stego-tech

I continue to laugh uproariously at American AIBros screaming “bUt OuR iP” at foreign distilleries and competitors despite literally building their own platforms on the single largest theft of copyrightable works in human history.

Like, goddamn ya’ll are hypocrites.

See, this is something I’ve had to reconcile: founders aren’t CEOs, and CEOs aren’t founders.

I remain unconvinced a CEO is needed in any real, modern capacity. A large enough company has a PR person (who can do the interviews and sell the messaging), an Ops person (who translates Board guidance into actionable work for specific teams and vice versa), a slew of specialty technical people, and a Board who generally sets the course for the firm.

The CEO claims to do all of those, but increasingly - especially in large or mature firms - they’re just public celebrities hoovering up revenue and making connections with other CEOs. It’s a multi-million dollar fleecing of corporate resources to support one dude’s luxury lifestyle. They’re not steering the business so much as making sure we scratch the backs of their buddies to make gameable KPIs look good to the Board, and in that context they’re easily tossed aside.

It’s Cloudflare and Stormfront all over again, at least from my perspective. As much as folks want to somehow find a way to separate a company from its leadership or founders, the reality is that giving money to Mullvad rewards someone who in turn gives their share of the money to, well, fascist scumbags.

People need to understand taking that position is itself free speech. Nobody is saying he can’t give money to Nazis or fascists or some other problematic group, what we’re saying is that there are consequences for doing so. If Mullvad wanted to distance itself from these problematic positions or people, they could just buy them out and tell them to fuck off. That, too, is a perfectly valid response that doesn’t impugn upon anyone’s speech.

The problem with people claiming to be pro-free speech or anti-censorship while supporting authoritarian regimes or ideologies is that the two are inherently in conflict: the absolute last thing a fascist actually wants is freedom of speech, and so hiding behind such a virtuous shield while directly contributing to groups whose goals would dismantle and destroy that shield wholesale is such a naked act of hypocrisy that anything else they say or do should be suspect.

Mullvad’s position, much like Cloudflare’s before it, is that we must tolerate the intolerant, even though the goals of the intolerant are to exterminate tolerance. This is the sort of Middle School thought experiment that should be a no-brainer, yet here we are again. For a company like Mullvad, that undermines their core currency - trust - at a foundational level that’s impossible to reconcile.

This. Microsoft has chosen to allow this functionality, despite it being a very clear breach of trust with customers.

LG/Dell/et al should be shamed and blamed for even trying this shit in the first place, but it’s Microsoft who holds the blame for allowing such malware and spyware trash through their own update service.

Plus, a pledge is only worth the credibility behind it. When someone signs “I will not support the development of lethal autonomous weapons,” then stays while their company sells unrestricted AI to a military that wants exactly that, they teach every counterparty a lesson: these safety people will not act, even at their own brightest line. The next commitment they make is worth less. Eventually it’s worth nothing.

This is why I haven’t taken the internally employed (and visibly public) AI safety people seriously for years: they always back down, because they value that fat paycheck and fiscal rewards and associated status over their proclaimed ethical values, red lines, and boundaries. Their actions betray their every word.

That’s also why I push that we remember these names, the ones who fought back as well as those who lied through their teeth. We should remember everyone willing to harm others to protect themselves, and hold them accountable for their misdeeds. In an ideal world, people like Jeff and Sundar and Stuart would be blackballed so hard they’d never be able to get so much as a help desk job ever again, nevermind any position of leadership. It’s why I proclaim them to be monsters, giddily sacrificing the anonymous other for personal vainglory and the avoidance of standing on any sort of principle.

The OP did everything right and demonstrably proved the entire apparatus is rotten to its very core, to the point of infesting and poisoning the very entities professing to stop its worst excesses (IASEAI). Why we give these ghouls the slightest bit of credibility anymore is beyond me.

“Is your refrigerator running - on a botnet for AI companies?

Stainless Steel Scrapers - tonight, on Sick Sad World.”

The thing that continues to irk me about these sorts of "papers" is how they refuse to remotely acknowledge the possibility that LLMs and Diffusion models won't lead to AGI, ASI, or whatever acronym they're foisting upon the populace.

If you won't even so much as acknowledge the possibility of error, your argument is hollow and empty. All the "choices" presume these labs are being completely honest and acting in some degree of good faith (relative to the systemic incentives of society in its present form), while in reality we're still just building and refining probability models with increasing accuracy of output and flexibility of processing (namely agents) but still lack actual "intelligence" of any real sort.

Show me a paper that doesn't merely presume inevitability of LLM-based AGI/ASI, and instead actually lays out the core paths that history suggests we're likely to encounter with any "world changing technology":

* In the best case, that the technology really will revolutionize the world and do everything promised by its biggest boosters (papers like this one)

* In the middle case, that it becomes just another tool in our collective toolkit, and the consequences of a revolution built on external investment fizzling out

* In the worst case, that the tool itself is so niche in its utility that investment collapses rather than fizzles out; what do we do with all this compute, now? Who owns the debt? Who foots the bill? How can we mitigate those existential risks?

I'm just rather nauseated by the continued trot of inevitablism masquerading as academia rather than an actual, neutral, bias-controlled-and-disclosed study that paints potentialities instead.

---

Having finished skimming through it, another comment springs to mind: Jesus Christ these things continue to be jingoist as absolute fuck. It's a fancier set of makeup for the same shitty western chauvinism worldview of American excellence and Manifest Supremacy.

Nah, I'm done with this trite garbage. Go proselytize to idiots, I'm not one of them.

I mean in a perfect world where I knew my subscription fees were going to developers and enabling them to live a high quality of life, sure thing.

Except in practice, that’s rarely the case. The systemic incentives in society have perverted the subscription into little more than rent extraction rather than genuine support. Products see arbitrary “updates” all the time just to justify someone’s promotion or some executive’s whims rather than actual customer feedback or needs. Hiding software behind layers of infrastructure to justify largesse instead of transparency around how it actually works and providing options for those who would rather retain some degree of ownership even at the expense of building the infra themselves.

The entire present-day model for 99% of corps out there isn’t subscriptions-as-support, it’s subscriptions-at-gunpoint. Companies like Panic or Capture One are the exception to the norm, making it clear what the fees actually do and don’t just funnel them up and out to external shareholders.

I am all for supporting developers, content creators, and everyone else involved in technology. I’m just beyond done with forced migrations to new UI/UX or arbitrary monetary extraction schemes for technology that frustrates me rather than helps return time back to me.

Basically what I’ve been saying since OldJob forced LLMs down our throats and pegging performance to usage metrics: why the fuck are we handing deterministic processes to probabilistic systems when it should be the other way around (using probabilistic systems to design deterministic ones)?

LLMS should be abstracted out of a process as soon as practicable, replaced with deterministic processes or procedures. Otherwise you’ve built the world’s most fragile process at the mercy of token cost, vendor hostility, geopolitics, and model deprecation.

This hurts, in a very specific way. Those coders are legendary wizards of the craft, understanding engine design and systems architecture in a way nobody else in the industry does. This is a team that could get 200fps+ in their games with RT on and no dynamic reconstruction or upscaling to be had, at a time when everyone else mandated such shortcuts to have even 30-45fps at a similar resolution. They did all this while also working closely with the actual game designers, to make sure the tech was usable instead of obfuscatory or hindering to production.

The fact Microsoft just fired them all, at a time when their remaining studios desperately need help with their aging, shitty engines? I can’t think of a better indicator that they haven’t a fucking clue about what they’re doing, here.

I mean, probably? There's definitely a statistical likelihood of folks who use cannabis also using tobacco products or other substances. It's not a "gateway drug" so much as a "anyone who enjoys thing X is likely to try related things" object. I recall those early studies about alcohol in moderation being good for you eventually being debunked as, "actually, folks who could afford alcohol consistently in moderation also ended up being able to afford health insurance and that created the better outcome"; I suspect there's something similar with cannabis when we look retrospectively, given its illegality for so long (users are less likely to seek medical attention for symptoms or precursors to avoid the stigma).

The thing is we don't know without doing more research, which I genuinely appreciate the authors essentially calling out point blank. They're not saying cannabis is bad, they're saying that looking at the thin amount of valid data we have available thus far, there's definitely a correlation there worth investigating further.

I mean, it's good that we have data showing some sort of connection between heart attacks and cannabis, but I appreciate the callout toward the end more:

Since both studies were limited by their retrospective nature and the meta-analysis was limited by the challenges inherent in pooling data from multiple studies, researchers said that additional prospective studies would help to confirm the findings and determine which groups may face the highest risk.

Here's the thing that both the alarmists and the naysayers keep ignoring: all this data is new, it's recent, and decades of effective global prohibition have meant the only sources of reliable data came from either post-war/pre-prohibition studies (often by Defense Departments) or from "anecdata" gathered retrospectively among large cohorts. We still lack a substantial amount of direct, quality, long-term data on drug use and Nth-order impacts on the body, and these studies are the first steps towards getting more data from higher quality research to draw better conclusions from.

If anything, I try to be quite open with my Doctors about my own use precisely because I know that data is thin and dated, and any contributions from patients in an honest manner is going to help draw better conclusions for healthcare guidance tomorrow. Letting alarmists use these thin precursors as justification for a return to total prohibition is the wrong move.

This is one of those things we should absolutely push proactively rather than reactively, if only because I’ve had several “chats” with AI models both local and AIaaS, and all repeat the same talking point that AIaaS is the only sensible, safe, and secure choice.

Which is bullshit, unless you’re an AIaaS company whose revenue is dependent on state-sanctioned market fixing and regulatory capture.

Look, when this shitty cycle ends, we’re likely to find ourselves back in the start of a new memory cycle of surplus and lower costs. We’re talking what very well may be the boom that shatters the 16GB “baseline” we’ve been stuck at for over a decade in consumer computing, and make larger RAM counts (64GB to 1TB+) valuable to consumers specifically for local AI workloads. Local AI isn’t just an enthusiast thing, it’s likely the future of consumer AI provided we don’t let companies and policymakers curtail its use via fearmongering.

Be proactive, and protect consumer right to compute and AI models. Enforce existing laws, don’t outlaw legitimate use just to prop up an unsustainable business model.

I’m with OP, here: CarPlay is additive to the experience, but also is something that provides me a degree of consistency across my automotive experiences - when vendors bother to implement it properly.

I have an old Honda Fit that I installed one of Pioneer’s “app radio” units into, which included replacing the dash facia. I use CarPlay on it almost exclusively, but if I want Pioneer’s incredibly mediocre UI/UX, it’s a single button-tap away - either on the left side of the radio via a capacitance button, or on the first page of CarPlay’s app icons.

When I rented a car to drive to visit family, it had CarPlay. The infotainment experience was familiar, so I could focus more on the road ahead instead of fussing with some newfangled vendor-specific infotainment shitshow.

When I rented Nissan in Canada, it too had CarPlay - but with a nasty bug where using voice commands or making a call would crash the whole unit. I figured out very quickly not to do that, and the rest of CarPlay worked a treat for the trip - a far cry better from Nissan’s UI/UX.

This is why I didn’t hop on board infotainment systems until CarPlay and Android Auto were mature options, opting to stick with my phone over USB for audio/iPod controls instead: none of the major manufacturers except maybe Panasonic actually give a shit about the UI/UX. They don’t build intuitive systems that can be operated without looking, and they scoop up far too much superfluous data to enable simple features. I refuse to buy the vehicle maker excuse of “superior experience” anymore when time after time, the reality is these car companies think the infotainment data is some sort of goldmine of revenue and letting Apple or Google have any say over the experience is tantamount to leaving money on the table.

If I cannot have CarPlay, and your EV or vehicle won’t let me swap the infotainment unit for an aftermarket one that does, then I am not buying your fucking spyware on wheels. I don’t think anyone else should tolerate that bullshit either, especially on what averages to be a $70k+ purchase nowadays.

And that's fine! I've got a flatmate who loves 320kpbs MP3s on studio monitors, I've got musician friends who swear by CD-audio and Sennheiser HD200s, and others who love how vinyl uniquely degrades over time on big speakers.

The takeaway from these sorts of posts, at least in my opinion, should be two-fold:

* Understand the physical limits of human senses and perceptions to help inoculate yourself against outright scams and grifts

* Liberate you from the "tech grind" and allow you to enjoy what you like, how you like it.

I cannot hear the difference between 16/44.1 (and by extension, 16/48) and High-Res Content generally, be they HDCD, SACD, or just straight-up Masters from Qobuz. This is on multiple sets of equipment, ranging from El Cheapo earbuds all the way to HD800 cans and full-fledged tower speakers being bi-amped.

That’s not why I go for High-Res stuff, though.

It’s all about archival, at least for me. With a 24/192 Master in FLAC or ALAC, I can downsample to whatever the destination form factor is. I can transcode to a 320kbps MP3, or a 16/48 WAV stream for a smart speaker, or a 24/96 stream for the theater. The point isn’t that I can hear the difference, it’s the fear that I might lose something irrecoverable by sticking with lower-quality files for bulk storage. Once data has been discarded, it cannot be retrieved, and that influences my preference for storage (and is also why my BD/UHD rips are into MKVs, no re-encoding).

Now that being said, I will absolutely hem and haw and ABX different releases to determine if I opt for the 16/44.1 CD rip of an album from the 80s or the new 202X remaster in 24/192 (spoiler: almost always the former), and I absolutely prefer anything with classic instruments (Jazz, Classical) in higher-quality formats because of a subjective perception of a wider, clearer sound stage, though this is almost certainly a psychological effect from performing in concert bands and orchestras rather than physical or objective in nature.

Like I tell newcommers: if it sounds better enough to you to warrant the purchase price, then that’s all that really matters. Enjoy the hobby.

I’m aware and have one such drive, but every manufacturer of PC drives has exited the industry. There’s a rumor that Buffalo or some other manufacturer might step in to restart production, but what’s out there is it for the time being.

Besides, with the Sony announcements today, I doubt the long-term support of BDXL or UHD in general. I might need to grab a mini Kaleidescape system and see about exfiltrating their digital copies sans DRM at this rate, if I want to buy stuff to own.

My household has been tied to the gaming industry in some form for decades. We’ve owned at least one of every console and handheld during that time, and a myriad of games for each. Collectors Editions, physical copies, digital if there was no other way or it was on sale.

We all agreed that we’re done with this. Nintendo gets a pass for making physical carts, but we’re done with paying full price to rent content in general. That also means no PS6, no Xbox-Whateverthefuck, and avoiding Game Key Cards where possible on Switch 2 (or buying them used).

If it’s not on GOG or Itch.io free of DRM, or there’s no physical copy available for sale, then we’ll wait for a deep discount on Steam or use our family library instead.

Fuck this noise, we’re out.

This has been a similar approach to what I did for my own homelab. I still need to setup some sort of GitOps so I don’t have to ssh into the box and manually bootstrap whatever compose file I’ve thrown on there, but that’s honestly about it.

* Docker Compose files and various folders for containers live on an NFS share

* SQLite and other databases run off a local SATA SSD for speed and reliability

* Cronjob tarballs the critical stuff nightly and throws it on another NFS share to get ingested into Backblaze B2.

Now I just get to kick back and actually experiment with new things instead of babysitting a convoluted Proxmox upgrade or shunt onto a new container standard.

Does it run rootless? Not atm (blame FreshRSS, my sole holdout). Is it super secure? Probably not, but I’m not doing anything goofy like mounting the Unix socket into a container at the very least, and the server credentials don’t work anywhere else should it get popped. The blast radius is contained, and that’s more important to me than Enterprise-grade security for my homelab (a la Wazuh, another backlog project TBD).

Once again banging my “there’s already an age check to get online and it’s the adult paying the ISP bill” drum.

Seriously, enough with mandating compliance with the surveillance economy. Build a society where parents can actually take care of their kids instead of hiding a surveillance state behind the guise of “protecting children” and blaming adults who want to preserve privacy or anonymity in the last space it exists within.

I love physical media as a ritual, but loathe it as a storage medium - it's fragile, it rots, and manufacturers can't be trusted to create long-lasting products anymore. Not to mention the fact that UHD drives used to rip modern content are almost entirely defunct, with the remaining few going for nearly half a grand in the current climate.

Personally, in light of AI getting a hand-wave on massive piracy for training data purposes, I think we're ripe to redo copyright entirely. Common-sense stuff like barring DRM on content a year after its initial release date, allowing consumers to transcode content freely for personal use, and finally stripping copyright from abandoned (i.e., no longer sold) content such that "lost media" can be freely shared without legal consequence. There's so, so many reforms we need to make to reflect how content works in the modern era, in a way that rewards content creators but creates a more permissive environment for archiving, sharing, and modifications.

Extremely minor technicality, but one worth bringing up:

Ultraviolet shut down, but mainly because studios had already signed onto a shared locker service called "Movies Anywhere" that Disney did join. Ultraviolet libraries could be migrated over, for the most part.

That being said, it was a manual and voluntary process most consumers likely ignored or didn't participate in, so in essence it could be seen as a revocation of licenses. I did the migration and lost no titles, but it was the final nail in my personal arc that made me move wholesale to Plex + NAS (now Jellyfin + NAS).

That’s a fair critique of my limited, Ameri-centric perspective in my comment, but also a stinging rebuke of the decline of American hegemony abroad. As recently as last year having those Chinese DRAM and NAND makers on the entity list meant that those memory modules were unsellable outside of China and a handful of other countries that rebuked American power; the fact even American companies are now openly courting them for parts shows how weak the Empire’s power really is just two years later.

So yeah, you’re more right than you may realize.

I had just drafted a report to leadership that we should buy what we needed for everyone through August ASAP.

My advice didn’t make it a week before the price increases.

Look, this is going to suck for several more years. The western memory cartel was never truly dismantled or punished after their price fixing in the early 2000s, and now this is the result. With Chinese DRAM and NAND makers on the entity list, western countries don’t really have an alternative but to suck it up and ride out whatever this market is, be it bubble or blessing.

That said, China isn’t stupid and is gladly steering their domestic firms to produce more kit not just for data centers and AI customers, but to shore up domestic electronics manufacturing in general. If China can make a device that appeals to Americans en masse, western companies are arguably at their most vulnerable in the face of sky-high part costs and supply chain issues. Combined with rising public sentiment against data centers and a general “fed-up” attitude towards tech in general, and this could be quite the explosively expensive powder keg depending on how things end up shaking out.

I'm sorry, but I can't stop laughing at an AI company crying about theft of their IP.

I’ve been on the 50/30/20 budgeting rule for a while now, and I agree it’s a healthier perspective for an individual than a “30% gross on rent/housing” arbitrary metric. Housing is one part of a larger bill of necessities you have to pay every month because society dictates these necessities are not rights, alongside food, energy, transportation, insurance, healthcare, and communications. Laying all this out on paper then multiplying by two and accounting for taxes, helped me remain calmer in salary negotiations because I knew not what I thought I was worth, but what I actually needed to survive.

The grim reality is that over-financialization of markets combined with a lack of regulations against predatory practices (like surveillance pricing and algorithmic rent setting) added gasoline to the bonfire that was a fundamental housing shortage brought about chiefly from treating housing itself as an appreciating asset rather than the land housing sits on and taxing accordingly (don’t even get me started on residential property tax schemes popularized by the Baby Boomers and the associated gap between sale price and tax assessed values dictated by law). Growing wages won’t fix this, nor will cutting interest rates. Building more housing is the only way out, but existing homeowners don’t want their assets to decline in value, so that’s generally not happening. Rent control is becoming increasingly popular, and I think it’s a good idea to protect existing renters and force landlords to side with wanna-be homebuyers instead of homeowners by forcing revenue growth through volume creation (new housing) instead of rent hikes.

I still believe that the strength of AI is when it can be applied locally in a secure and private manner, rather than yet another cloud-based service you must pay for indefinitely even as it gets progressively worse to satiate the greed of corporate shareholders.

ChatGPT and Anthropic will never, ever get me to tie my Health Data to their systems, but I still believe in the capabilities of AI in identifying patterns from data I would otherwise overlook, and sorely want a local-only ecosystem where I can expose this data safely, privately, and securely to something like Qwen or Gemma for processing.

Same goes for Smart Homes, and Personal Assistants. The corporate approach of letting Company A access your data stored at Company B and processed by Companies D and E while also sold to Advertisers and Data Brokers with no way for you to extract or view it on your local hardware - just isn’t tenable for these sorts of intimate use cases. I want my data to be owned and controlled and exposed on my terms, to be used to improve my life first rather than someone else’s bottom line. I want technology to give me back more of my time and improve my outcomes again, and I’ve been burned enough by Big Tech in the past that I flatly reject any presumption of nobility or public good from their AI-as-a-Service business model.

The capability is there, and I definitely think the folks working to build local tooling that supports and unlocks the potential for local models are the ones in the right. I love seeing what they build.

OP gets it.

Right now, I’m one dinosaur managing a startup’s tech portfolio. Everything lives in my head first, then in my break-glass vault for addressing the bus problem. Our public cloud footprint is a single KMS for backups. We have no VMs, everything is a cloud service.

The literal fucking second we have real infrastructure requirements for compute, it’s right to GCE. No ifs, ands, or buts. Here’s our Git Repo, here’s the managed K8s control plane, make it work.

If (or when) we need on-prem compute, we add them to the K8s control plane as worker nodes and taint accordingly.

It’s just so much more interchangeable, even if the learning curve for non-SDEs can be a little steeper than VMs.

Some disrespect to PG, but the entire thing reads like:

"Oh, if we just operate in a vacuum, do not closely examine the systemic interactions of our accumulation of such vast sums of wealth, assume there's no moral or ethical quandary that would prevent us from utilizing every game theory strategy available to us, and have consistently high, compounding growth over time, then anyone can make a billion dollars if they follow my teachings, which in turn were formulated over thousands of students and with a success rate still in the single percentage points, at best."

Here's the thing none of these people will ever admit: not everyone can actually succeed at a goal, otherwise it wouldn't be a goal, but a baseline. This is the fundamental grievance I have with these sorts of "wealth whisperers" braying on (and on, and on, and on) about how with a good idea and hard work (and YC's guidance), you too can be a Larry Ellison or Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg type.

Which, no, you cannot. If you could, PG's success rate for billionaires would be 100%. It is not, so clearly hard work and a good idea (and a mentor) alone isn't enough. Yet enough leaders and populace have bought into this fairy tale that we've reoriented society around it wholesale. The presumption is that anyone lacking in obscene wealth has done so by choice, rather than examine systemic incentives and policy failures that make such an outcome the default, rather than a personal choice (or worse, some sort of personal failure).

I'm just so weary of having the same argument with the same people who refuse to bother learning anything that might remotely conflict with their world view anymore. If the response to "maybe we should improve society somewhat" is some banal wealth-building sales pitch relying on cherry-picked statistics and devoid of any wider context, then I think it's safe to presume you're either willfully arguing in bad faith or so colossally ignorant that you're beyond help.

EDIT: One thing I would add requires quoting PG.

There are other ways to get rich than by starting startups. Some of those do require you to exploit people. But startups are the most common way to become really rich, and if you want to start a successful startup, the key is not exploitation but empathy. What do users really want? What could you do for them that would make their lives dramatically better? That kind of empathy is what we look for in founders, and what we cultivate in the ones we accept.

I will flatly reject that YC startups of late have any shred of empathy for their customer base, in general. If they had any shred of empathy for their customers, they all wouldn't collectively lean into the "permanent underclass" and "AI job replacement" narratives so often spouted by their predecessors. In fact, I would go so far as to argue the only groups with a shred of empathy for their customers might just be the non-YC startups or the FOSS groups cranking away in spite of all the headwinds.

Nobody - nobody - makes a billion dollars through empathy alone. At some point, one has to make a conscious decision to say "I demand more returns than reasonable relative to my costs, and I expect my customers and/or employees to bear that burden on my behalf." Otherwise we'd see a parade of companies demanding caps on margins to drive prices lower or wages for workers higher, thus creating more spending money among workers that in turn produces more economic activity. We do not see this outcome, therefore we cannot ascribe empathy as a source of wealth.

I’m not sure what you mean - the fact we assume malicious intent is in fact a guard against prior gullibility which was exploited by bad actors.

You get betrayed enough, and you stop acting from a position of implicit trust. If folks want to go back to the days when trolling was the default assumption, then we collectively need to punish bad actors to discourage further betrayals.