Juliate

Back in the days, the webring idea wasn’t driven by popularity groups and metrics but by affinity, from the perspective of authors.

A ring was thematic, friends, interest.

Very bad UI choice on mobile. Next to unreadable.

Why should any be exclusive of the other?

My take is that it is kind of exclusive today, because the economy is designed and limited against the ecology, but that's not a fundamental given. It comes down from the choice of humanity to extract itself from nature. That's a choice and a story we can identify, criticise, and counter with another choice. Which would take some time, but... that's all we have.

What is it actually? Is it giving status, or taste? Is it private or is it spying? Is it giving help in everyday life, that no other existing experience can replace? Is it a platform for developers to find a killer app?

At this price level?

This looks so much like an undecided mix of: 1/ a solution looking for a problem to solve, 2/ glasses that don't know how to brand for fashion, 3/ a preview platform.

I understand the website doesn't address users first, but it really feels like a missed opportunity to show a typical, simple use case in the front page (as in, "as a user, what's in it for me?").

A quickstart link is buried in there, and that's good, but the value of the product is multi-faceted and doesn't address data architecture only.

There are good GUI editors for XML?

Evil has a motive (defensive or offensive).

Stupidity has none.

You can derail stupid towards something. Even de-stupid it. That does not work with motivated people, even less evil ones.

Because he was stupid, and not evil.

The satire we need today is how we sort it out.

I'm sorry if that sounded disparaging.

I totally get that face recognition is an issue for some. And that some tech may be of help with that.

But if said tech implies putting everyone at risk (because the privacy is not properly implemented in this tech, and because it is even obviously weaponised as it is today), it is a hard sell.

Privacy is a fundamental right, not the end of everything.

And you axiomize progress.

Although the question isn’t one against the other. It is whether progress justifies treating people as objects, as data providers without consent. That’s not a curious axiom, that’s the basis of all rights-based systems since 1948. Or 1785 (Kant). Or 1215 (Habeas Corpus). Or 1750 BCE (Hammurabi code).

Rules are all made up (as tech is) for the purpose of enabling society and lowering suffering. Who was harmed? Everyone whose private personal information have been leaked without consent. Who was harmed? Who have been manipulated into voting? How has the damage not been diffuse and probabilistically significant? (otherwise, why would Cambridge Analytica even funded and paid for? As well as the whole advertising industry?)

And, a fundamental right does not need an existing harm to be justified into existence: it is a right as first principle.

Saying ja/oui to something, is saying nein/non to something else.

If all you have is taking sides with what ought to be dismissed, or rather, discussed and controlled, rather than let alone wild at the expense of most people, that's a choice that is yours.

How can we still believe in the trust idea when 1/ accidental leaks happen every single day and 2/ corporations do not even hide any more their intent and uses of the collected data? (Pokemon Go being the « funniest » recent one)

At some point, the regulatory/legal backlash will require hard personal responsibility (that is, jail consequences) for this to be taken seriously at the corporate and technical levels and so trust to be reinstated.

Comparing a natural ability to some kind of privacy-violating skill sounds a bit a hard sell.

Kind of like selling hard won skills as some kind of gate keeping.

Improving the quality of life of people cannot be done at the expense of the basic social needs of everyone else.

Right, but PetSmart was an existing retailer that added e-commerce, not a startup burning VC money on an unproven model: the tech worked, the hype-driven bet didn't.

GenAI has its uses. That it will transform everything for everyone, and that this justifies to dump laws and people, that's the part that deserves hard-earned scrutiny.

Market has the final say, not tech. If no one uses/buys the tech, as investor or customer... it won't feed anyone.

That's kind of proving my point here.

E-commerce succeeded, but not in the form Pets and WebVan proposed, and not in the timeline their investors needed.

The question is not: is it useful, but (as any investor asks): does this bet, at this valuation, deliver what it promises, in time? That's the audit we need.

When the bet distorts global semiconductor supply chains, displaces workers, and rides on mass IP infringement... skepticism looks more like due diligence than contrarianism.

I don't mean burst like that (neither a conspiracy), rather a striking coincidence: there are huge applications for GPUs, true.

But the inflation of expectations and investments in them because of GenAI, when this inflation bursts may impact everything and everyone.

She says something more structural than that: there's a pattern, sold by the same people, with the same contempt to social consequences and democratic rules: GenAI, multiverse, NFTs, cryptos; what else next?

Incidentally, each "wave" justifies massive investment in the same technology: GPUs, for transformations that do not materialise _at scale_.

That raises the questions: why? Who captures the value? Who bears the cost? Why are we always skipping the audit? What happens when the "GPU bubble" bursts?

QA is actual work. Building the thing is actual work. Each is not "the" work, which is the task of the whole company.

QA perspective and focus is just different from the one of the team building the thing. It's precisely because of their detached perspective that they can do their work properly.

Let's say it will be.

Who will then define, debate and hold standards/regulations/norms, then? and adherence to those standards, as well as the legal responsibility that comes with it?

What happens when a totally automated software is the main cause of the destruction of private property, or the death of even one single person?

Who is going to answer for these? (that is, pay, fix and possibly go to jail)

How are those legal consequences going to pressure the automated development industries to comply to safety/control rules?

If you care about: the consistency of your output, what you're selling to your customers, you have not much of a choice (than to control what you are shipping).

Not even mentioning the potential regulatory/market and legal consequences if you don't.

Makes a lot of sense.

One additional point of data about caring about exit interviews: I have been in a team where an excellent engineer left for a different company. He came back about one year later a more senior role, and was instrumental to the company success in the following years.

I disagree. I do not care about the details of a ton of stuff. I do not even understand them.

On the other hand, I do care about people that are knowledgeable of these details, specialized, and trust to handle them for me for a fee.

That’s true of banking, realting, health, security, building, manufacturing of everything I use (or almost). That doesn’t prevent me from vaguely understanding the principles and some bits. And that saved me a ton of time and worry. But for the few times one agent does not work up to his promises.

I am 49, I have dealt enough with try to do all by myself, and I do appreciate and rely onto middlemen way earlier now.

I have first hand and second hand seen more failure from this line of reasoning _as of today_, in the French/European tech sector, than successes. Not even talking about those executives that expect to use Gen AI to "help" in their process and financial reporting - at least the flag is bright red.

I've also met enough architects (or so called) in consulting, service companies as well as startups, from both a founder and a tech lead point of view, in the past 25 years not to entrust them too much with their hunches, long-term wise.

Especially because, from a sustainability point of view, saying "junior engineers are done for" is like saying "kids are done for": not that wise. Unless what you account/bet for is the drastic reduction/disappearance of humains (and then, a lot starts to make more sense).

Guys guys. I do share the sentiment.

On the other hand. Unless we have a breakthrough hardware/physical innovation, GenAI in its current forecast is not energy-efficient, cost-efficient, compared to human/deterministic methods. It has shown no capacity so far to « create » in the sense we animals do.

And all that, still being: highly subsidized (your subscription does NOT cover the costs of the service as of now, we are still in the market creation/capture phase), and without mesurable economical benefit.

Things are still far from being over.

Likewise, are there any startup for wearable devices that visually jam or impair digital cameras?

This admin is doing nothing we haven’t seen previous admins do.

Well... lots disagree with that statement.

By 3 buyers who have no known plan to finance the purchase orders they have made.

Economic history is also full of examples of bubble bursts.