ayrtondesozzla

People willing to put in an effort to acquire and lovingly conserve the media of interest to them are often the people who really care about that media. They are often the most eager to support the creators of different media.

Which is extremely logical and obvious, if one can quickly lift one's head up above the "anti-piracy" propaganda of the major copyright-wielding creativity-killing companies spewing out the same drivel year after year.

Conversely, I have found that the same people who will happily equate "having a spotify subscription" to "supporting artists", who do things like attack people who jailbreak their kindle or whatever, these people are often the greatest thoughtless vibers when it comes to media. Try asking someone like that to name a piano player, or a bassist, or a drummer. Ask them to name three directors.

They'll know celebrities, not musicians or actors. They'll know to attack "pirates" on cue, but have no conception where their money goes every month when their subscriptions are billed.

I'm caricaturing, but these are my experiences.

Question - what is the lowest cost way to do something like this? Imagine one was prepared to go in whatever direction, regardless of difficulty. Can the pros weigh in here?

> A+ FACILITIES WOULD STAY AGAIN

Ok ok, you got me! Delightful!

There's no ruling out a flying spaghetti monster being orbited by a flying teacup floating in space on the dark side of Pluto either, but we aren't basing our species' survival on the chance that we might discover it there soon

I'd change that line near the end to:

The only people that often value quality are engineers.

I might even add that the overwhelming majority of engineers are happy to sacrifice quality - and ethics generally - when the price is right. Not all, maybe.

It's a strange culture we have, one which readily produces engineer types capable of complex logic in their work, and at the same time, "the overarching concern of business is always profit" seems to sometimes cause difficulty.

You can criticise things, but if you are effective, or if you criticise the wrong thing, you risk jail, harassment, ostracisation, threats, campaigns of vilification and slander, etc. Your doctor visits and lawyer visits will be surveilled, your basic diplomatic rights violated. You can be tortured in public view.

Wikileaks' Julian Assange is perhaps the archetypal recent example, but there are others.

Westminster has undergone a violent authoritarian shift in recent decades. Stating that clearly is a prerequisite to beginning a fight for "democracy", as you put it.

I'd be interested to know more about a team that uses Nix and Guix. Is there a website or email an interested party can contact?

Agreed on Guix. Used it for a few years, absolutely loved it, excited to go back (had to move off for unimportant and unrelated reasons).

Would love to hear from someone who has used both though.

I've never seen an excellent, detailed comparison actually, as conversation on the subject tends to devolve into a "discussion" on ethics. Meaning, people who dislike GNU or GPL or Lisps or something get testy and argue uncharitably (imho, please prove me wrong, not flaming here, etc).

This is ironic, to say the least, as one of the main points of the proponents of the "anti-GNU" side tends to be how Guix is too opinionated and pushy and hard-line etc. So we've a classic upside-down situation, which is a real shame, as Guix seems to be in reality a practical project with lovely people involved that's doing very interesting work.

Apologies, I was unclear. I mean that the law and what people do are two seperate affairs. When people act like law dictates reality I'm always perplexed.

Here, if you say your Tesla drives you to work hands-free, I've no problem accepting that as a part of the world.

Except grafitti is cool from the start, so, totally different

You've never used ratpoison, I see

Reminds me of an interesting exchange with a friend in sales and marketing recently.

It's an engineer-heavy company, and he's a marketing guy. He was brought in to give them some sales direction, some strategy. He comes up with some standard strategy, presents it. No, reasons. Meetings and presentations and essentially repeated NOs later, months and months of this, he eventually says to himself:

This is industry standard stuff. They're rejecting it because they don't understand. I'll do a big presentation, come up with loads of metaphors and catchy phrases and graphs, and present it.

He does this, result: oh, brilliant stuff, let's get this all implemented! Wonderful. It's the exact same stuff as before.

The story was told to me in terms of - "ah, isn't it great that everyone finally understood!", and my response was based on exactly your observation. They understood roughly as much as before, but if you don't get the metaphors, you look silly!

Any text (book, essay, blog, comment) which includes any lines of unedited LLM output should come with a statement saying so. Even if the whole thing was very carefully edited and reviewed and the author is certain there's no obvious trace of LLM usage, they should still always say so.

Not because the LLM "deserves credit" (a disgusting trend, I find) but because:

A. The millions of humans who got ripped off in the process of their knowledge and time being hoovered up, digitised and productised deserve credit

B. Your artistic, aesthetic and ethical choices need to be assumed fully.

I can't see law working here, so I think it'll have to be cultural. Cultural means these discussions on here, for one. I implore every LLM user reading this to consider full honesty when using these tools.

I can picture the smart replies now so allow me to cut off one obvious one - no, business emails don't count, all business comms were already sloppified years ago. I mean anything that could reasonably be construed as creative, anything purporting to be sincere personal writing.

There's a lot of ignoring your question and telling an anecdote - some nice anecdotes, though.

I'd guess the answer is yes. If someone (somehow) gets into a junior dev role, has no to little experience, and hunts and pecks 20 words a minute, they'll have to get that up to 50/60 surely before they can be a more normally functioning member of a team, right? I think in some bad cases it could be priority number one.

If your job is producing text in files, you tend to need basic proficiency in typing.

I guess you're rather imagining a really solid developer, types 70/80 wpm but never put any effort in to typing per se, uses whatever system or IDE is the norm and isn't bothered. Learns a few keyboard shortcuts here and there maybe, but again, who cares.

Imagine a counter to your question - if that last developer could click their fingers and get to an effortless, consistent 100 wpm, would they? Should they? I think the answer is yes, and yes. They can still spend as much time as they want staring at the ceiling thinking, with the notepad out sketching, etc.

Now, not everyone wants to think about it, and that's fine, other things matter more in the end. How pleasant of a colleague you are matters more in many cases. But surely the notion itself of typing faster being preferable is easily understandable - programmers are text file producers.