Physically speaking, it wouldn't necessarily have to occupy the same space, it depends on how the time travel works, but either way this movie is already nonsensical enough that the only answer in-universe is clearly "🤷 whatever"
I get that "laser rubies" are probably difficult to come by, but if it's so fragile and so critical, you'd think they'd have had a spare. I mean $14M in 1970s dollars is nothing to sneeze at. #monsterdon
The first of William Gibson's 'Sprawl' trilogy, Neuromancer is the classic cyberpunk novel.
More information on the [novel's official page][1].
[1]: http://www.williamgibsonbooks.com/books/neuromancer.asp
The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.
Life got in the way shortly after I started reading this book, but I picked it up again a couple days ago and it was a very enjoyable read. The only thing that bothered me was the fact that that they clearly stated that they couldn't send the refugees to Kota for Prime Directive reasons, and then just... never followed up on that.
What really matters is that the digits are carved at different depths so the total mass of die material removed is the same. Compensating for the mass differences of the paint, if used.
@isaackuo Even this will not guarantee they have the same effect on the rotational moment of inertia, because it matter how close to the centre of gravity the material is removed...
For just capturing the output of a command, you can use:
r !somecommand
But if you want to filter a range of lines through an external filter with POSIX ed(1), you need some sort of temporary storage (whether a file, the system clipboard, a tmux buffer or whatever). There's no analog to
:10,20! rot13
offered by vi/vim.
Someone (can't find the post/author at the moment) did hack this functionality into ed, but it's a custom fork of POSIX functionality.
Depending on your platform, you might have xclip instead (similar functionality on X), pbcopy/pbpaste on OSX, or some similar tool on Wayland or Windows.
@ed1conf @buffet Sam runs just fine on Linux; I use it there daily (alongside Toronto qed). I think it has been ported to OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and even Windows.
It amuses me that people associate it only with Plan 9; it was originally written for ~9th edition Research Unix, before the Plan 9 project started. (I was there, and an early adopter.)
@Harka Won't work. That won't pass the contents of the buffer as input to !command. The contents of the buffer can either be piped into the command or piped out of it, but not both.
Toronto qed (descended from ed in the late 1970s, not the 1960s editor that inspired ed) has three commands for exchanging text with other programs: >command # send to command's standard input <command # receive from standard output |command # send to stdin, read from stdout, replacing original addressed lines
Of course > and | take an address range and < a single address, like w and r.
I use | quite often either in ed or in sam; latter written by the guy from whom I caught the qed bug.
Implementing | takes some thought to avoid deadlock if pipes fill and block. Qed does it by spawing a temporary process to do the writing, while the main process reads into the buffer.
Isn't ADHD wonderful for productivity. All you need to get things done is have something else you don't want to do. ... Anyway, that's why I spent the last three hours finally replacing the drain in my kitchen sink.
Chronic depression and anxiety means waiting until things are so terrible they can't be avoided anymore instead. Seems about as useful for getting things done.
The difference between Canadian and American children’s PSAs
🇨🇦: -I’m a robot, watch me get dismembered by flying saws in a horrifying torture playground. If you lose an arm it’s gone for good, so don’t play in dangerous places. -🎶an abslute ear worm. It’s never going to leave your head. ever. you are thinking of it right now 🎶 PS, if you aren’t sure if something is safe to eat ask a trusted grown up. -here is a video clip that claims in an authoritative voice something you know can’t be true. Please consider if the media you are watching/reading is trying to manipulate you. Yes even if they are acting from authority
🇺🇸: -if you a try single marijuana cigarette you will literally die. -always trust authority figures. always. or you will literally die. -never trust strangers. ever. or you will literally die. -here is some vague morality segment attached at the end of a 20 minute toy commercial.
@me The US did also have Mr Yuk, Time for Timer, & Schoolhouse Rock, the greatest series of educational PSAs ever made. Where else cna you learn about conjunctions, or base-12 mathematics, or how the US government cannot pass legislation without cheating?
To be fair, all I know about Ultraman is what I've been able to piece together from what I've seen of the last few minutes of the episodes that play before #monsterdon
It's a great series, the first one came out of a non-superhero science heroes show, so it keeps most of the SSSP with 2 minutes of Dan becoming Ultraman. Later series get wackier.
Perhaps there's the slightly better message of: don't be mean to people who are different... or they'll turn into jellyfish monster things and kill you... I guess?
Since the lead developer of #Reticulum and #NomadNet has been too overwhelmed as of late to take on feature requests, I'm releasing my fork as it now contains some useful non-trivial enhancements.
My cat's current favourite toy in the entire world: a single Froot Loop that someone dropped on the floor. I don't have the heart to take it away from him.
I just looked on YouTube and it doesn't seem like anyone has made a Dwarf Fortress theme park. At least not and put it on YouTube.
It seems totally possible to make a theme park fortress. Minecart roller coasters. Make rides using gears, giant corkscrews, and pressure plates. Magma tunnel of love. A haunted ride or two would be nice.
All doable.
I don't think you could necessarily make the dwarfs understand what these things are for. But you might be able to trick/force them through a couple of rides.
I however am not the person to do this. It's beyond my patience and cognitive energy. (I never even had patience to design my own coasters in the Rollar Coaster Tycoon games. I went with the prefabs.)
Everybody thinks I’m LLM-pilled and AI psychotic and it’s just not true. 99% of the time I’m against AI. I just found one specific case in which it’s useful to me is all.
@Unlikelylass People were wierd about seat belts. I wish they could be wierd about freedom and autonomy for something that doesn’t in the general case stop fatalities.
@hardingar @Unlikelylass My middle school library had a bunch of books about cars from the 1950s and 60s, and I read most of them. There was a very strong interest among the car companies in having people not think at all about safety, no different from the cigarette companies. We largely have Ralph Nader to thank for countering that.
@hardingar @Unlikelylass And when it came to seatbelts in particular there was this widespread belief, again encouraged by the car companies, that you were actually better off getting thrown from the vehicle or whatever. And especially before shoulder belts there were certainly situations where you might be better off not wearing a seatbelt.
The same was true of early airbags, because they came out of a requirement for "passive restraints" that had to protect people even if they weren't wearing their seatbelt. The result was that they had to deploy way too fast, which could cause grave injury if you were too close. Once they stopped caring about people who aren't wearing a seatbelt, airbags got way safer.
I was in a wreck at the age of 3 and change in which I was in the front seat, and thrown clear of my seatbelt.
I was too young to be in the front without a booster, but boosters weren't required yet and I'd outgrown my car seat.
I was thrown clear of the car.
I was told, at length after the fact, that being thrown clear of the car saved my life, and in the particulars of this crash a properly functioning seatbelt would have either killed me or left me paralyzed.
The doctors told me this at 4 years old (I celebrated my birthday in the hospital) and through physical therapy. It was meant to make me grateful I think? "You're so lucky. If your seatbelt had worked, you'd be dead." or maybe it was a reminder to my mother that I should be in the back seat, which would have been safer in this crash and in general.
Either way, I became somewhat obsessed with the history of safety belts and car safety in general. I'm neurodivergent, it was a multi-year special interest.
@hardingar @Unlikelylass My dad was in a similar accident in the air force: he was in a car that overturned into a ditch. He wasn't wearing his seatbelt and was thrown into the back passenger-side seat, which was the only part of the passenger compartment that wasn't crushed.
until 1990s seatbelts in many British/European cars (in spite of being legally required, at least in front) were often uncomfortable and in many cases ineffective for anyone other than taller male drivers.
They got refined with better airbags, pretensioners etc around 90s, various child seats mandated for kids even up to their early teens (I had to remember all this for my theory test) and are now much more effective, albeit with the issue that in UK a used car is often totalled for a minor clout if any of the airbags or pretensioners deploy as insurers don't want to shell out for new parts.
The car can often be put back on the road (I see a lot of Youtubers doing this), but will have CAT N/S (salvage title)
Maybe seatbelts in cars and Helmets on motorbikes were once revolutionary?
But the only thing that held back domestic radios (1921), TVs (1935 & post WWII), Colour TV, PC, fax, mobile phone, game consoles, smart phones, tablet computers, internet was cost.
There were anti-vaxxers in the Victorian era. Often encouraged by people selling "quack" cures. The guy struck off for dishonest claims about MMR & Autism (no causation) was promoting an alternate.
There are others who are just wanting to rubbish anyone educated and logical because that is dangerous to their power.
@david_chisnall well the surgeons just didn't give a shit about pregnant women (or at least not enough of it to challenge their beliefs about proper bedside manner)
I agree they aren't the greatest, but one might argue that the lesser evil - when one considers the large demographic of all internet users - is passkeys (rather than the insecure passwords which most people can't help themselves but to choose).
But for most people today a passkey is going to be tied to their phone, and then when they lose their phone or get a new one, they're locked out of whatever services used that passkey.
we're straying off-topic, but unfortunately the answer to a lost passkey, is that a second one needed to also exist, and be enrolled (having thought ahead).
In many cases, the second one could be software-based - say as created and stored in a password manager (like KeepassXC; many others also now support this). Thereby saving the cost of buying a hardware-based one.
It really is fascinating seeing the same arguments that were used by the corporates to prevent people from adopting public keys, now getting used by their victims, and this time ignored because the corporates think they figured out how to control your public keys.
But to address your complaint, that's why you backup your master key, and use it to authorize each device's key, so they can act in its stead. If Apple doesn't provide the means to do this, well it's been a known practice for the past 40 years, so they don't really have an excuse.
Most people sync their passkeys with Apple's iCloud Keychain or Google's equivalent, so if they lose their phone they just need to remember one password and they can restore all of their passkeys. It's only people who are concerned about that centralisation of control (who, sadly, are a minority) that don't have that recovery path.
The normal way of implementing things like pass keys is to have one secret and use a key-derivation function that takes it and something public (domain name and maybe a random string) that can be backed up easily, so the only bit that needs a secure backup is the secret.
The hard part of this is making it easy to sync this between devices that the user trust and hard for a malicious person to trick the user into syncing it to something else. This is hard because, from a technical standpoint, those two processes are identical, but from a user's perspective one is important and the other is harmful. I'm quite sad that Apple seems to have completely punted on that by providing an export button.
the textile industrialisation is exactly such a thing. Workers rebelled against the trend as it was shifting jobs to less qualified employees, reducing wages. They smashed the machinery for a while and ultimately, trade unions emerged out of this. It was a revolutionary change and our lives today would be very different without it.
Don't get me wrong, I'd rather we went back on the whole AI thing, but I think revolutionary changes can and have come against the will of workers.
@PierricD Sure, but the technology itself produced results that were measurably worse than the things that were done by hand and in environments that were significantly more dangerous.
That revolt wasn't about the machines, it was about who owned them and how they were used.
you have. it's cars. there was tons of opposition to cars when they were first introduced, similar to the opposition to AI and data centers today. cars were shoved down peoples throats by the industry lobbying governments to pass laws making streets exclusive to cars, and by the invention of modern marketing as we know it. cars were so unpopular they literally had to reinvent marketing to get people to use them!
@glitzersachen I think passkeys are a better choice (the "lesser evil") than when compared to "hardware attestation" (like the way banking apps are locked to an app on an Android or Apple phone, and you can't use, say LineageOS, for some transactions - you also can't do them on a laptop with no "hardware attestation").
Also once there is enough pain felt from an "AI worm", as is being predicted, people will be willing to adopt a more secure solution.
my mind keeps going to the helio centric model of the solar system, because that required some work to prevent people using it!
Same with written language.
The interesting thing there, I think, is the reason there is an effort to force this, while in the past effort was made to prevent use of other technologies, is those technologies increased freedom and diversity of thought, this one reduces it.
This entry was edited (Wednesday, September 16, 2026, 11:21 PM)
The market share is dwindling, they are losing economies of scale. It is being out flanked and out maneuvered by cheaper and cheaper solar and battery technology everyday.
They can't give it away for free even with sycophantic bots promising the world.
About three dozen people at this point have suggested seatbelts.
The thing there, though, is that seatbelts existed as a technology with proven lifesaving potential for many years before we forced them on car drivers.
They weren't new or revolutionary, they were just safety.
People hate safety. I dunno why, but there's probably a great sociology paper in there.
I've also never met anyone who has survived a major auto accident who is at all hesitant about seatbelts (and, until the modern propaganda campaign against them, I'd never met anyone who had someone survive a serious illness who was at all hesitant about vaccines, which fall largely in to the same bucket.)
In both cases, these are not technologies that we are asking people to use on an ongoing basis, but preventative measures that we're putting in the hands of people who have not been effectively educated about the mechanisms at play or the efficacy of the preventative measures (and, in the case of both vaccines and seatbelts, there was a concerted propaganda campaign against them, so any education that was being done had to fight against anti-education propaganda first.)
I didn't have the energy yesterday to type this out over and over again to the people who said seatbelts, and I still don't, so now everyone else who said (or will continue to say) seatbelts gets a link to this thread.
There was actually huge resistance to the telephone. But for some of the same reasons as today—people were pretty savvy about what they were giving up for what they were getting.
@eest9 @NewsHund i used to get very pissy about forms (both online and physical) that mandated my phone number. Now i've realized i don't particularly care because there is literally zero chance of me ever answering it anyway
I got lots of responses pointing out technologies that had to be forced on people. I've thought about them. The ones I agree with are:
- Internal Combustion Cars - Telephones - LLMs and GenAI
The internal combustion engine in general didn't have to be forced on to people (farmers, for example, loved it both for their tractors and also for other makeshift machines they'd construct around their farms)
Cars as a class didn't have to be forced on people, high society types in big cities loved having electric carriages. They were clean, easy to maintain, and quiet. They were also reliable enough that they didn't get replaced often enough to become an industry.
But, while the rich were driving around in their electric carriages and the poor were walking, taking horse-carriages, taking trains, and riding cable cars (and people were experimenting with electric and steam cars) Henry Ford decided that, if he could get the US government to heavily invest in a roadway system and trick a bunch of municipalities into giving up a bunch of green space and pedestrian space to cars, he could make a lot of money while also leaving people responsible for both driving (which is dangerous and should be left to those who are interested in learning how to do it effectively, not a requirement for participation in society) and maintenance (which is expensive, and prior to Ford was largely a public expense for a public good.)
Cars introduced a lot of new freedoms for people, but were perhaps the worst of the several available alternatives to do that in dozens of ways, and we're still trying to overcome that fallout. There were significantly more (and significantly safer!) transit options in my region before cars.
Cars, as I've said before and taken blowback from, are usually bad. They are, at best, a necessary evil. There was a time when they were not necessary.
Telephones are a really interesting case that end up in a similar situation to Cars, but for different reasons.
Many people loved the concept of the telephone and were eager to use it. Public phones and communal phones and the phone as a replacement for the telegraph were all pretty popular.
But private ownership of telephones resulted in a major upset of etiquette and an erosion of the separation between home and public, an encroachment.
Many people of the day resented that.
I've never know a world without a telephone, but I knew one without a cellphone.
I miss being unreachable. The telephone was, ultimately, more good than harm. The cellphone (though perhaps not the smartphone) probably the same.
But I can absolutely understand how and why some people would have been resistant to it. I still know people without cellphones, I knew people without a phone of any kind not that long ago ("Write me a letter or come over. If it's not important enough to tell me in person, it can wait on the post")
The advent of the telephone coincided with a serious reduction in mail service, which had previously run as often as 4x a day in large cities, and generally resulted in the further isolation of people from their communities (even as it enabled people to connect to new communities!)
I think the telephone is good, and I'm glad that it reached widespread adoption, and I think it would have done so regardless.
But I also love to think about what adoption of the telephone, or the cellphone, might have looked like if there was less money to be made in monopolizing the system.
It's a useless thought experiment, but it compels me.)
the main thing about llms and genai, unlike the car and the telephone, is that they don’t work AND that’s why they are being pushed. It is a regression, not a progression. I’d argue it’s not even a technology.
This entry was edited (Thursday, September 17, 2026, 2:52 PM)
Cars were inferior in nearly every respect to robust public transit, and internal combustion engine cars succeeded on the market only as a result of regulatory favor and planned obsolescence. It was a worse product than the alternatives in public transportation (so much so that Ford worked to dismantle the cable car network) *and* a less reliable option than the electric cars of the day, *and* less fuel efficient than the steam cars of the day. It was just cheap enough and pushed hard enough.
this is not what I am saying. I am saying that the promise of a car as a technological object is rational: a car is a n-wheeled personal vehicle that can take m people for point a to point b within energy reservoir range, etc. As a technological object, it does work. llms ans genai makes an analogous promise but the object cannot both by construction AND definition be what it claims to be. It doesn’t work. It’s not even a technology.
This entry was edited (Thursday, September 17, 2026, 3:03 PM)
i would argue that llms and genai, as an invention, belong to the same category as capitalism as a “technology” that promises one thing but delivers another. Neither works as advertised by design. Neither works at all.
This entry was edited (Thursday, September 17, 2026, 3:07 PM)
True we have to compare what public transport was with what cars used to be. Nowadays public transport has been decimated so badly, and cars have improved so they are the logical choice for many. That said, if I hadn't married someone who knew how to fix cars, I probably would've chosen where to live based on where I don't need a car. I find owning an electric car a better experience.
One of the things I've seen people bring up in this thread a couple of times is the Luddite movement, and their pushback against automated looms and sewing machines.
This was raised, I think, as a way to say that these were technologies that were also being forced on people, and that they were not good.
There's nuance to this discussion that I'm probably not correctly equipped to capture, but I'll do my best.
The Luddites weren't against the adoption of tech in general, they were against that technology being used to push people out of work, to make worse products, and to create a less safe work environment. It is my understanding that, by and large, they were in favor of sewing machines and automated looms when those things were owned and controlled by workers, and used to make good things faster or better things.
They were against these technologies when they were used to make worse things, or when they were used to displace workers, or when they were used to create an unsafe working environment.
Many people make the argument that this directly parallels LLMs and GenAI. That if this technology was in the hands of individuals and being deployed to make good things better, or to make good things faster, or something to that effect, that it would all be okay.
This is bullshit.
If no one forced factories to use automated looms and sewing machines, they probably would have adopted them anyway because they enabled new ways of making things, but many people would self select out of that group, continuing to do things by hand. (and, in fact, many people do.)
If no one forces workers to use AI, the workers who do not want to use AI will continue to not use AI and the workers who choose to use AI will get rugpulled when the full cost of the machine bears down upon them or when the bubble pops.
Vaccines were absolutely a revolutionary technology! Continue to be!
But Vaccines relied on science that most people didn't understand, and felt like magic, and still depended on people internalizing external risks but then also added doing something painful that many people were afraid of, and then feeling sick for several days (and, to be fair, the absolutely abhorrent and racist Tuskegee experiments was more than enough evidence for many people that vaccine mandates were untrustworthy.)
In both cases, these were not technologies that we were asking people to use on an ongoing basis, but preventative measures that were put in the hands of people who had not been effectively educated about the mechanisms at play or the efficacy of the preventative measures, and who had (or, in the case of vaccines, continue to have) huge amounts of anti-education propaganda fed to them.
So, to my original point, people fought over who would own and control the looms and sewing machines.
People were tricked into not wearing seatbelts.
And there's a concerted effort to keep people from taking vaccines that has, at various points, included intentional infecting people with illnesses under the pretense of vaccination.
In each case there was a fight over these technologies, but the fight was not simply a one sided campaign from people in power to force the use of a given technology or kill all alternatives.
there's a folk tale, probably at least partially true, that engineers at Volvo developed the modern inertia reel seatbelt, and immediately made the patent freely available for any manufacturer to implement. Volvo were, at least until the Ford ownership days when safety tech was fairly universal, one of the few auto makers who genuinely took safety seriously. The P80 platform Volvos of which I have now had (counts on fingers) five are one of the few pre-2000 cars that I not only feel safe in driving myself, but would not hesitate to carry my family in when the day comes. In fact, my previous one saved my life, which it probably couldn't have if I hadn't put my seatbelt on despite getting in the car intending to never get out.
Among the friend group I inherited from my dad, the most common killers have been cigarettes and car crashes.
There is a similar misconception about the Amish. Many believe they reject technology outright. But really they assess each new innovation’s potential impact on behaviors and culture. And then decide what to adopt and any restrictions thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/how…
there was a hell of a lot of resistance to seatbelts when they were first made mandatory; I'm interested in your analysis. Was it a vocal minority, or how expensive they were to get installed, or what?
100% agree about vaccines though; all this resistance we're seeing now is astroturfed and relies on having a whole generation of people who don't know what it's like to not have vaccines.
I spent my childhood without upper incisors because seat belts were optional in 1965. My father had bought seat belts for the car, and was planning on installing them that weekend. We got hit, and I left my teeth in the dashboard.
At its height, the post ran 5x per day in London. You could send out dinner invitations by morning post, and get the RSVPs back before your cook left for the market.
As I like to say, in 1838, Samuel Morse revolutionized communication forever, by perfecting a technology to send coded messages over great distances at the speed of light. In 1876, Alexander Graham Bell hacked a phone app on top of it.
So in a way the Internet (Tele-net?) is older than the telephone. We just forgot that the wires were sending coded signals in the first place, and started converting our coded signals to sound waves, not knowing they're converted back to coded signals to be sent over the wire.
Letter writing was such a great way for people to get in touch & stay in touch. Even people who did see each other in person regularly would write letters, because doing so allowed them to express themselves in depth in a considered manner, without interruption. People who wrote letters got to know each other really well.
And of course, driving now without a cellphone is virtually impossible. In case of emergency, there are no pay phones, and call boxes have been removed on most roads that ever had them.
I recommend reading "The Victorian Internet," about the early history of the telegraph.
That invention radically impacted the spread of information, and had a similar effect in eroding the home/public distinction; commodities traders could no longer go home at night without having to deal with developments half a country away that would impact their futures market.
the smartphone did in fact have to be forced on me in that i continued to use a flip phone until my job forced me to buy a smart phone in order to use their scheduling app
The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.
I think what trips people up about cars et al is what I've heard called "manufactured consent." The reality is that consent is a red herring, and they have us worried about that so they can get us to approve of exploitation. But it goes along these lines:
1. Hey don't you want a telephone? - aggressive marketing 2. Cover the sky in thousands of telephone wires. - hidden costs / gotchas 3. Why are you complaining? You wanted this!
'*actually* Revolutionary' does a lot of work here, you may be tired of examples, or counterpoints.
'money currency'?
If you follow Hudson/Graeber's work, the requirement of tax collection in state issued currency deposed credit systems and gift economies, this would be revolutionary but also resulted a centralization of control and power.
I'd accept that this is not revolutionary as an emancipatory technology.
@houba I don't know that I'd consider currency as a technology, and I don't know that I agree with the whole of Graeber's work (I've read some compelling counterarguments from people with a lot more experience in the field than myself, and haven't done a deep enough study to know (or care) either way)
But I'll concede that Currency does fall into a similar camp to the telephone, restructuring the whole of the social order.
(The thread is getting longer, I apparently had a lot more to say.)
Sometimes tech is used in a different way from which the manufacturer expected. SMS text messaging is the classic one. It surprised the networks by becoming a massively popular service. After all, you would want to talk on the phone rather than use an inferior texting system 🤔😄 but users had a different idea.
@d1 Aaand got blocked for my (I think very reasonable) response (or the other one) by D1. 🤷♂️
I mean, how thin skinned can people be? First replying with a diatribe on the problems of hardware attestation and then 5 mins later without waiting for a reply, blocking.
Already makes me regret wasting my time talking to them. Which is likely the purpose of such a block.
I wonder, why one would then not add "I don't like to talk with poeple" to their profile.
One of the features I'd like to add to my #NomadNet fork is the ability for the user to change the default keymap. Unfortunately, with the way the code is organised, this would be a rather involved change. I'm sure I could do it, but then it would be a tremendous PITA to keep my fork in sync with the upstream repo. #reticulum
@circfruit there is already a search in announces!
searching in nomadnet pages would be useful indeed! hopefully it can be the same logic sometimes afterwards to also search into the conversations! that would be _extremely_ useful to me!.but... one step at a time! congrats on your current achievement! ;)
@circfruit No, it's only searching the text of the currenty open page, much like pressing ctrl+f in a typical browser. The ctrl+f keybinding was already taken, so I settled on alt+f instead.
I was able to find the function that turns Micron markup into widgets to be rendered in the browser. This enabled me to pop a shim in there that I can use to edit the markup before passing it to the function. I'm thinking of doing something simple, like putting bold tags around instances of the selected text. A bit of a crude solution perhaps, but it gets the job (at least partially) done.
Considering I'm working in an unfamiliar codebase and an unfamiliar language, I'm happy with my progress so far.
As I think more about it, don't think this shim approach is the right one. Sure, I can mutate the markup before passing it to the rendering function, but if I just go adding tags all willy nilly (e.g.: inside of an existing link tag) things can go very wrong. In order to tell whether or not it's safe to alter a piece of markup, I'd need to first parse the markup to do it.
I'm now thinking it's best instead to add an additional optional search_text argument to the parser and make edits to its code directly instead, a tricker approach, but less likely to blow up in my face.
Okay, the parser is a giant mass of code, but I've got my edits mostly working now. I expect this feature will be done within a day or so now. #reticulum #NomadNet
Couldn't sleep with this thing so close to finished, so I just kept hammering away at it until I got it working. I'm going to play around with it a little in the morning to be sure I've not missed anything important, but it looks like my #NomadNet client now has a working "find in page" feature, even if it's slightly janky.
Next on the docket is fixing a bug that causes my client to crash when I try to edit a backbone interface config. I'm 99% certain I know what the problem is, and it shouldn't be difficult to fix. I doubt if I'll have to change more than one line.
...except if the exception gets thrown inside the rendering engine. Then it gets caught and the error message is displayed in the browser... but without a stack trace. Good thing I'm (hopefully) done with my edits to that part of the code. #reticulum #NomadNet
This is the thing I never understand about these movies: if everyone just suddenly vanished, shouldn't there be multi-car pile-ups and planes falling from the sky? #monsterdon
I've just started getting three month refills, hurrah!
Even with that, I would recommend checking the FDA Drug Shortage[1] list about a month before each refill. I've seen various ADHD meds listed there, though not yet the ones prescribed to me.
These Waymo and robo taxis are terribly expensive. The vehicle is $100,000+, you need a big lot for charging and cleaning, all these programmers for the software and billion dollar data centers.
Why don't we give a person a $20,000 used car and a radio, have a person with a phone in your city. You call the phone person, request a ride, they radio the driver to pick you up and give you a ride to your destination. Much cheaper and lots of local jobs. #robotaxi #waymo
the people who are operating a technology that hit its fundamental limits a couple years ago and any progress since has been a patchwork of slapped on systems to vaguely correct errors are advocating for an AI development slow down
but it's not because their technology has plateaued or anything
"of course the technology is developing less quickly now we all agreed to an AI development slow down because we were afraid we would develop AGI too quickly and it would be a skynet situation not so we can justify why our dead end tech isn't progressing"
as a side note i bet they also want to IPO before software development houses realize that letting agents write their code means they now own a mountain of tech debt they'll have to get real humans in to remediate and start going public about it
A guy goes in for a job interview. His resume looks good, and it's going well, so the interviewer starts giving him some of the standard questions and gets to "What would you say your greatest weakness is?"
"Oh, that's easy - I'm too honest with people."
"I don't think that sounds like much of a weakness."
This is my job right now but I'm working with an agency so I can't really diss the agency's previous guys to the client, which is probably why I'm posting about my frustrations here.
My current view is that Claude is an incredibly powerful tool for generating cruft.
This entry was edited (Sunday, September 13, 2026, 7:10 PM)
a question I'd love for a competent journalist to ask the Anthropic C-levels is why they are choosing to go for an IPO, which comes with a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders whose priorities are purely profit, when it contrasts so heavily with their Responsible Scaling Policy - a key brand distinguisher they've been pushing since day one - whose core premise is responsible development over short-term profit.
- their burn rate have caught up to them, the recent navier-stokes stunt alone cost 10s of millions in a week, with little return for investors.
- much cheaper chinese models have been on their tails, as there are no fundamental advantage in their technology, competition erode profit, and give cloud services providers all the cuts.
- feds are likely going to raise interest rate due to high inflation, money would be harder to come by, even for them.
this is the critical insight. Each 1% increase in functionality is requiring a logarithmic increase in training compute, and they can't pay for the current operational expenses let alone the training compute.
The tech lords are lying about their motive. The S curve on AI adoption is at 50% and they will only get another double from here.
So the LLM arms race needs to cool off a lot.
This is about survival and putting a fig leaf on it. But it won't stop the inevitable popping of the bubble. Too much supply, too little real demand. Sam loses money on every free user, and he has the most freeloaders because that is what he wanted.
i dont know why they want to slow down but also buy all the existent memory, gpu, etc... they are creating massive problems for what? I dont understand their logic
Now that I've successfully made some small tweaks to my fork of #NomadNet. I'm working on adding a conspicuously absent feature to search the text of the open page in the browser for a user-supplied string.
I've been informed that this has been an oft-requested feature that nobody has currently found the time to work on. Considering I've never really worked on a large #Python project before, I'm happy with the progress I'm making so far.
The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.
Hi, I'm Nat. I draw silly, little comics about my life and things I find important. I'd like to give the Fediverse a try because I'm tired of fighting predatory social media, algorithms, and poop-faces of tech bros.
Let's hang out and be nice to each other. #Introduction
Welcome to the fediverse. I have heard the comic enthusiasts have cookie exchanges. Unfortunately I don’t know the secret password or the hashtag. #cookieexchange, #teatime, #benice
-welcome to SuperFantastic-Elephantastic Mastadon says me.Where all have Poop-Faced Zuck powers after a tutorial, or two(the Newswags of this world said it was sunscreen, and not seabird poop face syndrome while kitesurfing? Somewhere on the leeward side of Naked Penis Island). Assumng the Artist that produced that Strong wave hello from a character I want to know is also strong…Welcome says I… sometimes it’s good read the words…sometmes ‘tis better to write ‘em. And to draw divine.
welcome to fedi! Your data is safe in the hands of trans cat girls and you can literally backup your account with a usb! Also I see you're on mastodon.social which is most people's first choice. At any time you can switch instances by making a new account on there and importing your bookmarks followers and all that shit! If you have any questions let me know. I've been on here for a while.
Hello, person on the internet! I’m a person on the internet! 🎀😊
My instance is clunky, but such a dynamic is infinitely preferable to the ads, tracking, and arbitrary rules of big social media platforms. It’s honestly a reminder to touch grass and look at stars a little more often.
I’m also an artist, flower/astronomy/particle accelerator/bridge/roller coaster enthusiast, and chronic reposter. Poems and shitposts get in there pretty often.
I run u3acommunities.org (notably giving talks for the computing group which I run) and also the fediverse site u3a.social. All not-for-profit.
Oddly, I suppose, whilst I give talks on how generative AI works, I've long since concluded that I just don't want to use it ... ie the cons far outweight the pros.
But this stance does leave me with an issue ... I can't draw to save my life but yet my slides do need some decent graphics from time-to-time.
@plord Hi Pete! I find Canva and similar tools great for simple designs, even in the free tier. I use it in my daily work when I need to make pictures for blogs, etc., because it's fast and has many cool templates.
I also used Freepik, but I see now that it has been bought and gated behind a subscription. Oh well 😭
Welcome to the fediverse. 😀. #AltText and #Hashtags are very important. Choosing relevant hashtags means you can amplify the reach of your posts -- I found you because I follow #Introduction... And followed you as a result. Easy Peasy! 😀
@JustinDerrick hashtags are the secret sauce here since we have no "helpful" commercial controllers prompting us eg. no algorithms. A lot of people (including me) will not boost images without alt text, so those are important as well.
thePluff the point isn’t tough. Silly isn’t willy-nilly And to be nice Is more than the price.
Don’t expect much feedback. But that isn’t the track. To have fun is the right stuff. What’ll you get is more than enough.
The trolls are drolls, to be sure. But here your works will endure. I’m autistic. I don’t understand why the trolls demand that to hate is to be great.
Offer what you have And let the salve be that you’re doing what is possible.
Limited our time is. The cola fizz is To do what is possible.
LOL your works are LOL your works be Between you and me That is great, mate. Do what is possible.
I've really been enjoying nomadnet, but I've found some rough edges here and there. I know that Mark isn't in a position to be taking bug reports/feature reque...
@PocketVJ aka magdesign I kept the originals intact as well. I didn't want to break anyone's UX. Also, my understanding is that if a keybinding is handled by the OS (or terminal emulator) it won't be passed on to the application.
@Michel 🪱 Fortunately things are named well enough that I can mostly work out what everything does. He has made some... interesting choices though. I want to do a bit of a refactor and have offered to send my changes upstream for review. I know he's not doing feature requests these days, but nothing stops me from implementing changes and fixes, even if only in a private fork.
Just saw a YouTube video where a guy took some wood ash, water, and a bunch of other common ingredients and made soap with it. That's cool and all, but then he said it was "chemical free".
Setting aside my typical argument about how a "chemical free" product is objective nonsense... my dude, you literally just made lye, which is a pretty harsh chemical.
> Setting aside my typical argument about how a "chemical free" product is objective nonsense
... which would be willfully missing the point since there's an implied 'industrial', or maybe 'petroleum-derived', before any such usage of 'chemical'. As with software freedom, the point being local reproducibility. But I'm sure you knew that. Moving on ...
> you literally just made lye, which is a pretty harsh chemical
True that. Fight Club has a pretty good demonstration of just how harsh.
... which would be willfully missing the point since there's an implied 'industrial', or maybe 'petroleum-derived', before any such usage of 'chemical'.
The fact that you had to add "or maybe" demonstrstes my point there. I hate imprecise language. It causes unnecessary confusion, but I digress...
> I hate imprecise language. It causes unnecessary confusion
Fair enough. But jargon is a standard feature of English. Many words and phrases have specific meanings in particular contexts. If the context is ignore, then a lot of language use will seem much more imprecise than it actually is.
Eg 'industrial' is commonly used as shorthand for 'powered by or derived from fossil fuels' in environmentalist discourse. Assuming a more general definition, prunes meaning from the discourse.
This is one of the many reasons why the Titter-style microposting medium was probably a bad idea.
A group of people who are familiar with each other can use jargon terms in context, and add clarification when they know some participants are new to their specialist usage. When the potential reader is 'anyone', context collapse is inevitable.
@Strypey Yeah, perhaps the problem in this case is me. I have a habit of taking the things people say too literally (reason number 423 that I think I may be on the spectrum).
The book is said to be able to open a portal to another world. I don't believe this, but I'm not going to fuck around with it... because reasons. #monsterdon
White nationalists are always allowed to "protest" without being arrested or called terrorists and that's how you know which side the government is on.
#Introduction
" title="
"/> 
Virgile Andreani
in reply to pixelfed • • •