They don't understand anything, but they sure can repeat a pattern.
I'm using Claude Code to work on something involving a declarative UI DSL that wraps a very imperative API. Its first pass at adding a new component required imperative management of that component's state. Without that implementation in context, I told Claude the imperative pattern "sucks" and asked for an improvement just to see how far that would get me.
A human developer familiar with the codebase would easily understand the problem and add some basic state management to the DSL's support for that component. I won't pretend Claude understood, but it matched the pattern and generated the result I wanted.
This does suggest to me that a language spec and a handful of samples is enough to get it to produce useful results.
The Mastodon model does not offer much ability to delete. Well-behaved servers will honor delete requests, but the protocol doesn't mandate it. Additionally, a user cannot generate delete requests if they get banned from their server or the server shuts down. Users and server admins can't control whether another server permits archiving of their content. Mastodon and other fediverse software allows following public posts by RSS, and RSS clients might keep them forever.
The only reasonable understanding is that these protocols are for for publishing to the public. It is not possible to reliably retract anything published to thousands of other peoples' computers. We used to try to teach people that the internet is forever, and that's even more true with federated protocols. That doesn't make them a bad idea.
You can save all of anything someone makes public with ATProto, ActivityPub, or RSS. You can do that with anything someone puts on a web page too, but those protocols simplify automation.
I understand why people want to be able to delete things from the internet, but it doesn't work that way. It has never worked that way. It can't work that way unless every computer is locked down to running remotely attested government-approved software, and that's obviously worse.
ATProto won't be this way for much longer. Permissioned data is coming and will not be broadcast or accessible without grants. This will sit next to the public data, but separate.
How do you think about Google Docs? I consider that "on the internet" since it is not on my computer. Same for private channels and threads in Discord.
Also, ATProto can be much more than social media tech, more like a plug-n-play distributed system
Are you serious? Y'all are so confused about what this is.
The entire point of services like Bluesky and Twitter is broadcasting your activity out to the internet for anyone to see (which of, course, is technically little-or-no different from "grab")
ATProto is not Bluesky, the later is just one app on the former. There are many more apps like Tangled, git on ATProto, which need private repositories.
You seem rather confused. I do not work for Bluesky. I am an independent developer building completely separate applications on ATProto.
Fair, I'm aware and I am conflating what people do with Bluesky and what ATProto can do. I absolutely do see the value in ATProto doing things that aren't "social media"
Or more precisely, it might. We now have a better idea of how people actually behave and it's not in accordance with "the internet is forever," and I have no interest in blaming them for 'human nature' in that way.
And it's all still dangerous. Again, I know the internet is forever, but someone else posting about ME might not.
This isn't an individual thing. It's "ecological."
And I have no interest in making Big Brother THAT MUCH EASIER to build.
This comment seems to be saying you don't want most people to do blog-like things. Most social media from Facebook to Youtube is blog-like if you squint.
It does seem like fewer people are posting personal content that way lately. Perhaps most people are better off sharing things one to one, or in small groups that are meant to stay private. That doesn't make it bad for the more public formats to exist; they're just not for everyone.
I think it's important to remember that decentralization is a barrier to having control over your data. If you're going to participate in these systems, you should treat everything you do as permanent, because by design you will not be in control of where that data is stored.
I had a camera with a field-sequential electronic viewfinder. Because it relies on persistence of vision to mix RGB colors, it could be pretty distracting if I moved my eye quickly, breaking the illusion, and I think it would be similarly annoying on a TV or computer display.
Tektronix built a lot of test equipment based on color-shutter CRTs in the 1990s. It was simultaneously nifty and awful. They could render rich, well-defined color waveforms, but as soon as you moved your eyes, the illusion would break apart into rainbow-colored fragments. It was like watching a movie on a DLP projector, only much worse.
Meanwhile, HP OEM'ed a bunch of Trinitron monitors from Sony and called it a day.
The obsession with control I find objectionable is not their decision not to enable emoji widely until support was stable. That's an obsession with polish, not control. The commitment to polish and self-restraint to not add features until they actually work well is something I've long appreciated about Apple.
The control part is blocking third-party apps to toggle the hidden setting. If you enable unsupported features using a third-party app, the expectation of polish is obviously void. It would even be fine if Apple refused to carry apps like that in their polished, curated store, if they didn't forbid users from installing apps any other way.
I think they were controlling the perception that third party apps could change your entire device settings. That was/still is something that iPhone users expect to be “safe”. As in, if I carelessly install an unknown app, it at least can’t do much harm and I can just delete it without having any real consequences. The existence of “hack apps” undermines that layman understanding of their device security
The problem with this is that it should be a permission the user needs to grant to the app rather than something that apps can never do under any circumstances even when the user explicitly wants them to. The latter is just the vendor declaring themselves by self-fiat to be immune from competition in the markets for those device software features.
The problem there is that the primary security mechanism is enumerating badness by policing what apps users can install. That's not nearly as robust as designing the sandbox so apps can't do much harm. If toggling the setting is really dangerous, which it wasn't in this case, it should have been impossible for an app to do without some sort of special access.
I also think users should be in control of granting or denying that kind of special access, but that's a separate discussion.
So then, was it the same thing waiting 5 years longer than most companies to have something as basic as wireless charging? Or waiting until 2023 to finally adopt USB C charging?
They waited to adopt USB-C for mobile because the trust third parties put into Apple was founded on the fact that they guaranteed ten years of support for Lightning and that’s why it was only iPhone that had accessories like clock radio docks and thermal cameras and external Lightning based peripherals for a long time.
It's the standard Apple "We will decide what you can run on your own computer, not you" paternalism that we have come to know and expect, and that they have perfected over the decades.
That wasn't the standard on the Mac, and looks like it still isn't. That platform has a strong tradition of utility apps that add to or modify core OS functions, and when I looked up "essential mac utilities" today, I found recent listicles with items like Alt Tab (an app switcher), Magnet (window management shortcuts), and TinkerTool (change hidden system settings - exactly like emoji toggles for iPhone).
I am not sure that ad blocking is enough now or in the future as fingerprinting is extremely hard to fight while keeping a convenient web experience. Of course, continue blocking for convenience, but for privacy, more robust solutions are needed. Try to beat this: https://fingerprint.com
Beginning to wonder if convenience is the root of all evil, and not money. Money's just a proxy for convenience.
More of us should learn to do things the hard way more often, and to be familiar with less-convenient things. There are life-changing advantages to doing things the hard way at least some of the time.
The root of all evil is that we don't have a functioning micro transaction network and we don't know how to build one.
For the user there is no way to pay the 0.0000001c that it takes to load a web page, for the web master there is no way to get paid the $10,000 it takes to serve the users. So we settled on advertising which can somewhat cover those costs since each individual add is basically worthless but an add campaign isn't.
And how do you actually identify who should pay that $0.000713? And who should receive it? How do you make the process effortless, so the user doesn't have to spend 5 minutes registering on a website, just to send $0.000713?
Now make it work 10,000 times per day, for every page you visit, posts, news, short form content you scroll, long form video you watch. And multiply this by billions of users.
And once you've done that, how do you deal with spam, bots? How do you prevent invalid traffic? Fraudulent chargebacks? And how do you take quality into consideration (NYT prob want to charge more than my crappy personal blog)?
Transferring money is one small element of large and complex equation.
Advertising is not perfect, but it's the best alternative for a free and open web I have seen in my 30+ years online. Subscription works for large ticket items (and for the affluent minority), but it doesn't solve the other 95% of cases.
I know it's a cliché, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. People forget, most evil is created by good people trying to do good. The biggest trick the devil played was making us all believe evil is (always) easy to identify. But all the sayings are about how the devil is sly, tricks you, and sneaks up on you. All of that is to remind us how hard it is to do good. You don't have to be an evil person to create evil. Often you don't have to do anything at all, as inaction is still an action. Pull the lever or not, you've still made a decision.
The problem is so complex that every action you take compounds and extends far beyond what you realize. Especially as we're living in such a connected world. Those ripples propagate through all the ponds we've connected together.
I don't think it's money, convenience, or any of that. I think it's just that the world is getting more and more complicated. That our actions and inactions have larger and larger effects. We've done a lot of good, but we've also made it a lot easier to feel the flapping of a butterfly's wings on the other side of the planet.
You ask me to prove something essentially unprovable. Prove to me that most evil is created by people trying to do evil. It'll be equally as difficult to prove as you can't look in the minds of those doing evil. And you also can't trust what's coming out of their mouth.
I gave you some evidence in indirect form. I'll give you another saying: "for the greater good." There's no doubt people doing wrong want to justify their actions so that they do not view themselves as evil. So go ahead and look at your username and look at mine, then follow the line of logic
Yeah I have been doing that for years now. I do most things the hard way. I forgot exactly how it started. I think it started when I decided I wanted to develop my own sense of discipline. I think right after I read the constructive living book by David K. Reynolds. The premise, as I understand it, is that depression is a direct result of not taking full responsibility and immediate action in your life.
Looking back, I realize that started me on the path of not doing things the easy way. It was really hard a first, but over time it got easier. Most people in my line of work don't take accurate notes of what has transpired, don't keep a proper history of business exchanges and don't have clear agreements and contracts in place that spell out what is expected. Once I started this process of improving my life, I realized the more I made the effort to keep detailed track of everything I do/did, my life and business started to improve. I think you are right, taking to the most convenient path in life is a sure way to bring about pain and suffering.
Convenience is how we describe efficiency when it applies to non-classically “productive” endeavors. (Analogous to how we rebrand efficiency as sustainability when it applies to material and energy inputs.)
Same thing here (Firefox + Arkenfox + uBlock Origin). Need to change the IP to beat the fingerprinter, but that is just how the Internet works and the browser itself cannot do anything about it.
You quickly discover how difficult it really is to avoid a unique fingerprint.
Lots of folks in this thread are focusing on DNS and VPN to avoid detection, which of course can help, but a huge number of identifiable bits come from your browser's APIs:
The real test is whether the site believes you to be unique, which is listed separately. It reports me as "Our tests indicate that you have strong protection against Web tracking.", but I'm still uniquely identifiable.
But, yeah, anti-fingerprinting is still a useful signal if less people do it. So more people should do it; especially if they're less likely to be targeted.
i feel like this is the same as voting independant. it's the right idea in theory, but given the fact that 99% of people don't do it , righteousness is decreased. in this case very literally as having a unique fingerprint is entirely counter intuitive to the idea of privacy
I really want to be in a world where that's true. in the meantime we live in a zero sum survival of the fittest game where the powerful execute the weak for insubordination. in this world it is often necessary to take roundabout paths to reach the objective.
for example, a constitutional representative in my country attempted to place restrictions on unfettered gambling advertisements. a single day later, photos emerged of that politician having dressed as a nazi for a costume party in his youth. that politician stood up for what was right and then got fired for it, by losing his job and his status in the court of public opinion, effectively achieving no change.
exacting change isnt always such a simple process as embodying the end result.
I don’t know, but it seems like it’s overselling its capabilities. I tried with Firefox Focus and it said I’m using incognito (private mode) and assigned a unique visitor ID. Immediately tried with a private tab in Safari on iOS and it said I’m not using incognito (private mode) and assigned a new unique visitor ID. Then I switched networks and tried. One more unique visitor ID.
I’m not claiming that fingerprinting is not possible, but this website is not good at it. Seems like it uses plain cookies.
Use Mullvad Browser or Brave (both require no extensions to block ads, with mullvad browser being modelled off of tor. Use data traffic fingerprint obfuscation even behind vpn (yes they can tell if you're messaging, watching a video, torrenting, etc 90% of the time even behind vpn) use mullvads daita (makes packets the same size) or nymvpn (mixnet with tor like routing and in built delays). Tor doesn't protect against traffic analysis at all.
you can't beat it with a VPN, or any sort of networking only solution, only your browser can prevent fingerprinting. The hash is generated on a combination of heuristics but usually based on canvas fingerprinting. Network fingerprinting is not reliable.
I cant see how people use the net without it.. My wife gets all these ad popups and she is so use to it that it doesn't even register until I point it out.
Honestly, ublock isn't even enough anymore. DNS sinkholes are the next layer, since they work device-wide. I use nextdns.io, and it's good enough that I just keep ublock around in case I need to disable nextdns for some reason.
uBlock Origin does not protect you from this, this is a fingerprinting problem. You need to use a fingerprinting resistant browser. And even then, there are new fingerprinting methods emerging frequently and you can't prevent fingerprinting from inside apps on android/iOs..
Most slop mobile applications, that many people have on their phones are basically spyware pretending to be games/whatever.
Programatic advertising technology was created for intelligence purposes, these companies and their methods are very sophisticated.
Fingerprinting is insideous because the harder you try to prevent it the more unique you become. The best method is to try to create fake data to make the fingerprint useless.
I suspect there's a large overlap between people who want a small phone and people who only upgrade their phone when there's a pressing need. I am in both groups.
The root cause is that the phone is not a primary device for me. It's what I use when bringing a PC is too much trouble.
I'm glad to hear that. That means these devices will be a popular target, perhaps the popular target for alternative operating systems both Android-based and non-Android Linux.
with the advent of AI assists, I can't wait for people to start hooking up SoCs, GPUs, and other components burdened by proprietary driver and firmware to logic analyzers, and letting AI have a crack at it. I wonder what'll happen - this might well be the end of proprietary blobs, and I'm here for it.
That would be wonderful but cracking proprietary blobs which may be and probably are encrypted, would take massive amount of time, and later rework could take a lot of tokens and broken SoCs. Nowadays electronics are driven by software so one bit off and voltage can get 9V instead of 3V for example
Oh, This might be one of the few ideas I approve AI use of.
Cursor spent like Million dollars on creating a browser which people were able to make later with a 200$/100$ subscription in the same amount of days as cursor with human assistance.
I don't think that this can be "autonomous", we assumed that making browsers could be autonomous process but it wasn't. That was the take I took from it all.
Will this be an example of autonomous tho? I think we still need a human experienced with reverse engineering in the loop but it might significantly improve their workflow
I wish if cursor, instead of having burnt million $ to something worthless essentially, Could have atleast done this experiment.
> Humanity settled on these numbers long ago because they work best.
Standardized time zones are a recent invention (late 1800s through early 1900s). Working hours in that period were determined by what factory owners could get away with, and later shortened by pressure from labor movements.
Some time-related practices, like high school in most of the USA starting especially early in the morning are at odds with what research suggests would work best (teenagers on average perform best later in the day than adults or younger children).
It's wise to consider the reasons behind existing standards before changing them, but unwise to assume they're what works best without examining whether that's reality.
I'm using Claude Code to work on something involving a declarative UI DSL that wraps a very imperative API. Its first pass at adding a new component required imperative management of that component's state. Without that implementation in context, I told Claude the imperative pattern "sucks" and asked for an improvement just to see how far that would get me.
A human developer familiar with the codebase would easily understand the problem and add some basic state management to the DSL's support for that component. I won't pretend Claude understood, but it matched the pattern and generated the result I wanted.
This does suggest to me that a language spec and a handful of samples is enough to get it to produce useful results.
reply