Even if they didn't make a fair point (and I think they do), I would prefer their pedantry to your palpable contempt by a large margin. I mean "palpable" literally. My body is tenser and my heart more sad having experienced the voice you just used on that person.
In particular, the PG essay contains exactly one designed-to-be-quoted pat-yourself-on-the-back really-send-it-home-ism:
> Informal language is the athletic clothing of ideas.
This entire link is nothing but those. I don't feel like I'm being spoken to, let alone taught to. I feel like I'm being repeatedly poked with a finger that really wants me to know it has punchy ideas. Which backfires, ofc.
Really rewarding keyboard UX on this. Typing felt great. I couldn't figure out how to shuffle or give up via the keyboard. Shuffle with escape would make sense.
The organizers of the No Kings rallies have done infinitely more to achieve political change in the United States than online commentators who make fun of them for being insufficiently cool and edgy. Effective activism is not about feeling superior to the normies who have families and are busy on weekdays.
They've convinced Democratic political leadership that they must fight Trump wholeheartedly, and convinced most of the country that Trump is a bad president who's failing to effectively address any problems. More change will be possible after the next election, when Trump's severe unpopularity causes the Trumpists lose control of Congress.
I just finished a video game called 1000xResist this afternoon. There's a lot going on, to say the least - a sci-fi story involving an alien virus, intergenerational trauma, what it's like to be an outsider. It's a hell of a ride, one where certain moments resonated in a way I'll think about for a long time to come.
One of the dynamics is that a character's parents, both of whom protested in Hong Kong during the Umbrella Movement, left for Canada in the wake of the crackdowns wanting to start a family. At a moment when both of the parents are tired and feeling regret, one of them asks why they left, why they bothered to protest, and if those actions had any meaning if the PRC wound up winning control anyway. The other says this:
> ...if we stayed silent? Didn't stand up for ourselves? They would say this is how it always was. They would say this is what the people wanted. But no. They can't say that. Because it has gone down in history that we resisted fiercely. That we fought for a different future until we couldn't.
I admit: ultimately, that statement doesn't mean anything quantifiable - in fact, it kind of states the exact opposite, which is not the most convincing on a site like this. Still, I think there is truth in it: even if the protests don't have a quantifiable number associated with them, people see them, and know that they happened.
Ultimately that may or may not matter; it may just be a sentiment lost in the wind, or papered over by the victors. But it's still _something_.
Measuring the influence of any mass protest movement is hard because they don’t have a formal role in the political system. We’ll never be able to know a counterfactual of what would have happened had they not taken place. If someone wants to take the position that No Kings, yellow vests, Occupy Wall Street, etc. were all equally pointless, I don’t think I have a strong counterargument to that.
What I see much more often is people who think only the latter two movements were good. And I’m not sure what heuristic could possibly get you there other than generalized opposition to normies.
Stop spreading misinformation. They were found guilty by a jury of their peers of providing material support for terrorism[1]. They shot a cop in the neck.
They coordinated on Signal to bring firearms. They didn't plan to "protest".
They got off lightly. Should have been life without parole.
Afaik there is not a single invader in Russian lands. And nobody was threatening to invade, especially after Napoleon and Hitler demonstrated invading Russia is suicide.
If it messes up other things, they're inaccessible. Mostly it makes everything that respects it much more pleasant to use. IIRC things that don't respect it will use their 'normal' animations and that is what it is... unlike disabling animation in Android with developer tools, that removes almost all animations, but breaks a meaningful amount of software that monitors animation to trigger behavior... You can get stuck in pages where the animation done never fired.
I regret not signing up for Discord when they first introduced facial recognition and middle schoolers were trivially spoofing their ID checks with meme pics.
There's really something to be said for greedily signing up for most things and trying to get grandfathered before the zipcuffs tighten.
IRL, though, fuck this. Home depot added flock cams and broad facial recognition, grocery store installed turnstiles, haven't stepped foot in either since. I'm just dropping out of the IRL retail economy left and right.
If you watch the video (which is classic and the real content here), the lawyer cedes the second half to a career detective, who agrees with him in full.
What happened was the set of available moves and rewards has incrementally changed. What has not changed is that nerds are humans, and humans are terrible at resisting increases in status, power, wealth, etc. If the glorified nerds of the past had been offered the same roads to status and power, they would have taken them.
This reminds me of the way people think of the olden days when stuff was made of real wood and metal as "we had integrity! people built things to last!", projecting intentionality and generosity onto to the same machinery that built agent orange or rube goldberg machines for cigarette smoke to avoid liability for killing millions of people. We didn't build things out of metal because we had integrity, we did it because we didn't yet have advanced petroleum-derived plastics and shit. If they did, they'd have done that instead.
Reminds me of the difference between "peaceful" (capable of harm, electing not to be harmful) and "harmless" (incapable of harm even if you wanted to). I think it's a mistake to imagine the nerds of the past as peaceful. In terms of status, power acquisition, etc, they were harmless. Had you handed them the tools and understanding of today, they'd have acted no different, IMO.
Humans are good at resisting things outside their comfort zones. Strong incentives select for people who don't have to leave their comfort zones to pursue them.
Most of the nerds I knew when I was young were nerds because they valued their interests more than the "boring mundane stuff" around wealth, status, and power. Some of them changed their minds later, but most of them didn't. Once you start seeing yourself as a "person interested in X", it gets difficult to become something else.
This is pretty insightful. You might or not become interested in spectating sports at a young age. Once you define yourself as a sports fan, or indifferent to sports, it's very hard to change attitude.
It's even simpler than that IMO. There are still nerds creating things out of love for creating something useful and clean, but as soon as it becomes successful, the smell of (potential) money attracts parasites, and they will eventually enshittificate the clean and useful thing if they get the chance, as they do with everything else.
It's the equivalent of the cycle of life: birth, maturity, decay, and death.
Enshittification can only happen in case of the centralized architecture like one in Twitter, Facebook and co. It's not happening in Mastodon or Matrix - and this is where the nerds are.
'Real techies don’t worry about forced eugenics. I learned this from a real techie in the cafeteria of a software company. The project team is having lunch and discussing how long it would take to wipe out a disease inherited recessively on the X chromosome. First come calculations of inheritance probabilities. Given a population of a given size, one of the engineers arrives at a wipe-out date. Immediately another suggests that the date could be moved forward by various manipulations of the inheritance patterns. For example, he says, there could be an education campaign. The six team members then fall over one another with further suggestions. They start with rewards to discourage carriers from breeding. Immediately they move to fines for those who reproduce the disease. Then they go for what they call “more effective” measures: Jail for breeding. Induced abortion. Forced sterilization. Now they’re hot. The calculations are flying. Years and years fall from the final doom-date of the disease. Finally, they get to the ultimate solution. “It’s straightforward,” someone says. “Just kill every carrier.” Everyone responds to this last suggestion with great enthusiasm. One generation and—bang—the disease is gone. Quietly, I say, “You know, that’s what the Nazis did.” They all look at me in disgust. It’s the look boys give a girl who has interrupted a burping contest. One says, “This is something my wife would say.” When he says “wife,” there is no love, warmth, or goodness in it. In this engineer’s mouth, “wife” means wet diapers and dirty dishes. It means someone angry with you for losing track of time and missing dinner. Someone sentimental. In his mind (for the moment), “wife” signifies all programming-party-pooping, illogical things in the universe. Still, I persist. “It started as just an idea for the Nazis, too, you know.” The engineer makes a reply that sounds like a retch. “This is how I know you’re not a real techie,” he says.'
completely agree re: the average human, of any time period, with the same options, will make roughly the same choices - especially in the face of powerful incentives.
the tl;dr though of my article is that, DESPITE these absurdly attractive short-term incentives, it is in each individual company's best interest as well as the best interest of the tech industry as a whole to return to the public narrative of nerd values: passion for niche interests, obsessive, loving relationship w/ one's intellectual work, and humility re: talking about yourself/being 'in the spotlight'. the Founders' Fund MAFIA video in particular was a bad move because it ran counter to the idea, however delusional, that founders would prefer to spend time on their work than being influencers.
It is hard. Much harder than regular software work. A few things need to line up: model iteration speed, task chunk size, and your own context window and comprehension abilities. Too slow and you lose interest. Too easy and it's just tedious riffing. Too large and you're burned out by reviewing giant complicated walls of text. Etc. The bites have to be the right size and speed for both you and the LLM.
In the few instances I've been able to achieve really joyful flow state, there are usually two simultaneous workstreams, plus or minus one. They're usually working towards a large goal that I roughly know how to judge, in digestible bites.
For example, sequentially modifying the UI in a series of operations towards an overarching goal, where it's easy to tell if a step worked, and what the next step should be, but where you're not sure exactly what you want, so there's some curiosity and discovery rather than just feeding the bot tiny instructions. I try to keep the two workstreams from overlapping. If both streams start fighting over a file they both dirty, things go south fast.
Adjusting your prefs/harness/etc for model terseness goes a LONG way. Context quality is absolutely everything. A good context "seed" can go back and forth for many turns cleanly and with focus, and even compact successfully once or twice. A bad seed will be annoying to work with from the jump, will thrash towards compaction faster, at which point it gets even worse. This is difficult to troubleshoot objectively, but I'll frequently restart conversations if I don't like the vibe of the first couple turns. It's made harder by constant model churn. Until opus 4.8, I ran opus/sonnet 4.5 high for a long time in large part for continuity of intuition, if that makes sense.
There are also many elements of human knowledge management that make a difference. I've found "append only" to be a magic word, generating markdown logs of changes, or learnings, etc. Whatever workflows create visibility and resumability so that you can return from a spell away and get up to speed effectively. Manually keeping your own dev log alongside the session sometimes helps, makes things sticky and ensures you understand what's happening.
But it's hard. Feels incredible when it goes well, but going well feels very nearly random, and whittling towards reproducibility can be very mentally draining, in terms of both energy and morale.
