• 1 Post
  • 1.3K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 3rd, 2023

help-circle
  • It is absolutely stupid, stupid to the tune of “you shouldn’t be a decision maker”, to think an LLM is a better use for “getting a quick intro to an unfamiliar topic” than reading an actual intro on an unfamiliar topic. For most topics, wikipedia is right there, complete with sources. For obscure things, an LLM is just going to lie to you.

    As for “looking up facts when you have trouble remembering it”, using the lie machine is a terrible idea. It’s going to say something plausible, and you tautologically are not in a position to verify it. And, as above, you’d be better off finding a reputable source. If I type in “how do i strip whitespace in python?” an LLM could very well say “it’s your_string.strip()”. That’s wrong. Just send me to the fucking official docs.

    There are probably edge or special cases, but for general search on the web? LLMs are worse than search.







  • If more people had a backbone and spoke out / refused to implement shitty stuff, this wouldn’t happen.

    Thus, it’s more than just the web developers 😄 . Product needs to have a backbone to stand up to their boss, too. I fought really hard to get rid of the mouse tunnels at that job, but was blocked by product and one of the directors of eng. It was mostly [office] political nonsense

    Also, many design choices are entirely on the web developer.

    Not at most of the companies I’ve worked out. There’s a design person or team. Eng can give feedback, but it’s pretty rare for them to be given a blank check.

    I’m not gonna change my opinion until websites become usable again, you’re wasting your time on me.

    That’s fine. Some web developers are morons, but some of everyone are morons. We can partially agree.


  • Most web developers are morons in the sense that most people are morons. They’re not especially moronic.

    A lot of problems on the web aren’t coming from the developers. They’re management pushing for stuff.

    Like, at an old company the UI had really bad mouse tunnels (mouse over menus and sub menus that close if you mouse out). Terrible interface. But someone in management liked it and no one would approve changing it. Easy to look at it and say we’re all morons, but most of the stupid there was from leadership.


  • Capitalism is a root cause. Let’s get rid of that, or if that’s too extreme that severely regulate it.

    Jail all of Facebook’s decision makers. Seize it (investors get nothing), and either shut it down or revert it to a simple message board. Require moderators. Ban the trash (eg: sovereign citizens groups). Remember that time they tried to see if they could make people sad by changing the algorithm? Find those people and ruin them.

    Pay labor more. Work them less. I’d just do basic income, personally.

    Make more walkable spaces. Fuck car culture. You don’t meet anyone when you drive. Everywhere could have local spots where you see regulars.

    More free public events. Brooklyn does “movies under the stars”. There’s also like yoga classes, bird watching, concerts. More of that.

    Offer free education for anyone who applies in good faith. Offer classes on a range of subjects, but honestly I think a lot of people would benefit from lessons and practice on “how to talk to people” and public speaking.

    Kind of a ramble. But I think if you leave capitalism in place, you’re going to have problems. “Everything has to make the owners as much money as possible, immediately” isn’t a formula for a good life.










  • You said that most laws require intent.

    I said that strict liability exists. This was admittedly, a nitpick.

    You did an on sequitur about how the US has a police problem, and said “These aren’t normal laws in other countries fyi.”. I took that to imply the concept of strict liability doesn’t exist in other laws, but maybe you meant something else. Maybe you meant it’s not common?

    I then pointed out that the concept originated in Britain. You said “If it originated there, why doesn’t Canada have it lmfao.”, which is factually incorrect as far as I can tell. Canada has a concept of strict liability.

    You then said,

    Not for sex offenders like pissing in public, of course it exists in other areas of law, but those aren’t applicable to all other areas.

    Ignoring what feels like a moving goal post, maybe this reveals where we diverged. Maybe you thought I was saying all laws are strict liability? I wasn’t.

    The most famous example of strict liability is statutory rape. This is off topic from guys pissing in a parking lot (though I wouldn’t be surprised if ICE goons do other crimes). https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/statutory-rape.html

    As most statutory rape laws appear as “strict liability” offenses, this limits the amount of legal defenses available to someone accused.

    The link I provided was a wikipedia article is clearly not an exhaustive answer of all things on the topic. If you do click through to the criminal article, it does mention a case. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal)

    Anyway, this is a pointless, unpleasant, argument.