spacechild1

That is actually a great blog post! I wholeheartedly agree with the points they are making.

They actually switched from GLFW. In that case you would naturally pick SDL3 and not SDL2.

My generation did not have access to the internet until we were teenagers, yet we perfectly managed to catch up. In fact, I don't think that the following generations (the so-called 'digital natives') have overall better computer skills, on the contrary.

In general, the last thing young kids need is more screen time. My 5-year-old daughter doesn't have access to any mobile devices. She enjoys drawing, handcraft, reading books, singing and playing the piano. I'm perfectly happy with that.

I remember watching HN and seeing every time there was something Rust related trending, there was ALWAYS a post made shortly after trying to hype Zig and this went on for like 4 years.

You just got a tiny taste of what Rust enthusiasts have been doing to every C++ related submission here on HN for years.

I don't know how we put this genie back in the bottle

Just ban or regulate it? It's only a form gambling after all.

It might be standard terminology but to outsiders like me it sounds like an over-the-top parody of corporate speak.

That quote is really funny because it reads like a parody.

Next time just use quotation marks and add a link to the source.

I thought the same. Business lingo has really jumped the shark. "story" is already stupid enough, but "epic"? Seriously? :-D

In my understanding, senders/receivers is a more generalized concurrency model, but it has been designed to play well with coroutines.

I'm on Firefox and I don't see serifs. Might be OS dependent as well.

That's good to know, thanks!

with rapidhash for hashing (since the GNU std::hash functions based on murmurhash are ridiculously slow)

Doesn't boost::unordered_flat_map use boost::hash by default? How does it compare to rapid hash and std::hash?

Yes! Like when Kujau couldn't get the letter A, so he went with "FH" instead of "AH" for the cover initials. Heidemann convinced the people at Stern that it surely stands for "Führer Hitler" :-D

Schtonk! does a really great job at satirizing the Führerkult that was still very much present in large parts of German society.

The whole affair was bizarre. At one point Kujau, the author of the fake diaries, ran out of ideas and let Hitler complain about his flatulence.

There is also a very funny German movie about it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schtonk!) The director later said that he intentionally omitted some facts about the real scandal because the audience would find it too far fetched.

Beethoven certainly wasn't.

For urban heat zones, AC seems to be criticized in isolation. There's never a mention of a lack of tree canopy in vast parts of the city, or that reflective pavements and green roofs are nonexistent.

I totally agree on the importance of trees, reflective pavements, green roofs, etc.

However, pretty much everybody who is critical of AC would also support the things you've listed. Is your complaint that people do not talk enough about it? That's not really my experience.

I have the feeling that widespread use of AC would make it even harder to make these changes. At the very least, these things must go hand in hand.

I literally just read some reports yesterday day about how AC can be a pathological solution.

That's what I have been wondering as well. When I was in Japan (which is notorious for using obscene amounts of AC), I once walked past the rear side of some buildings where all the AC vents were and you could clearly feel the heat these things are pumping into the city. How is this not creating a feedback loop?

My argument is: that cat is out of the bag, so what do we do next?

I did not see this argument in your first post at all. Instead you tried to dismiss the author's complaints, arguing that none of their complaints are new. (Which is true in a sense, but it ignores the most important point: that of scale)

I mean, yeah, sure I do, but ranting about the technology won't somehow put that cat back in the bag, either.

Fair enough, the author did not propose any concrete solutions. However, their analysis is still correct. The first step towards change is to acknowledge that we have a problem. Your first reply did not seem to do that, on the contrary, it seemed to downplay the authors concerns. Maybe that was not your intention, but that's how I read it.

I certainly agree that we need to find solutions. Yes, the cat is out of the bag, but with proper legal frameworks and regulations we can keep it from pissing all over the living room.

If you are spamming my favorite platform with AI slop, you are violating me.

If you are using LLMs to write your e-mails, deceiving me in thinking I'm conversing with a human, you are violating me.

If you are publishing AI generated books or music without a big disclaimer, you are violating me.

If you are scraping the net and using my work for AI training, you are violating me.

If you are scraping the net and overloading my servers, you are violating me.

Etc.

Yes, AI can be useful, but it also causes many, many problems. Are you sure the positives outweight the negatives when looking at society as a whole?

The essence of fair use is that it is ok if the use of the copyrighted material is transformative.

This is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition. Fair use is much more complex than you think.

We have a concept of fair use in copyright because economic growth is essentially tied to the free proliferation of information.

Who is "we"? The concept of "fair use" is pretty specific to the US. There is no "fair use" in Germany, for example.

Personally, I like the idea of "fair use", but I personally don't think that it applies to commercial closed-source AI model training. The US Copyright Office seems to agree with this assessement:

Various uses of copyrighted works in AI training are likely to be transformative. The extent to which they are fair, however, will depend on what works were used, from what source, for what purpose, and with what controls on the outputs—all of which can affect the market. When a model is deployed for purposes such as analysis or research—the types of uses that are critical to international competitiveness—the outputs are unlikely to substitute for expressive works used in training. But making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries.

https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...

Even if you don't use AI, you still have to deal with all the other people who do.

IMO the author absolutely nails it. Yes, it might not be the most nuanced take, but they express what many of us are thinking.

Google and Yahoo and even DDG have been using copyrighted data for a quarter century, if not longer.

Your argument boils down to: companies haven't respected copyright or user consent for a long time, so why should we now care?

The answer is: it was wrong back then and it is still wrong now, but on a completely different scale! We have reached a tipping point where many people are (rightfully) furious.

Consent was gone when Google, Yahoo, etc. started indexing the entire internet.

People do not have a problem with Google indexing the web because they want their websites to be found. That's the entire purpose of putting stuff out on the internet. AI is now doing the opposite: traffic is directed to chatbots and platforms are flooded with AI slop.

As you said, people were already complaining when Google started to show their own summaries, preventing users from visiting the original sources. People have been complaining about Facebook drowning the frontpage with clickbait. But this time it is so much worse.

Sure, LLMs can be useful, but on the other hand the potential for abuse is humongous. People are already seeing the negative consequences and they are rightfully angry.

Come up with an interesting point or thought-provoking counter-argument and maybe people will take you seriously.

I do think that the author made a good point by bringing up the issue of consent. We are now in a situation where I can't post anything online without AI companies possibly scraping the content and feeding it into their models without any attribution or permission. And there is no way of opting out. Don't you see a problem with that? Why should we not care?

Much like the author, I also enjoy photography, graphic design, and other creative hobbies. It's entirely my choice how much and where to apply AI.

The platforms are now flooded with AI slop and it's getting more and more difficult to discover new (honest) art and to present your own art to the public. The problem is exactly that there's no consent: we can't prevent AI companies from using our art or software for training and we can barely prevent our platforms from being eroded by AI slop.

Either way AI is too useful

The jury is still out on whether the advantages and opportunities of AI outweight all the negative sides.

It's not great but that's the way it is.

Why does it have to keep that way? Do you also think like this about political topics? Why should artists have to put up with this gross violation of copyright on a massive scale? Did anyone ask us if we actually want this? As the people we always have the right to say: "this is not ok and we demand change". Yes, there is no going back, but we can still shape the direction we are heading!

Exactly! I hate that people can't upload their blog posts, stories, drawings, videos, music, etc. without them being slurped up by AI models. Same for open source software. When exactly did we collectively decide that copyright does not exist anymore?

I thought Meta did a lot of things right when it came to using engineers

How is using talented software engineers to track users and design addictive algorithms any good? React might be a nice side effect, but it's certainly not the first thing when I think of Meta.

This quote is attributed to Oscar Wilde, but it seems like he never said it. In fact, there is no direct source for this particular quote by anyone. Even the shorter version "Imitation is the greatest form of lattery" is much older than Oscar Wilde. The full quote apparently did not appear on the internet before 2012.

https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2024/01/no-oscar-wilde-did-not-say-...

Keep in mind that not every old person who searches garbage bins is actually poor. Some of them just have dementia. I personally know such people in my home town.

Amen!