Lia's recent activity
-
Comment on Attention economics, software engineering, and AI in ~tech
-
Comment on I hacked ChatGPT and Google's AI – and it only took twenty minutes in ~tech
Lia Link ParentYou're right, but at least the slop pages can still be easily detected due to the poor quality and weird domain names. It's really annoying as it is, but I fear how much worse it can get.You're right, but at least the slop pages can still be easily detected due to the poor quality and weird domain names. It's really annoying as it is, but I fear how much worse it can get.
-
Comment on The AI disruption has arrived, and it sure is fun (gifted link) in ~tech
Lia Link ParentThe question is moot, with half of Americans acting like their brains have fallen out of their crania. That's partially thanks to manipulative AI, but also social media and news algorithms, all...What about national security concerns, with America falling behind its opponents?
The question is moot, with half of Americans acting like their brains have fallen out of their crania.
That's partially thanks to manipulative AI, but also social media and news algorithms, all designed to make users addicted, worsening an already bad outcome. If national security is a concern, you/they should regulate these systems to oblivion, starting yesterday.
-
Comment on I hacked ChatGPT and Google's AI – and it only took twenty minutes in ~tech
Lia (edited )Link ParentYeah, not to give anyone ideas but one of my AI-related concerns, should it become good enough in programming, is that scammers can implement real-time monitoring of online search trends and spit...Yeah, not to give anyone ideas but one of my AI-related concerns, should it become good enough in programming, is that scammers can implement real-time monitoring of online search trends and spit out websites tailored to fit them. Once perfectly efficient, the system could even produce a tailor-made website for each individual web search (in my imagination at least, but I'm not an IT pro and I hope I'm wrong about this).
ETA: And not just scammers but propagandists and other nefarious actors too.
-
Comment on Some of my family members aren't convinced that ICE isn't overstepping and that they are just deporting people that broke the law, can you help me share unbiased links that proves they are? in ~society
Lia (edited )LinkI can't help with the numbers but maybe someone else here can: Tell them how many illegal immigrants Obama deported. That shows it can be done efficiently without the violence and societal discord...I can't help with the numbers but maybe someone else here can:
Tell them how many illegal immigrants Obama deported. That shows it can be done efficiently without the violence and societal discord that according to Trump is necessary to get the job done.
Which society would they prefer: the current shit show or the stability that you guys had before, if and when the deportation process is equally effective in both scenarios? (Like I said, I don't have the numbers but I wouldn't be surprised if Obama's was in fact more effective at getting results.)
ETA: I recommend this approach because it doesn't lead to arguing whether individual cases of violence happened or not, or were justified or not. It simply takes for granted that society is more hostile and violent now, which it is, and your family members absolutely feel it in their bones too. Just don't bring up discussion points that give them a chance to try to find logical arguments against that fact, because that's what people will do when in an uncomfortable situation. The arguments are first and foremost intended to soothe their own minds and they will continue for as long as they are afraid, needing to be soothed (that is, forever, or until society calms down again and they don't have to be afraid anymore).
-
Comment on Communities, relationships, and navigating the enshittification of absolutely everything in ~talk
Lia (edited )LinkAn artist here, going through pretty much the same / similar things. Thanks for posting and making me feel less alone! I believe this constant tension we're feeling is a precursor to a bursting of...An artist here, going through pretty much the same / similar things. Thanks for posting and making me feel less alone!
I believe this constant tension we're feeling is a precursor to a bursting of a bubble. It's an incredibly thin, soapy surface we sit on, becoming increasingly stressed in multiple directions until it can't remain intact anymore. No wonder it feels awful. One reason it feels even more awful than most awful things in life is because we don't know how long it'll still take for it to burst. It could happen this year, it could take a few more years - if some strange and rare event occurs, it can take even longer (although I don't believe that's likely).
I'd like to describe my own experience around the topics you mentioned.
Enshittification and being the only one who cares
For me, the bandwidth-consuming battle against enshittification started around 12 years ago when Adobe released Creative Cloud and started manipulating users to sign up and stop using the local software versions (CS). I saw the writing on the wall and covered my bases, resulting in my peers thinking I was a bit of an oddball. I've managed to work all these years without having to get even a trial period for CC, but last year's new development where Adobe now claims they own all rights (practically speaking) to my work if any collaborator of mine decides to work on it using CC is a new source of stress and worry. Most of my collaborators aren't as diligent or as short for funding as I am (at least they weren't up until now, more on that later), so they just kept getting locked into the Adobe ecosystem, the logic being that their end customers are paying for it, so why not. It isn't easy to get out at this point even if they wanted to.I've been managing my systems and processes outside of the Adobe "garden" for so long now that it's become routine for me and I can more or less consider myself safe. But it's certainly more work than it would have to be in a better world where services exist to actually serve people.
Disruptions in my field
Related to the above, the reason I've been short for cash when the people around me have not: I'm producing concrete, real world items while my collaborators are mostly producing digital work and most of my peers are producing specs. Making tangible things requires a lot of technical know-how, money to cover the often steep material costs, and overall an attitude where I have to be mindful of every single small detail at every level of what I do. This kind of existence is hard, and for that reason, it's also frowned upon in my field. We were taught at university to strive for a position where we don't personally touch the manual labour component - rather a "true professional" is someone who has others do it on their behalf. People who "have to" do the manual parts themselves are seen as unsuccessful to some degree.At the moment, I'm glad that I chose the concept I did, because hard as it is, it definitely cannot be replaced by AI - and more importantly, no one is even claiming that it can. The really shitty thing is that these claims and partially erroneous beliefs are actually causing people to lose their jobs even when the claim itself is likely false. I recently contacted a small digital design agency I used to work with, only to discover that their website doesn't exist. I haven't contacted them yet to ask what happened but I fear the worst. Many clients with large budgets - the ones that used to cover for the steep Adobe CC subscription fees - are now trying to cut costs, most likely by experimenting with AI. As a result, many high level professionals lose their best clients. I don't believe for a moment that this level of professionalism can actually be replaced by AI even when the end product is digital, but the clients are certainly going to try it because they can. And they won't understand their mistake before my friends' businesses have already gone bankrupt many times over.
This feels incredibly hard on many levels. There's some minor satisfaction I feel, realising I haven't been taxing myself in vain by going against the grain of common practices and sticking to my guns. At the same time, watching people's lives crumble and important skills get lost hurts like hell. And it hurts more because it was always so incredibly predictable. Systems built by blindly power-hungry people, intended to enable them to do "art" (among other things) without having to go through the process of becoming an artist (a process that involves growth as a human being and learning to be responsible in a way that isn't possible unless you painstakingly put yourself through that process) - it's so very obvious what kind of world this leads to. Which brings me to the next pain point.
Turbo capitalism and the rise of economic (and emotional) colonialism
In secondary school, I was taught a story about colonialism. I haven't checked for its accuracy but I don't think it matters much whether or not it was fabricated because the same thing is happening in our current societies. The story was that Native Americans traded their land in for glass beads - not realising the full implications of the transaction until it was already too late. The colonialists obviously knew the implications and deliberately failed to disclose.I feel like the people around me who don't care about privacy and other consumer rights (sometimes human rights) that Big Tech is trampling on are being similarly deliberately misguided, and it's extremely painful to watch. The logic of colonialism seems to be: do bad thing now -> apologise when others realise it was bad -> immensely profit anyway because it'll be too late to go back and now you hold the power. This logic is being applied more and more often in the context of capitalism, in an increasing variety of ways, almost like capitalists are testing to see where else they can get away with it.
While I believe in the basic principles of capitalism and I don't think there are better ways to enable human and societal flourishing, I also think that what we have here is something else and quite sinister at that. It's not people choosing in free market conditions what makes their life better and rejecting what doesn't. It's people (and smaller organisations) being led on in an increasingly manipulated marketplace, rife with lock-ins and other ties to businesses and products that no one would actually choose if we started from a clean slate. It's being forced to use and pay for products and services that have negative value to society - things that leave us worse off! It's crazy and every sane adult should be actively going against it, but most are not.
(This text is already too long for me to get into "emotional colonialism", so I'll save that for another day.)
About the bubble
So, I mentioned that our emotional uneasiness is due to the looming bursting of our current bubble. And I do believe this, but at the same time: my own experience of life and work in the world has always been like this. I do things that I believe in, while realising most other people don't care, or don't believe in, the same things. I do what I do anyway, accepting the costs to my personal life and mental health (of which I then take extra good care for, so that I don't burn out or lose balance).At the moment though, I can see and feel a shift taking place. It used to be easier for me to accept that the world was largely not built for me, or that it didn't cater to my needs and interests too well, because I could see and believe that it was a good place to live in for the majority of people. This is becoming harder and harder to believe as corporate interests keep shifting from value creation towards value extraction. The rift that used to divide me and a small outgroup of similar people from society - that rift is repositioning itself to divide most of civilised humanity into large cohorts with conflicting interests. When I say "large", I don't necessarily mean a large number of people on the colonialist side, just that their influence is large enough to effectively oppress and act against the rest.
All I can say is: I hope that this bubble, when it bursts, will not only take the dotcom-esque ridiculous AI hype with it, but also the naïve belief that glass beads are of equal value to the land we live on.
-
Comment on Dating apps are training us to want the wrong people in ~life
Lia Link ParentThanks for the link! I took a fairly thorough look but there's absolutely nothing that I can see to inform such a claim as the article makes. Table six depicts past relationships and I guess it...Thanks for the link! I took a fairly thorough look but there's absolutely nothing that I can see to inform such a claim as the article makes.
Table six depicts past relationships and I guess it could be used as a guideline for the outcomes attainable via different meeting contexts. (Except that the study cohort isn't large or diverse enough at all, and the other issue is that still ongoing relationships aren't included, but whatever.) But it tells us absolutely nothing about how "picky" women were when deciding whether or not to date someone.
In fact, this study looks at relationship development even before anyone picked anyone. They criticise other studies for not taking into account that some key events often occur before the parties have actually decided to form a relationship - for example, you may meet someone at work, think nothing in particular of them at the time, and four years later it develops into a relationship. This study observes and includes everything that happened during those four years.
The only plausible reference point that I can find is figure E on page 92, where it appears that close to 50% of the participants experienced "desire to carefully evaluate" their (potential) partner in the very beginning. Colloquially, it sounds similar to "being picky". Could the journalist's logic be so far fetched as to say "On the apps, women are being 95% picky and in this study, only about 48% picky, which is only half as picky"? I know it makes no sense but that's the only numerical piece of information I could find that represents half of 95%. XD
-
Comment on What are you working through? in ~life
Lia Link ParentThank you for the compassion. It's really quite helpful to see that someone gets why it's hard and unfair (especially as the opponent is pretending that they don't). I appreciate it!Thank you for the compassion. It's really quite helpful to see that someone gets why it's hard and unfair (especially as the opponent is pretending that they don't).
I appreciate it!
-
Comment on What are you working through? in ~life
Lia Link ParentThanks. I won't get down to the level of details publicly but yes, every angle is being considered. When you start looking into things, more and more angles reveal themselves and investigating...Thanks. I won't get down to the level of details publicly but yes, every angle is being considered. When you start looking into things, more and more angles reveal themselves and investigating them all is very time consuming. I've accepted this is role for now and so be it.
-
Comment on Dating apps are training us to want the wrong people in ~life
Lia Link ParentI wonder how this was measured: "Women cull 95% of their pool from first impressions, making them almost twice as picky online as they would be in real life." How many percent do we "cull" in real...It would be nice if the article actually substantiated any of the claims made.
I wonder how this was measured: "Women cull 95% of their pool from first impressions, making them almost twice as picky online as they would be in real life." How many percent do we "cull" in real life then? Out of what group exactly? In what circumstances? I mean, is this about saying no when someone asks you out and if it is, then it's not comparable to swiping left before you even know if they would be interested, while looking at a set of data points about them, some of which are probably dealbreakers.
...I went back to check the article and there's actually a reference to a study that compared short-term and long-term relationships. I can't access the study and I don't understand how the journalist drew this conclusion from it.
-
Comment on Dating apps are training us to want the wrong people in ~life
Lia (edited )LinkTL;DR / addendum: The article appears to profess the common but unhelpful dichotomy of chemistry vs. criteria-based partner selection, claiming that chemistry counts more and as it can't be...TL;DR / addendum:
The article appears to profess the common but unhelpful dichotomy of chemistry vs. criteria-based partner selection, claiming that chemistry counts more and as it can't be measured via an app, the apps are useless. IMO, both approaches can be severely misguided. Chasing chemistry can land you in a toxic relationship and chasing the wrong criteria can land you in an endless loop of fruitless searching.
I believe these are both important facets of a happy relationship. I have found the apps very useful in finding someone that fits my criteria, and I find that my set of criteria does lead me to connections that are both happy and lasting (if it didn't, I would work on calibrating the set). The chemistry bit has almost always emerged over time when the rest of the criteria has been there. Sometimes quickly, other times less so, but only one time it didn't emerge at all and that was my first serious relationship with someone I wouldn't consider compatible if I met them now. So I'd say my criteria just weren't well enough calibrated yet.
__
I read about half of this article. I think it falls victim to the same mindset as the misguided dating folk it describes.
Yes, some people lose sight of what's really important when an app nudges them to pay attention to the wrong things, and/or emphasise the wrong things in their own profile (I believe this is intentional on the service provider side). But it's silly to go so far as to say "The apps prioritise good looks and gender stereotypes". The app is not a conscious entity. We users are still able to choose our priorities, choose what we communicate about ourselves, and ignore anything that doesn't fit what we want. If it's true that some people look for things that don't actually matter to them, I doubt that they'll change the tune even if they got off the apps. It goes deeper than that I'm afraid.
The author makes unhelpful sweeping generalisations:
While men swipe right on about 50% of their prospects, women cull 95% of their pool from first impressions, making them almost twice as picky online as they would be in real life.
I spent most of last year on the apps, and every serious relationship in my past also started on an app or a dating site. I like less than 1% of the profiles I see. But I don't even look at the photos - I swipe based on text. And in real life, I'm a great deal more picky!
The reason I like the apps: someone who knows who they are and how to accurately convey that so that the message registers more or less correctly in another human being's brain (or maybe just my brain, as someone compatible with them) saves me a ton of time getting through the initial boring stages of getting to know them. There aren't many of these people around, but every now and then one comes along. After that it's just a matter of confirming compatibility - the very thing the author claims can't be gauged via the apps. While that is true to some extent, it is absolutely possible to find people whose likelihood of being compatible is a lot higher than perhaps anyone you could meet in real life. That has at least been the case for me. Especially when I've already weeded out the easily detectable dealbreakers like kids, age bracket, politics, geography, religion, etc. This would be tedious as hell to do in real life but happens in an instant on the apps.
I agree with the claim that friendship-based relationships are where real happiness lies. But there's no reason why you can't find this on the apps. The first thing I always pay attention to is whether I can become good friends (over time) with the person. Admittedly, not many people on the apps are willing to take things slow enough to really get a good idea, but that's just one more compatibility factor to consider. Not many people my age are child free either. Or possess many of the other (mental) qualities I really need in a partner to be happy. That doesn't matter because I'm not trying to form a relationship with a large number of people. All it takes is ONE single individual person who is compatible enough.
I live in a small enough place and spend my days in such environments that I wouldn't have met any of the significant people in my life if it wasn't for the apps. You have to be mindful about how you use them, and have patience. It also helps to realise the apps are not that different from the real world: after all, the same people are on the apps and in the world (by and large - of course the selection differs somewhat because some people dislike the apps enough to not be on them). An app is simply a way to encounter more single people more efficiently. ALL kinds of people: as the number of compatible people in your "stack" increases, so does the number of incompatible people!
In my opinion, when the user is able to filter and focus appropriately and communicate their personality realistically, the apps still yield good results. (Disclaimer: after a few more rounds of enshittification, this may change.)
-
Comment on What are you working through? in ~life
Lia LinkGreat question, thanks for asking! I'm in the throes of a major career transition from designer to artist. I was moderately successful being the former but my field is insanely hard to succeed in,...Great question, thanks for asking!
I'm in the throes of a major career transition from designer to artist.
I was moderately successful being the former but my field is insanely hard to succeed in, especially internationally, and I'm from a small country where the local market isn't enough to sustain businesses like mine. So to really make it, I would have had to take in venture capital or some other funding that would have put me under even more pressure to perform than I had before (which was already a lot). I would have had to hire people and become their boss, which would have meant I get to do less of the work I actually enjoy. The pressure of sustaining those jobs in a precarious field would have been insanely stressful. I chose to go the other way and let go of the idea that what I'm doing is a business. I'm changing everything, from products to "marketing" to production and "business" practices etc. so that it fits my values as purely as possible, regardless of what sales/earning potential such activities may or may not have. When I'm done I'll launch it as an art project.
I made the decision during the pandemic and in hindsight, I'm really pleased I had the courage, because given how bad the economy has been since, I would have already gone bankrupt trying to run a business. On the other hand, I thought the transition would be done in a couple years. It's been.. I don't even want to count how many years, but I'm still not done! It's been an insane amount of work, some of it extremely challenging, because I'm essentially trying to do something that hasn't been done before. There are no benchmarks to follow and I've had to redefine and re-develop many of the core features of what I do.
Last year when I'd gotten quite close to the finish line, there was a change in my working environment that put things more or less to a halt, and I'm still dealing with that too:
I work in an industrial building perfectly suited to the kind of work I do. I've been working here for 14 years. The rent is doable for me, the space is exactly what I need in every way (not easy to find), and there's enough of it. The other spaces in the building are mostly occupied by architects, artists, designers and other office workers. Until last year when the space directly below me was rented out to an event producer.
They installed a powerful sound system and started hosting loud parties multiple times a week. The building has zero sound insulation, the floor is just a few cm of concrete that acts as their ceiling and there are cracks in it. The dB levels are regularly over 60 on my side, often over 80 and occasionally close to 100. This makes the space unusable for most of my work processes for the duration of the noise. What's worse is the events are always in the evenings and weekends, which are the only times I can actually do creative work because during office hours I have to do admin type work that doesn't mix well with the creative process.
The owner of that space, as well as the tenant, have been uncooperative. Everyone else in the building, owners and tenants included, wants to ban activities that cause disturbance to other spaces but the other side is being aggressive and threatening the other owners to stop them from taking action. I've been actively dealing with the situation for a year. I won't get into details here on what that entails but it's a lot of work and takes up a lot of my focus. I'm getting close to the stage where I'll be involving a lawyer, and then lord knows how long it'll still take to get this sorted out. The worst case scenario is that I'll lose my career because I can't publish the project I've been working on for years.
Last year I went through a fairly challenging breakup and the resulting emotional processing, but that seems fairly minor compared to the above. I think I got through it alright.
-
Comment on Elon Musk says SpaceX will prioritize a city on the moon instead of a colony on Mars in ~space
Lia Link ParentThis isn't really about any individual person - it's about realising that some projects are driven by delusional egomania to such an extent that investment in them is in itself indication of a...I maintain that people who keep making this fake argument are still focusing on the messenger, rather than the message.
This isn't really about any individual person - it's about realising that some projects are driven by delusional egomania to such an extent that investment in them is in itself indication of a personality who can't be trusted with the fate of humanity.
It is not an either-or choice. Humanity has the ability to work on more than one project at a time.
Terraforming the Sahara desert is something that could be attempted with funding of this scale, but not at the same time as terraforming Mars, or the Moon. I hope we can all agree which one is more pressing and more feasible.
Choosing to work on a project that is not feasible and not sustainable is just an extension of the mindset that got us into the current global challenges in the first place. The solution is for humanity to learn how to work together for the greater good - not 'move fast and break things' and when shit hits the fan, try to escape the consequences of our own actions to another planet. Allowing ourselves to give in to such lack of accountability accelerates environmentally destructive practices here on Earth.
Even though this seems like I'm criticising an individual person, I actually believe that this is a challenge for humanity as a whole: the way our societies are constructed, our politics and our values, are enabling people like Musk, and that's the ultimate issue we have to solve if we are to "secure the future of civilization".
-
Comment on Elon Musk says SpaceX will prioritize a city on the moon instead of a colony on Mars in ~space
Lia Link ParentThese are the people who can't even ensure Earth to remain inhabitable. A project massively more feasible than making some initially hostile planet inhabitable. Once they've migrated there, how...Off-site backup is always a good idea
These are the people who can't even ensure Earth to remain inhabitable. A project massively more feasible than making some initially hostile planet inhabitable. Once they've migrated there, how are they planning to rid themselves of their power hunger and inflated egos so that they won't destroy societal and living conditions there too? A brain transplant? If that were an option, it would be better to do it right away so the Earth could be saved from ruin.
There is no scenario where it would be a good idea to invest a single cent in an off-site backup at the expense of fixing the fatal flaws that got humanity into this mess in the first place. Those flaws will follow us everywhere we go.
Caelum non animum mutant qui trans mare currunt.
"They change their sky, not their soul, those who rush across the sea." (Horace, The Odes of Horace)
-
Comment on Elon Musk says SpaceX will prioritize a city on the moon instead of a colony on Mars in ~space
Lia Link ParentExactly. There are two things here that they seem to fail to understand: others don't necessarily have to lose for me to be able to win, just because I'm making others lose, that doesn't mean I...not a zero-sum game
Exactly. There are two things here that they seem to fail to understand:
- others don't necessarily have to lose for me to be able to win,
- just because I'm making others lose, that doesn't mean I won't lose too!
These people are making society worse for everyone, including themselves and their offspring. It doesn't stop baffling me that they don't realise, or care, what kind of existence their kids will have to endure. Stuck on an inherently hostile planet with extremely limited resources and only a handful of humans (which is of course not a realistic prospect anyway), or stuck on one that used to be habitable for billions until your father decided to waste it away. Gee, thanks dad.
-
Comment on 'Control AI', a non-profit that ostensibly works to protect humanity from the risks of AI, is actually sponsoring influencers to divert public attention away from them in ~tech
Lia LinkI've taken the liberty to write an alternative title. The video itself is titled: 'Your Favorite Science YouTubers Are Wrong About AI, (e.g. SciShow, Kurzgesagt, and Kyle Hill )' Video description...I've taken the liberty to write an alternative title. The video itself is titled: 'Your Favorite Science YouTubers Are Wrong About AI, (e.g. SciShow, Kurzgesagt, and Kyle Hill )'
Video description (emphasis mine):
Are popular educational channels acting as the PR arm for the AI industry?
There is a consistent narrative spreading across YouTube—from channels like SciShow, Kurzgesagt, and Kyle Hill—that claims Artificial Intelligence is an "inevitable" god-like force destined to either save or destroy humanity. But as a software professional since the 1980s, I see a different story: one of bugs, hype, and industry propaganda.In this video, we debunk the apocalyptic AI narratives and expose the "L.I.E.S." being sold to you:
Lethality: Why the "AI extinction" theory is unsupported nonsense.
Inevitability: The myth that we cannot stop or regulate AI development.
Exceptionalism: Why AI isn't as "new" or "different" as they claim (debunking the nuclear power comparison).We also investigate "Control AI," the sponsor behind some of these videos, and analyze why Big Tech CEOs prefer you worry about a sci-fi apocalypse rather than real-world issues like disinformation, mass unemployment, and human rights violations.
Side note: This creator got demonetised by YouTube despite being extremely sensible and non-inflammatory (save perhaps for the above description). Meaning YT is taking ad revenue from his viewers but giving none of it to him, and he also can't make subscriber only content. Meanwhile the above mentioned fear mongering is allowed to continue.
-
'Control AI', a non-profit that ostensibly works to protect humanity from the risks of AI, is actually sponsoring influencers to divert public attention away from them
25 votes -
Comment on Internet of Bugs / Spec Again creator, Carl, is planning a course for developers who want to go solo - looking for feedback from potential participants in ~tech
Lia LinkI'm not a programmer and I just found this channel yesterday. More precisely, it's two channels on the same topic, one for laypeople and one for the tech savvy. Carl, the host, has been a tech...I'm not a programmer and I just found this channel yesterday. More precisely, it's two channels on the same topic, one for laypeople and one for the tech savvy. Carl, the host, has been a tech professional since the 1980's. I saw one video by him and knew I have to post it on Tildes - then I went to see what else he's done and saw this.
I greatly admire this man's lucidity in the face of the current tech bubble, his perspective and groundedness, and the ability to grasp what's important.
Here he outlines a course he's planning to create for programmers who have been working for a couple years at least. He says: 'It's a rough time to be a developer right now, although it's still not as bad as the dot-com crash, and I expect that when the AI bubble pops, it's going to get a lot worse for a while before it gets better. I really want to try to help with that.' --- 'So hopefully this is a class that will teach you things that will serve you for the rest of your career, not just for the next year or two.' There is a link to a form you can use to give comments and suggestions before he locks down the details. He explains his ideas in a very clear, tangible way in the video so I won't go deeper into that here.
I feel like this could be valuable for some people around here so I wanted to post about it, especially as I've seen the occasional post by developers figuring out a new direction. Even though I don't know much about the field, I know a good teacher when I see one. This guy seems solid enough that I almost want to become a developer myself, just to attend his course. :)
(Let me know in the comments if you guys think it's okay to post something like this.)
-
Internet of Bugs / Spec Again creator, Carl, is planning a course for developers who want to go solo - looking for feedback from potential participants
12 votes -
Comment on Elon Musk says SpaceX will prioritize a city on the moon instead of a colony on Mars in ~space
Lia Link ParentDonating everything he owns to organisations that work to curb global warming and end wars and hunger, and ceasing all business activities for the remainder of his life, would be even faster AND a...“The overriding priority is securing the future of civilization and the Moon is faster,” he wrote.
Donating everything he owns to organisations that work to curb global warming and end wars and hunger, and ceasing all business activities for the remainder of his life, would be even faster AND a lot more efficient.
Your definitions seem self-contradictory. "The power" no longer influences the internet but "the power holders" "shape the internet"? I know that there is probably a thought process behind these definitions but they're too vague to make sense.
(You could try writing a post that focuses solely on why "internet is the power" and what exactly that term means to you. Hopefully in the process you'll discover a better name for that phenomenon - something that will generate understanding rather than confusion.)