BitSound @ BitSound @lemmy.world

Posts

6

Comments

293

Joined

2 yr. ago

Interesting. I've heard the iterated animal jokes like that, and I've also heard the brick jokes, but never both of them together. I like it. Unfortunately I've never heard other jokes in the same vein.

"Ok class, for the rest of the semester, we're going to use the C89 standard".

I forgot the return 0; at the end of my main function and lost points on a test. Decided to be a point slut to ensure an A in the class and argued that it's allowed in the C99 standard. The professor sighed and gave me back my points, but next class specified the exact standard he was grading by.

That's a great way to push back internally. "Oh you know Google, always killing things. Why should we waste the effort? This'll just end up on https://killedbygoogle.com/"

Yeah. This project doesn't go down as far as hardware, but it did take pains to make it as difficult as possible to extend it in bad ways: https://gemini.circumlunar.space/

I wouldn't count on that. Web devs aren't going to push for this, it'll be the suits that have some dumb automated "security" tool tell them they need to enable it or they'll get hacked.

There will always be a cat and mouse game where some people figure out clever ways around this, but I wouldn't count on it being as easy as installing an addon. Sites could start requiring a specific attester that requires that you run their rootkit malware to spy on your entire OS and only supports a few popular OSes. Thanks to projects like TPM, your own hardware could be working against you.

As usual, Stallman predicted the world that large companies would like to drag us into: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html

Definitely agree. Posting an inline image wouldn't be so bad, but a link to some social media site is 👎

It's a big threat because once it's easy to block unapproved browsers, lots of people will do it. Yeah, there will always be a few weirdos like us that don't enable it, but just imagine when it's your bank, your insurance company, your government, and most every linked-to page on Lemmy. You'll be forced to use Chrome to interact with large parts of the internet then.

Here's a better link that doesn't even need an archive.is link:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/24/rent-to-pwn/

Kind of ironic to talk about enshittification on medium, that's currently going through the process of enshittification. At least he's got his writing on his regular site as well.

I'm a little unclear on why the license change would help monetization. Wouldn't an MIT license allow big companies to just use it and not pay?

I've been following this closely. Out of all the SQL replacements I've seen, I think this has the best chance at succeeding, since it transpiles easily to SQL and it's not tied to any particular DB or tool.

Not sure about syncing, but I use Aegis on Android and it works well

This seems really short-sighted. Why would I go to How Stuff Works when I can just ask the LLM myself?

Maybe there's just no possible business model for them anymore with the advent of LLMs, but at least if they focused on the "actually written by humans!" angle there'd be some hook to draw people in.

You got pretty downvoted here, but I think we'll see this happen within a few years. It already exists in a basic form with projects like AI Dungeon. It's "just" a matter of marrying that to some nice graphics.

Right, I quoted a bit from the whole-ass Wikipedia page on Singular they in my response to you. I'm aware that there's multiple usages, and have said as much in my replies to you. I'm not sure what your point is.

Sure, that's a great discussion to have, and I'm glad you spelled it out well. I just dislike people trying to claim that using "they" to refer to a specific, known individual is "nothing new because Shakespeare did it". He didn't, and it muddies the waters of the conversation to spread falsehoods like that.

See my other comments in this thread, but Shakespeare did not use singular they to refer to a specific, known person. That is a new invention.

Sorry, I thought your question was asked in good faith. I'm commenting because the claim that Shakespeare used singular they to refer to a known, specific individual is factually incorrect. I don't know the entire history of singular they, but I do have access to wikipedia just like you. It says 'In the early 21st century, use of singular they with known individuals emerged for people who do not identify as male or female, as in, for example, "This is my friend, Jay. I met them at work."' Does that answer your question?

Your Kelly example is similarly confusing. The "engineer" example is also confusing, but because English already conflates those two meanings, I at least know that I'm parsing a confusable sentence and can pick up on context clues.

If I were writing that, I'd say "Yeah well, that engineer don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about." The "they're" is then not confusing at all.

I'm not sure, and I'd be interested in reading more from someone that actually has done their research and doesn't claim that Shakespeare used singular they in that manner

Those are dumb fucking patents. I hope Google fights this to the end and gets them invalidated.