ttiurani

It's a sauna so humidity depends on how much water I feel like throwing on the stones ("kiuas"). I throw at about once per minute, but I have no idea what that would mean in humidity.

Also while 73°C is a proper sauna, there are plenty of hotter ones. 90°C is closer to what I'm used to at my apartment building's common sauna. I do take two breaks when I'm there for 30 mims though.

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I must do it.

> But that doesn't mean the tragedy of the commons can't happen in other scenarios.

Commons can fail, but the whole point of Hardin calling commons a "tragedy" is to suggest it necessarily fails.

Compare it to, say, driving. It can fail too, but you wouldn't call it "the tragedy of driving".

We'd be much better off if people didn't throw around this zombie term decades after it's been shown to be unfounded.

The whole notion of the "tragedy of the commons" needs to be put to rest. It's an armchair thought experiment that was disproven at the latest in the 90s by Elinor Ostrom with actual empirical evidence of commons.

The "tragedy", if you absolutely need to find one, is only for unrestricted, free-for-all commons, which is obviously a bad idea.

Seconded. I tried hard to use Bazel in a polyglot repo because I really wanted just one builder.

Unfortunately, the amount of work you need to just maintain the build across language and bazel version upgrades is incredibly high. Let alone adding new build steps, or going even slightly off the well-trodded path.

I feel like Bazel would need at least 5 more full-time engineers to eventually turn it into an actually usable build tool outside Big Tech. Right now many critical open source Bazel rules get a random PR every now and then from people who don't actually (have time to) care about the open source community.

My go-to now is to use mise + just to glue together build artifacts from every language's standard build tools. It's not great but at least I get to spend time on programming instead of fixing the build.

Indeed, facts are part of the moral discussion in ways you outlined. My objection was that just listing some facts/opinions about what AI can do right now is not enough for that discussion.

I wanted to make this point here explicitly because lately I've seen this complete erasure of the moral dimension from AI and tech, and to me that's a very scary development.

> imo LLMs are (currently) good at 3 things

Notice the phrase "from a moral standpoint". You can't argue against a moral stance by stating solely what is, because the question for them is what ought to be.

Looking at these comments, it's painfully apparent how many think that being polite in your communication is more important than actually doing something.

I agree it would have been nicer if the message was more polite. But if you compare that to having the backbone follow through with meaningful long-term changes against a corporation you don't trust or respect, there shouldn't even be a discussion.

And don't even get me started with the people who come in here just to point out that Codeberg isn't perfect either.