Pup Biru

this is done in australia, and sure… but… it’s pegged to CPI (among other things: they do a review and release a report every year) which is literally the cost of groceries (like not just 1), so… go ahead and manipulate the price of groceries down. i’ll wait

https://www.fairwork.gov.au/about-us/workplace-laws/annual-wage-review/annual-wage-review-2026

and this is why minimums should be pegged to some cost of living measure so they constantly adjust

it’s tricky though… this used to be exactly the rules until they removed a huge number of requirements for .au domains, and it helped to curb squatting. it wasn’t a perfect solution, but they number of squatted .au domains since the change has shot way up

to properly solve the issue of squatting, you can’t grandfather domains otherwise already squatted domains would be held probably for even longer because they can’t cheaply pick up more

you can probably introduce more rules with words like “primary business purpose” etc, but auDA just doesn’t have the resources to really litigate all the grey areas that’d introduce

but for sure if “registered business name” doesn’t including trading as names and things like ad campaigns then that’s incorrect

unlikely if you install from official repos, but it’s a more common occurrence installing random debs or curl totallylegit.ru | bash…. or… installing from rpms :p (which if something only ships via rpm is likely to be enterprise and targeting RHEL rather than fedora, so super old and a non-trivial chance of random patches to libraries)

i’m noticing the “-worssos“ suffix on the right and that doesn’t make any sense! we’re far better off now! not worse off!

in their defence (which they deserve only a little of, but it’s worth it for the understanding) their whole country beats them down so much that they barely have the energy to think about the next roadblock in front of them. they have to be active participants in defence of their life, daily

lots of them voted for that, but even that is often because they’re brainwashed af since they’re born

is art more the ability to draw or the idea the image expresses?

is art the ability to buy a toilet or a banana and gaffer tape, or the idea behind putting a sign on a toilet in a gallery, or taping a banana to a wall?

ai art is shit not because people can’t draw. ai art is shit because there’s more often than not very little thought put into the comment behind the image

the creation of ai art is problematic because of the source training data, and the economic and environmental damage that ai data centres are causing… but those things aren’t inherent to the medium (adobes image gen for example - as awful as adobe is - was 100% trained on media that they own and paid for licenses for. it’s still damaging in other ways, but i could imagine efficiency improvements that make this part less problematic too)

furries are vehemently opposed to beastiality - probably more so than the general public even - and raise a lot of money for animal-based charity

i think illegal wars is more “they deserve it and i’m glad someone’s finally taking care of the situation” … which is starkly different to the pre-war opinion: “wars cost money and that’s my taxes”

you’re right. he is dense as fuck so probably a fish problem

consciousness is less relevant… a paperclip making ai doesn’t need consciousness to convert the world into paperclips

self improvement without a human in the loop is legitimately close, and once that happens it’s possible we lose control and alignment becomes incredibly difficult (alignment with human values is inefficient, so removing that barrier is low hanging fruit)

viruses also aren’t conscious or even definitively alive, but because they can effect the world on their own (which ai now can too to some degree), they can negatively impact us because they’re not aligned with the things we’d like

and on consciousness too, if you believe our brain is just chemical and electrical processes and there’s nothing more, we are just a big statistics machine, so there’s nothing technically stopping some program from being conscious, and in that case it’s kinda the “million monkeys at a million typewriters” situation… if AI speeds up AI development then things get exponential, and when you speed things up 1,000,000x who’s to say it doesn’t stumble onto a solution - it doesn’t even have to look anything like current models in that case… in 32 seconds it’ll have (theoretically; i’m not saying that’s possible or anything) completed a years worth of improvement, and models from a year ago were significantly less capable

there’s also emergent behaviour, and plenty of other weird things (heck LLMs in general are kinda emergent behavour… we didn’t think that simply increasing size would lead to the structure and behaviour that we see)

the mechanical loom isn’t analogous to LLMs exactly, but the current generation of AI also includes things like self driving vehicles, which (whilst not ready) is, imo, set to make a huge portion of the logistics industry redundant in the next 20-30 years if not sooner, and the logistics industry is enormous

china having human rights abuses is not an argument against retraining people when technology starts to make jobs redundant

the luddites were taylors and the like fighting against being replaced by machines for various reasons, including child labour, low wages for machine operators, and low quality product

imo child labour laws are the way to solve the first problem: that’s, imo, unrelated to industrialisation/mechanisation

lower wages are a product of lowering the barrier to entry: when anyone can do the same job, that is not a bad thing… it’s sad that an industry of people are pushed out of their profession, but we’d never say the same of coal: coal miners should realise that their industry is not going to exist any more, and retrain,… i have empathy for them, which is why we need to provide social programs to cover industries that get made redundant for any reason, but that’s not a reason to deny the rest of humanity the plenty that inevitably comes from industrialisation

and low quality product is only really an issue at the very start of industrialisation… i guarantee these days we can make higher quality clothing in 100x the quantity than we can with artisans and hand stitching… machines always get better, but only if there’s effort put into using them

yeah… as i said, they had a point in the moment

in 2026 we have retraining programs and social security programs… these are the solutions to industrialisation; not ignorance… the longer you fight industrialisation the harder it hits because rather than happening gradually it happens all at once and society has a harder time absorbing it

the “article” that doesn’t mention luddites at all until a comment at the end that kinda agrees with what i’m saying or the wikipedia article that points out the luddites issues being about labour and generally being replaced by machines? i know very well the nuance of the luddite movement and their main good points, as i said, were about labour issues (mostly solved with labour laws on modern society) and the takeaway isn’t about technology but about how to deal with technology replacing people’s jobs

replacing artisans with machines that do a good enough or better job is a good thing, as painful as it is… it means more people get more of the thing… artisans instead of machines is a waste… humans are the most inefficient general machine we have… having a human make clothing is a cost on society

an LLM frequently writes shit tests… you’re just moving the architecture problem: either you properly understand and review the initial code, which means you catch not just binary “correct input/output” but also performance, layout, DRY, style, heaps of things

OR

you properly review the tests because “passing” doesn’t mean tested

i definitely agree, but plenty leading to waste doesn’t mean that plenty is a bad thing

having enough food to not worry about food waste is definitively a good problem to have. ideally we don’t have food waste because we don’t have enough food for everyone, but just because plenty leads to waste at least initially isn’t an argument against plenty

pillowtine

i’d say it’s not quite like a compiler because you still need to know what the code does… a compiler you largely don’t care, and it’s deterministic… an LLM hallucinates, so you can’t just trust it, which means you have to be able to assess when it’s doing the wrong thing

i agree that setting an agent going helping you learn a codebase is reasonable, largely because it can quickly point out connections in the code quicker than you can understand the architecture, and its guesses are usually just as good as your guesses until you get knowledgeable with the codebase

however, and that’s a very load-bearing however, i don’t think you should just jump into a codebase and just go ahead and tell the LLM to write new code without understanding what it’s done… the understanding is exactly what this graph is trying to show: actually learning is critical, so your review of the code becomes doubly important: you’re gaining institutional knowledge, and you’re making sure the output isn’t slop