yesco

I reject your characterization of my comment. I explicitly called myself an outlier and said I didn't want to get too specific, so I'm not sure where you're getting "clever" from. I wasn't claiming credit for my circumstances. I was identifying the actual variable that separated my outcome from peers in similar circumstances, because that's useful information for anyone who does have that option available.

And plenty of people do. I know people who could live at home rent-free and chose apartments anyway because they wanted independence sooner. That's a legitimate preference, but it's still a tradeoff, and pretending the tradeoff doesn't exist because some people don't get the choice at all helps nobody. "Not everyone can do X" is true of literally every piece of financial advice ever given. It doesn't make X bad advice for the people who can.

I purchased a house within commuting distance of Boston in my mid 20s, back in 2022. Didn't need PMI, the mortgage terms weren't unreasonable to me (fixed 5% interest), and the monthly payments for utilities plus the loan are still well within my means. It's even got an attached garage.

I don't want to get too specific here for privacy reasons, but I believe the main difference between myself and my peers is that I chose to live with my parents and save for a house instead of moving out and getting an apartment right away during/after college. With almost zero real expenses outside my student loans, and the median software engineer salary for the region, I was able to save enough for a down payment after just a couple years. I did this because I disliked the idea of having no equity and paying rent to offset someone else's mortgage instead of saving for my own. My parents really liked that reasoning.

In many respects I'm fundamentally an outlier, yet once I bought mine, my peers with much lower incomes started doing the same after I explained the financials. When they actually sat down and calculated the mortgage payments, they realized it wasn't that bad, as long as they got something on the smaller side, which is still bigger than an apartment anyway.

To be clear, housing costs were crazy and still are. But I sense "crazy" is pretty relative when talking to people online from other countries. Housing in the US is expensive, especially compared to various convenient periods within the last 100 years. But even now, it's not the unrealistic back-breaking dream it seems to be when I talk to Europeans about it, and I suspect that's why so many Americans on social media overestimate the costs.

My perspective until now was that the Wikimedia foundation was already supposed to be a union-like organization. Would it make sense for Linux maintainers to form a union within the Linux foundation? The vibes feel similar to me.

Yeah I was expecting some giant text dump based on the complaints in the comments here, yet all I see is a pretty normal README? It's not even that large.

If we are splitting hairs some sections could have been left out or broken up into a dedicated doc, but this is still vastly better than a README that explains too little. At minimum I expect a README to give me guidance on what this is and how to get started with it and having stuff like a file layout helps with exactly that.

Yes it's truly a shame when the people responsible for critical infrastructure only hire the cheap inexperienced software engineers to build it.

Much like how relying on a resident nurse instead of a cardiologist when you are experiencing a heart attack can end your life pretty badly as well.

I see no reason not to be empathetic. The frustration is fair, but it's aimed at the wrong layer. These people were guided into this spot by bootcamps and curricula that start at React and never go down the stack.

My experience was the reverse. I learned HTML and CSS first, then Rails in college to serve templated pages. I understood the client/server boundary fine as a concept, what I couldn't see was where it actually sat in a web context. I sort of knew JavaScript ran in the browser, but then I'd see ERB templates stamping values directly into script tags, so the server was writing the JavaScript that ran on the client, and my mental model fell apart. Where does my code actually execute? Why does this variable exist here but not there? Why does the page have data the network tab never fetched? Nobody ever sat me down and explained the request/response lifecycle as its own thing. I had to assemble it from fragments over years. This was around 2017 for context.

How you learn something shapes how you keep learning. If your mental model is misaligned, everything downstream is friction. The thing that finally made it click for me was reading the actual HTTP RFCs, which is apparently a weird thing to do, because HTTP itself is absent from nearly every guide and curriculum. Tutorials teach you the framework, maybe the language, and just assume the protocol underneath. These days I make newbies read the MDN docs like a book and skim the HTTP wiki page, learn the history of the protocol. It's short! It's not even a book! That gives you a firm foundation. But if your foundation starts at React, drilling down is like digging past bedrock. People don't know where to start, and Googling only shows them wrong answers because they don't yet know how to ask the question.

You can agree or disagree with the consequences, but the voting rights act never had any explicit provisions about districting, this was something conjured entirely by the courts. It was even framed as a temporary measure at the time of the original ruling.

So not exactly bewildering, I personally saw it as closer to inevitable. The Supreme Court never had the power to legislate, it can only interpret, and a shaky interpretation always has an expiration date no matter how popular it is.

Friends who give ultimatums like this are usually toxic and worth ditching. Your friend would be better off cutting you off now, regardless of what they decide about the job, than continuing to associate with someone who'd emotionally manipulate them over a career choice. Healthy relationships simply don't look like this, and dressing it up as principle doesn't change what it actually is.

The fact that this feels like a normal thing to say to a friend tells on you a bit. Get out more, spend time with people who don't already share your priors, and the certainty starts to sand down on its own. Threatening your friendships over someone else's career is not the moral high ground, it's just an ugly way to treat people. Humility is understanding you can be wrong about things even when you're certain you're correct.

I honestly agree with you in many respects, I'm simply spinning in some nuance to a topic I keep seeing.

The snake oil salesmen is productive precisely because the actual effects of the snake oil they are selling is unknown to the consumer they are introducing it to. There isn't easy answers to this, it's just a fact of life that we can try our best mitigate.

And apparently fish oil actually does help your brain. Weird world we live in.

So I think the focus on "experts" is actually a consequence of declining institutional credentialism. You didn't trust them for claiming to be experts, you trusted the institutions who called them experts and said you should trust them for that reason. But expertise implies competence not trust. Not everyone operates with good intentions even with the right credentials, including many institutions themselves.

This is why I believe we should only listen to amateur opinions on everything, experts simply lack historical credibility. For example I've recently purchased a healing crystal (half off) for only $5000 dollars! It cleared up the imbalanced energies my street guru told me about right away.

I would never have been made aware about the consequences of imbalanced energies in the first place if I had asked an expert instead. They probably wouldn't even suggest an immediate solution to the problem like my reliable street guru always does! Something to consider.

Spain had the largest empire in the Western Hemisphere. Extracted silver, enslaved entire populations, and lost it when we kicked their teeth in during 1898. That's imperialism. Paying someone hundreds of millions to let you park planes on their runway is not. And "which neighbor do they need defending from" is a question that tells on itself. If you still think wars are about neighboring countries you haven't been paying attention to anything happening in the world right now.

"Granted to them for free"? The US has been paying Spain for base access since 1953. Hundreds of millions per renewal cycle in military aid, economic assistance, and direct spending. It was never free and it was never a favor. Spain negotiated compensation every time.

"Who does Spain need defending from?" Nobody, because of the security architecture my tax dollars built. That's not evidence the bases are a favor to us. That's evidence they worked. You're welcome. And if they can't be used when it matters, I won't lose any sleep if they get closed.

Glad we are on the same page, because yes, as you pointed out, it literally says here in plaintext that it was NATO Allies that activated it, not the United States.

The United States has never activated article 5. Get your facts straight before attempting to use an LLM to reply to me.

The coalition for Afghanistan was voluntary. This isn't even that, it's just flying our planes over Spain's airspace.

Even as a joint contributor I see no reason for the US to pay for bases it's never going to be allowed to use.

I want to say upfront that I'm absolutely not trying to say Spain should or even needs to join this silly war.

But the US not being allowed to use the bases it pays and maintains for Spain makes it questionable why it does so in the first place. Iran is in fact a threat relevant to NATO considering most of it is/was within ballistic missile range. It's also a simple fact that Iran's manufacturing base has been supporting Russia's war machine, which has been a key contributing factor in the Ukrainian stalemate. There is some genuine strategic overlap.

Restricting air space on top of that, makes me, originally a more sympathetic American NATO supporter, question the dynamics here. Why should the US help Spain when it's in need in a future conflict?

I don't want Isreal dragging us into wars for it's personal benefit. But this whole conflict has really got me realizing I don't want Europe dragging us into any wars either. The only transactional benefit to those air bases is that they power American global logistics. If this becomes a pattern then I think NATO will likely become nothing more than a nuclear umbrella, even after Trump leaves office. And only as a hedge against nuclear proliferation.

People take for granted that Biden was technically the most Pro-NATO president we have ever had, and likely ever will.

This dynamic could also be argued as a cause of the War of 1812.

Ah, I finally understand NFTs now

Salespeople are the easiest to sell to. Con artists are the easiest to swindle. The people who believe they're immune to being tricked are always the ones who get tricked the most.

I get maintainers have their own issues to deal with, and respect that they are trying to keep the project clean. At work I have had many times where I spent more of my day reviewing MRs than actually writing code, and sometimes my cold blunt replies can unintentionally rub people the wrong way.

Still, I feel like they were pretty rude to this guy for no real reason. I don't think I'd want to work with them.

Agreed on the slacktivism point. Physical presence means something that bots and polls can't fake. My issue isn't with protesting itself, it's that the assumed impact often seems out of proportion with what's actually being achieved. A crowd showing up doesn't automatically translate to minds changed or policy moved. And crowd sizes can be just as ambiguous as poll numbers when it comes to representing broader sentiment. If the tactics alienate more people than they persuade, visibility alone isn't doing much.

Assuming critics are just reflexively resistant is a convenient way to avoid asking whether the criticism has merit. "They'd get it if they were more curious" is unfalsifiable.

Everyone already knows dissent exists. Polls, social media, elections make that clear. The question is whether street protests add anything to that awareness, and whether the way they're conducted generates curiosity or just irritation. For a lot of people it's the latter, and waving that off doesn't make the problem disappear.

You're describing how protests energize people who already agree. I'm asking how they persuade people who don't. The honks are from your side. The people you need are either tuning out or getting annoyed. Visibility used to equal influence when everyone watched the same three channels. That's not the world we live in anymore.

I was primarily discussing written language in my post, as that's easier to speculate on.

That said, if most people turn into hermits and start living in pods around this period, then I think you would be in the right direction.

If we focus only on the impact on linguistics, I predict things will go something like this:

As LLM use normalizes for essay writing (email, documentation, social media, etc), a pattern emerges where everyone uses an LLM as an editor. People only create rough drafts and then have their "editor" make it coherent.

Interestingly, people might start using said editor prompts to express themselves, causing an increased range in distinct writing styles. Despite this, vocabulary and semantics as a whole become more uniform. Spelling errors and typos become increasingly rare.

In parallel, people start using LLMs to summarize content in a style they prefer.

Both sides of this gradually converge. Content gets explicitly written in a way that is optimized for consumption by an LLM, perhaps a return to something like the semantic web. Authors write content in a way that encourages a summarizing LLM to summarize as the author intends for certain explicit areas.

Human languages start to evolve in a direction that could be considered more coherent than before, and perhaps less ambiguous. Language is the primary interface an LLM uses with humans, so even if LLM use becomes baseline for many things, if information is not being communicated effectively then an LLM would be failing at its job. I'm personifying LLMs a bit here but I just mean it in a game theory / incentive structure way.

That's a strange example. An unauthenticated server on a LAN wouldn't be exposed to the Internet any more than a network using NAT would be. You would need to explicitly configure your routers firewall to expose a local node, the same way you would need to explicitly configure port forwarding with a NAT based network.

I've see some argue that a hypothetically buggy router would somehow be less likely to fail if NAT was used but really, that could be equally said about bad port formatting defaults, which have in fact happened. Complexity is what increases the likelihood of bugs at the end of the day.

NAT is just an addressing hack, a weirdly complex way of indirectly routing to local addresses. It only influences what is written on the envelope, not how that envelope is processed at the post office.

You are not bypassing the router, the devices need to get their packets from somewhere, and it is only like a forever-open port if the router/firewall decides it is.

This trips up a lot of people, and I think it's because NAT was probably their first real exposure to networking. When that happens, you end up building all your mental models around NAT as the baseline, even though NAT itself is really just a workaround for address space limitations.

What's interesting is that someone with no networking background who thinks of it like a postal system (packets are letters that get forwarded through various routing centers from source to destination) would actually have a more accurate mental model of how IP networking fundamentally works. The NAT-centric view we all learned first can actually make the basics harder to understand, not easier.

I have no idea what book you're talking about, and I never claimed water "disappears" or made any argument about consumption statistics. Why would you assume I think water vanishes from existence? That's absurd.

My point is simple: the utility infrastructure is the hard part. The silicon sitting on raised floors is disposable and will be obsolete in a few years. But the power substations, fiber connections, and water infrastructure? That takes years to permit and build, and that's where the real value is.

Building that infrastructure (trenches for water lines, electrical substations, laying fiber) is the actual constraint and where the long term value lies. Whether they're running GPUs or something else entirely, industries will pay for access to that utility infrastructure long after today's AI hardware is obselete.

You're lecturing me about evaporative cooling efficiency while completely missing the point.

Don't these data centers have pretty elaborate cooling setups that use large volumes of water?

So they're sitting on real estate with access to massive amounts of water, electricity, and high bandwidth network connections. Seems like that combination of resources could be useful for a lot of other things beyond just data centers.

Like you could probably run desalination plants, large scale hydroponic farms, semiconductor manufacturing, or chemical processing facilities. Anything that needs the trifecta of heavy power, water infrastructure, and fiber connectivity could slot right in.

I'll just make note here for anyone else confused that Groq and Grok are distinct entities. They just have similar names.

Groq is more of a hardware focused company.

Then why is Google killing the ChromeOS/Chromebook?

They're not killing it, they're merging it into Android. Makes sense. Android already does everything ChromeOS does, it just needs better desktop input support. Google said this was to compete with iPads, which only reinforces my point.

Also Windows is increasing in its share again.

Short-term fluctuations don't change the long-term trend. We're talking about where things are headed over the next decade vs where it once was

Maybe that is due to companies that want AI in there systems.

My company went all-in on Copilot, but I'm not seeing this translate to more Windows usage. Copilot works fine on Macbooks, and that's what most people here use. When management gets excited about it, they talk about Outlook and Teams integration. Nobody cares about Windows-specific features. What does OS integration even buy you? Access to local files that are already in the cloud anyway? I'm using Copilot on my company-issued Ubuntu laptop right now. And honestly, the fact that IT at a massive, conservative corporation even started offering Ubuntu as an option says a lot about where things are headed.

Microsoft will be fine, but I'd bet on Windows declining over the next 10 years, not growing.