, so middle manager might think that replacing but buttons on a vacuum cleaner with app integration adds value, but ultimately it's replacing something simple, boring and reliable with an overengineered solution that causes more problems than it solves.

There is some overlap between the two: someone could make make a Verschlimmbesserung even though he knows no one wants the change, but he can pad his resume with it. In general I'd say enshittification leans more towards malice, while Verschlimmbesserung leans more towards incompetence.

> Verschlimmbesserung is not widely used these days in Germany.

Yes, it is.

> The reality for most people - even expert programmers - has been that the freedom is more about being able to lean on other people to do that. Most people can't justify the time commitment needed to read and then modify the code for tools they use very often.

So it's like everything else in life. I am not a plumber, but I very much do want to be free to do my own plumbing if I want to. Not because I do want to, but because it means that I do get to choose whom I let do my plumbing.

> kid

The man is 24 years old.

Isn't Wero just another proprietary app that requires a Google or Apple smartphone? Can I use it from my web browser like I can with PayPal?

> I guess that most companies just chuck it up there as a default so they dont have to read the law, or maybe they are all actually harvesting and selling personal data and therefore require cookies?

That has been my guess as well. If you run npm install half-the-internet you have no idea what's in there, so just slap on that cookie banner for good measure. Of course the real problem is not knowing what's inside your application, but the thought process is "eh, if a blanket cookie banner does the job then that's good enough for me".

All living being want to literally eat you in one way or another. You can respect the earth, but first you have to subdue it and have dominion, otherwise it will kill you.

> I have to ask…why do people want a Turing complete language to configure stuff?

What's the alternative? Petition the maintainer to add every little feature any random user might want? Or just do it yourself in a few lines of code?

Case in point, when I was still using BSPWM I did no like how if there was only one window on the desktop it would still get an outline. So I wrote 14 lines of Awk (BSPWM lets you use any language) to get what I want. This was only possible because BSPWM gives me all the primitive building blocks and lets me go wild with them. Sure, if all you want to do is set a few colors and numbers that's overkill, but any power user will sooner or later find himself thinking "oh, if only I could do X when Y unless Z".

> Python setup.py -> pyproject.toml?

That's because setup.py was objectively a mistake. In order to know how to run the package you need to know its dependencies, which requires evaluating setup.py, but you cannot evaluate setup.py until you know the dependencies, which requires you to evaluate setup.py, and so on. The pyproject.toml is plain text where you specify the build backend and its options, and the build system can be as complex of a program as need by.

If anything, pyproject.toml is an example of taking the idea of programmable configuration to its next conclusion. The build system is part of the configuration and it's more than a simple script, it's an entire application. You just plug in its name into the universal entry point pyproject.toml.

> But it’s not the biblical story. At Babel, the loss of common language stops construction whereas in AI-assisted engineering, construction can continue after shared understanding has already collapsed. The lack of an immediate failure is what makes it curious and a bit disorienting. The tower does not fall, and so we do not notice what was lost. It just keeps rising.

I don't know whether the author thinks this is a good or a bad thing, but in my eyes it's clearly a bad thing. Intelligence is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad. AI is the the ultimate form of intelligence with zero wisdom. Actually, it's not even intelligence, it's an illusion of intelligence. If there is no human who can understand what the AI is doing it's time to stop and accept that we do not have the wisdom to contain what we are building.

Chesterton's Fence, even if there is actual inefficiency there might be a reason for that. It might not be a good reason mind you, but even a bad reason is still a reason. You cannot cut inefficiency without understanding the reason first. It would take multiple years of research to understand and uncover all the inefficiency that has built up over the years. Otherwise you just end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater.