ChuckMcM

This is a very interesting deck! And I really appreciated the description of the design process.

Assuming user marukodo is the creator of these cards, could you contact me offline? (email is in my profile) I've got some questions.

Its kinda sad that I've owned 26 of them. :-)

No doubts the crows are all having a good laugh at our expense.

While difficult to control (as a study) it would probably be a solid basis for a PhD in anthropology or sociology. If you could compare two cultures, one which was exposed to the knowledge of how the technology came to be, and one which was simply allowed to buy the technology they wanted, over the next 30 - 50 years how does it change the group. If we ever were visited by extra-terrestrials this would probably be something they had already studied :-).

I would strongly disagree with the idea that 'low-hanging fruit' is gone.

But knowing how to do those things in the 2000s is not the same as inventing how to do those things or even knowing how to do those things as a well-compensated career before things were so completely consumerized and commoditized.

Two things; First those skills are more useful than you can imagine when you're using commoditized things to do something new and second, it isn't "low hanging fruit to recreate something you can buy anywhere.

If you look at today's software (as an example) we have programs that waste the crap out of resources. Is making them more efficient a win? Yes if you can re-purpose the resources you freed up for other things. I've thought long and hard about things people use "computers" and the "internet" for today that could be built more securely on simpler hardware with ironclad privacy guarantees and more utility. That is a low hanging fruit.

What I'm hearing when I reading your comment is that you feel that all the value has been sucked out of the market and there isn't anything left. And in that I think you'll find that enshittification has polluted the value so much that new opportunities have opened up for unpolluted value. There are many things that are currently "solved" with an existing and and over priced solution which creates opportunities to re-imagine the solution with something less expensive and come in underneath the market. The IBM PC/AT completely displaced minicomputers at small to medium businesses, you can build a PC/AT equivalent today for $6, not $6,000.

The thing here is that 'technology' isn't the same thing as 'value.' Just like knowledge is not the same thing as wisdom. As the author in the linked article writes, it doesn't take a whole lot to stand up a manufacturing line to make a new thing these days, and if that thing has value because it solves a problem, then people will pay to enjoy that value. And to pair that with the earlier metaphor, if you wanted to start a local newspaper (high value) you could with a printing press, some newsprint, and a journalist or two. But without the experience of how newspapers are valuable to their readers, you might be unsuccessful even though you know everything you need to know about writing news stories and printing them.

I'm not trying to be pedantic here, yes there are lots of things going on, and it can seem hopeless, but it isn't. And if you do want to design a high performance CPU you can get a kick ass FPGA to host it for cheap. Variants on RISC-V are pretty impressive and you can make a new one and license it to a chip fab if you choose to. This is WCH's entire business. Don't worry about being the next Tesla or Edison, neither of them knew they were going to be the Tesla or Edison we know today. They were both just trying to create solutions to problems. Look for the problems, think about ways to solve them, and then talk to people who live with those problems day in and day out and see what it might be worth to them to have that problem solved. People love to complain in my experience :-).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Google_LLC_(2...

It is a great book. Very accessible and a great way to engage with your kids.

I find it interesting how far we've come so far from the mindset of "You can do that." There was a hilariously funny reddit post about someone who discovered that you could just blend peanuts and it would make peanut butter. But there was sadness there too. All of my kids spent hours pouring over a book we had called 'The Way Things Work' with a delightfully funny Mammoth and a good description of how things actually work. But I've always augmented that with "okay and this is how we'd make something like that." As a result my kids, now adults, always start with the mindset of "Somebody made this, so I could too if I had to." and that really unlimits the kinds of self constraints people put on themselves. When I was a kid I was amazed that people like Edison and Tesla had labs not filled with gear from some lab manufacturer, but stuff they built themselves from first principles. And when I see someone building tools out of the abundance of capabilities that are out there I say, "Yup, they get it." 3D printing, inexpensive miniature milling machines and lathes, libraries full of books about making stuff. Its all doable, you don't have to buy it from a store and the one you make yourself will work exactly the way you want it to.

What Google makes is irrelevant to the content producer.

Is it though? Let's say I weave a basket out of reeds I've spent the weekend picking from the shores of a local creek. I take the basket to a guy who pays me $20 for it. Then that same guy takes it to a swap meet that he runs in town and sells it for $200.

That's just market economics, until you try to set up your own smaller swap meet on the route to this guys market and sell your baskets there, and this guy calls the police and has them shut down your "illegal swap meet." So you go to city hall for a permit and they say, "We don't sell permits unless you can prove that at least 1,000 people will go to your swap meet and every week you'll have at least 10 new products to show." See where I'm going with that?

Asymmetric markets are ones where a single individual or small group of individuals can exercise control over the entire operation of the market. You can think of then as nascent monopolies or perhaps price fixing cartels. In the US, after experiencing the Great Depression, as a result of unregulated markets, the US made it government policy to regulate market abuses as no single participant (or even a set of participants) could hope to compete with the monopoly or cartel.

Information markets, or non-real property markets like video content, did an end run around controls in an effort to capture the value that is associated with a product you can manufacture instances of for pennies, but sell for dollars. Games, Office processing suites, Videos, Musical recordings, can all be "sold" for 100 to 1000x the cost to produce them. It is an area that is under studied in my opinion.

This is one of my all time favorite blog posts. Why? Because it strikes at something that is both true, and a huge trap for smart people. Specifically, people who are experts in one discipline will often imagine that something in some other discipline is "pretty straight forward." And yet, my experience is that it never is. But that doesn't stop smart people from promising something that turns out to be waaaaaay harder to do than they imagined it could be.

Yeah, that was kind of my take on it.

That's fair, Google admitted in the DoJ trial where it was convicted of being a monopolist that the revenues that it paid out were roughly 10% of the revenues it collected. If you have fewer than a requisite number of subscribers they keep 100% of the monetization proceeds. I was simply struck by the parallels between the way YouTube has grown up and how the whole movie industry grew up.

Do you ever think about the fact that if you're making $500 - $1000 per video on average that means Google is making $5000 - $10,000 on each of your videos on average? I mean its working for you, and that's great. I am a student of information asymmetric markets and the whole 'Ad supported' business that Google runs on all of its properties is perhaps the largest one in the current time frame.

The point being that building a production company to produce videos is a known thing, Peertube is a distribution network, and historically this is a remarkable mirror of 'independent' theaters and 'studio owned' theaters. It was a characteristic of that time that the big studios would use their monoply power to force small studios to give them their work at a discount that allowed the studio to get most of the income. They made it just enough that the small studios didn't feel motivated to build a competitive system.

When I read your comment it struck me that perhaps "$500 - $1000 average per video" was the number Google has determined to be 'just enough'.

In the other thread (mentioned above) the author says that nearly the entire thing was created by Claude. So yeah, no.

No Starch Press sells all of its books with DRM as well.

Thanks, I wondered if I could ignore this 'announcement'

Looks like someone is running one of the LLM models and publishing the results. It looks that way because there is a really wide mix from things that are silly "replace system binaries to run arbitrary code!" to things that could be legit. That is kind of par for the course when you ask an LLM to 'find an exploit and write a PoC' kind of prompt. Presumably if you train something on the last 15 years of Metasploit[1] reports it can find the same bugs that people have written into new code.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metasploit

Not informational but I kept reading that as 'MicroVMS' which would be a scaled down version of the DEC VMS operating system?!? And I was trying to figure out if they had added containers or something to it.

This is a future hell I fear. :-).

This is where my head is on docks. When your connected to enhanced infrastructure (like your home lab) sure, but when you're checked into the Embassy Suites? Not particularly useful :-).

That said, I'm kind of sad that Framework and others have generally opted to let "third party USB-C docks" be the docking solution. I miss the days when my Thinkpad dropped onto its docking station with a purpose build bottom connector and seamlessly became a desktop/deskside type computer that was wired into my desk setup. Sadly I think that vision of docking died with the Thinkpad's sale to Lenovo.

I chuckled at 10G wired ethernet on a laptop. I mean in a docking station? Sure that seems reasonable. But fun none the less.

I appreciate the USB-C nature of the Framework's expansion ports, it does make real the entire reason that USB was created in the first place, hot plug slots. Still, I (and others) pointed out to Intel early on that using Ethernet with a specific packet type would be cheaper and just as fast (which the ATA over Ethernet folks proved), but then you wouldn't get the 'certification tax' that the USB consortium extracts. :-).

Cynicism aside, the design issues suggest that it might make sense in future laptops to have heat spreaders around the plug in port, although that makes things thicker and people obsess over thinness.

Its a reasonable extension. At some point if you discover that you are aiding or abetting the harm of others you have to ask yourself what kind of person you are. That said, I get that "but I need a job!" is a powerful thing and it takes someone with a strong sense of personal integrity to leave. A good friend of mine quit their game developer gig because the product manager and management were more interested in addictive behaviors and reselling eyeballs than they were in game development. But they also knew that was probably the last paying gig they were going to have in the 'games' business because it had gone from people making great games, to things on a phone/browser pulling you down.

So yeah, it is going to test you and you might come up short. I don't judge people who stay when they know, but I do grieve for the damage they do to their souls when they see themselves as someone they no longer recognize.

As someone who 'grew up' my career in Silicon Valley my first exposure to this sort of shenanigans was during the dot com bubble, where general partners at newish VC firms were fleecing limited partners (GP's got a salary to 'manage' the fund, LP's were the source of money for the funds.) They would tell the LPs well only one in ten is a real banger, looks like the fund you invested in wasn't a winner.

It reminded me a lot of the Bill Cosby skit about the game Keno, he used an example of a Keno Card that had two numbers on it, you picked one and took it up to the cashier with your $1 bet, the cashier drew a number and said, "Sorry not your number, try again."

The sad truth was that a lot of people who had become wealthy because they happened to be working at a company that went public and had stock, were not particularly sophisticated when it came to the reality that even people "like you" were not your friends. I spent my Jr High/High School years in Las Vegas and got to see so many 'confidence men' fleece tourists with so many schemes. There is a great book called 'The Confidence Game' by Maria Konnikova. It is excellent and reading it you'll come to understand that not only is it possible for even 'smart' people to be taken, there are lots of people who work on being good at it.

But taking all of that into consideration, if you worked at a company, did your job to the best of your ability, and it turned out that it was a "fake" job because some third party was using it as part of a scam, you aren't part of the scam. Any more than happening to be in a bus when the driver whose been drinking kills a pedestrian. You aren't responsible for that pedestrians death and you're not being on the bus wouldn't have changed anything. So you can let that go.

Thanks. For me, I was in debate club in High School and that included basic rhetoric. In college I took an argumentation class as a non-engineering elective. The most useful thing this class taught (for me) is how to 'see' the argument, and as a consequence see how it is constructed. Throughout my career it has been especially useful in "political" situations at work. Not everyone argues in good faith, and being able to spot those who are not is valuable.

Yes, yes it is. (going to be painful) If the IPO gets fully subscribed. For a long time I've pointed out that after the dot com crash the 'unicorns' were mostly on private markets and when they washed out only the 'qualified' investors got hurt (and of course their employees needed to find new jobs). The retail investors were protected because the SEC made sure you couldn't lie to them without penalties.

Once the SEC got defanged, retail investors once again became the primary target.

I realize this is drifting off topic, and happy to talk more in email (address in profile), in the interest of sharing a bit more, consider this statement you paraphrase:

"a FOSS author did something wrong and was found to be liable"

In fairness, I not sure the earlier commentator really understood what they were saying, at least not as far as legal liability is concerned.

The FOSS author simply wrote some code and shared it right? That is their 'action' can you think of ways that does direct harm, which is to say they published their code, and with nothing else happening someone got harmed? One way that can cause harm is the FOSS author publishes a trade secret[1] or access credentials of a third party. In both cases they could (and would) be sued by that third party. But absent that, I'm having a hard time coming up where simply the existence of most code causes someone else harm.

So to get to harm we have to add another person, that person somehow applies the code, and in that application harms another person. Our FOSS author might be sued as being contributory because the person who caused harm might not have done so if they didn't have access to the code. To prove that, the plaintiff would have to prove that the FOSS author knew that the code could cause harm if used in this way, and encouraged or otherwise abetted the person who did harm to use it in doing the harm. That can be a hard standard to reach[2].

In your car example, it would be challenging to prove that Daniel Stenberg wrote curl so that you could use it to brick car infotainment systems. But it would be easier to prove that a manufacturer that incorporated FOSS code and didn't check their system for risks like this should be found liable.

Liability accrues first to the party that did the action. Secondary liability can reach out to suppliers[3] of things used in that action. This is also civil law rather than criminal law and so it works a bit differently in terms of evidence standards and penalties.

[1] We can make a joke here about badly formatted code, but hopefully we're in a agreement so far. A real example was the DVD decoding software that included the key for decoding encrypted DVDs.

[2] Not that people might not try, its too easy to sue. There have been cases where someone wrote some code that was later used in a weapon (and example might be Ardupilot software in drones used to kill Russians). But even in that case, the courts in the US at least have consistently found that if it is not the primary purpose of the software to do harm, then the author is not liable.

[3] Unless you're a gun company as Gun companies have managed to keep themselves from being found liable for people using their guns to do harm. But there is also lots of interesting case law there too which might help inform.

I don't disagree, that pattern exists, but it is essentially true. Just not in the way the folks saying it is true understand it. If the "VC/ad/tech dark patterns, enshitification, privacy violations, dishonest marketing, Etc." wasn't allowed then their job might not exist. That can be true. What is missed is that if there is value in the thing, then it will exist.

When I reflect back to someone making this argument by saying, "So your argument is that you make your living as a pick pocket, but if pick pocketing is made to be illegal, you won't be able to make a living." Which of course would only be true if they only thing they could do was 'be a pick pocket'. Its a very common rhetorical technique to argue that the status quo cannot be changed. All the arguments that "you'll put all coal miners out of business if you require only green energy" And yet the people, the miners themselves, will likely be fine. The firms might not, but there are other firms that could exist.

This isn't a new problem, or one specific to this web site, although it does get disproportionately hit because so many technology companies saw what Google started in the 2000's and said, "Man there is soooo many ways to get money for this." rather than, "Is this a reasonable way to make money? Sure it is 'perfectly legal' but is it right? Is it moral?" The type of person who thinks that something is "Only illegal if you get caught" is neither moral nor particularly concerned about what is right. And we got a lot of that type.

This is not how liability works, anywhere. So I write a piece of code that "makes your screen do cool things" and it causes the power supply to fail on those screens. Someone reports that bug to me and I check it out and say "Oh, shit it does break power supplies." Then I immediately put a notice on and in the code that says "WARNING: This code will break the power supply of your montitor." And I put that warning in the repo. And if there is a Discord or a mailing list I tell everyone "Hey, this is important, if you run this code it can break your monitor."

Guess what, I'm not liable for the damage. Why? Because I immediately responded once I knew that it could, I made a good effort to warn people who might already have the code of the risk, and I made it clear in the code that this risk is there.

Ever wonder why you get a booklet of warnings when you buy a product with even really stupid things like "Don't clean with gasoline" warnings? That's because once you have discharged your duty to warn you are not longer liable in what happens if someone ignores your warning.

The flip side is also true, you cannot say in your product both "Hey this product does these cool things" and "We don't warrant the product to actually do anything." This is especially true if there is money involved (like your user paid your some $ for the product.) There is always an implied warranty that the thing will do what you says it will do, which exists as long as the user has heeded all your warnings.

Exactly this. (and it is a false dichotomy to argue infinite liability).

To Terr_'s point, if you were publishing open source you would also publish exactly the things you intended it to be used for and anything else would violate your warranty (possibly implied) that it does what the documentation says it does.

There is a huge amount of tort law that covers exactly when it becomes a problem for you the creator vs you the user in your own project. And that liability is also based on once you know something bad could happen you make an effort to notify people[1].

[1] https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2026/Clorox-Agre...

Read that as "worked as written" and "we disclaim any consequential or incidental damages and do not warrant this software."

I continue to believe we could fix a lot of things in the US if we updated the UCC[1] to disallow 'disclaiming liability on software used in a product.'

[1] Universal Commercial Code -- https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc