post_below's recent activity
-
Comment on Tilderinos in ~talk
-
Comment on Tilderinos in ~talk
post_below Link ParentTilderen is solid, it definitely belongs among the top of the list of names we'll never settle on.Tilderen is solid, it definitely belongs among the top of the list of names we'll never settle on.
-
Tilderinos
Hi Tildenauts, There's a custom at Tildes, that sort of grew organically out of "what should we call ourselves?" threads, to refer to fellow Tilderians in ever changing ways. This happened because...
Hi Tildenauts,
There's a custom at Tildes, that sort of grew organically out of "what should we call ourselves?" threads, to refer to fellow Tilderians in ever changing ways. This happened because there was no obvious, non-cringy answer and anyway who cares? That's my read on it anyway, I didn't follow closely. Plus the idea of online in-groups is kinda cringy itself, but also inevitable because we're humans. The whole concept begs for ironic resignation.
Anyway, fellow Tildinites, it occured to me that I've been coming here on and off for a long time. Since not too long after it launched I think. And it's been great. I consider Tildes a huge success in its mission, or my interpretation of it: be a comparitively intimate forum where people are thoughtful and less reactionary than elsewhere online. Throw in a (just) large enough userbase to include a wide variety of life experience and perspectives and you've got an oasis in an ever more polarized and reactionary internet.
Tildes reminds me of earlier internet forums, when the tone, pace and motivations for online communication were less capitalized, in various senses of the word. Niche subreddits during Reddit's golden era are another example. It's a better vibe. I'm guessing that, during the various Reddit exodii, a fair amount of people who share that nostalgia ended up here.
I even have some nostalgia for the early days of the platforms. MySpace! Early instagram was gorgeous. Even Facebook had its moments. My social media participation has always been below average, unless you count the years where any online socializing was unusual in the general population, but it's been a semi-consistent part of essentially my whole adult life both personally and professionally. Thinking about online socializing, it's funny how it's sort of its own thing. Kind of in its own social category, a new one that we recently invented. Maybe, in part, it's because the internet is a sort of buffer, and in those buffered interactions we're all a little different. In both good and bad ways. Lately it feels unbalanced towards bad, but perhaps it will swing back.
It feels like the Tildian moderation strategy, and guidelines, have successfully created a culture that's now self sustaining to some degree. And I think that culture is pretty great. It's not perfect, in the way that nothing people do can ever be perfect, especially where communication is concerned, but it's beautiful and I'm grateful it exists.
So, cheers to Tildes! I'd love to hear what other Tilderianites think about Tildes.
47 votes -
Comment on Are cooperatives more virtuous than corporations? in ~society
post_below Link ParentI didn't read the journal article either, as the blog post didn't leave me wanting more. I'm not sure he's dismissing co-ops, I suspect he isn't. But then I don't see the value in the point that...- Exemplary
I didn't read the journal article either, as the blog post didn't leave me wanting more. I'm not sure he's dismissing co-ops, I suspect he isn't. But then I don't see the value in the point that both co-ops and corporations exist to serve their members (where members = investors). It's true, but only without context.
As you say, if a co-op is better for its members, and those members are part of society, then it's good for society. With co-ops the majority of customers are also members, with corporations, investors are a tiny minority of customers.
I think we can dig in to moral choices without getting too far into the weeds, simply put co-ops are highly incentivized by their nature to care about the communities they serve. Co-op investors are largely everyday community members. Corporations are highly incentivized by law, custom and enonomics to care primarily about investors. They have no meanful connection to any community outside of investors, except where they're forced to care for marketing or regulatory reasons. It's hard to pretend the two are comparable with a straight face.
On top of that, co-ops (of the sort the post seems to be referring to) don't exist to make large profits for their investors. They exist to sell their customer/investors things at fair prices. Whereas corporations exist to extract as much value out of communities as possible and ship a large part of that value off to investors who are not a part of the community. That might be better for society at large if the extracted value was benefitting a large part of society... but we know that most of that extracted value goes to less than 1% of the population.
I suppose the frustratingly obtuse and unsupported claim that the two entities are comparable could be the point of the post, as a way to get people to rage click to the journal article wherein they'll be surprised by the compelling nature of the arguments there... But I'll leave that discovery to someone else.
-
Comment on Donald Trump AI advisor David Sacks says ‘no federal bailout for AI’ after OpenAI CFO’s suggestion of US federal government backstop in ~tech
post_below Link ParentAn AI bubble definitely exists, valuation is way beyond anything that could be backed up by near or even medium term revenue potential. And long term revenue potential is all speculation right...An AI bubble definitely exists, valuation is way beyond anything that could be backed up by near or even medium term revenue potential. And long term revenue potential is all speculation right now.
The question is whether or not it will pop outright or if a lot of companies will just fizzle as markets try to correct over time. History tells us it will pop and the survivors will consolidate the market and actually solve the revenue problem... but history isn't what it used to be when it comes to predicting what will happen in late stage capitalism.
I think the request for gov help is just a straightforward, cynical, attempt to see just how pro AI and irrational the administration is. If it works the hype cycle gets more fuel, if not no big loss.
-
Comment on Signs of introspection in large language models in ~tech
post_below Link ParentI would say "noticing" in this context just means that it's using said internal data structure when it's running and so a change impacts its behavior.I would say "noticing" in this context just means that it's using said internal data structure when it's running and so a change impacts its behavior.
-
Comment on Signs of introspection in large language models in ~tech
post_below LinkI'm not seeing the revelation here. An LLM is using context to determine what most probably should come next. If you inject something that causes the probabilities to change dramatically it will...I'm not seeing the revelation here. An LLM is using context to determine what most probably should come next. If you inject something that causes the probabilities to change dramatically it will then start operating within the changed context. "That's weird" or "I seem to have made a mistake" or whatever. If you give it vocabulary (context) like "inject" it's not surprising that it uses it some of the time to describe the changed context (about 20% according to the post).
There could be implications to this research that I'm missing but mostly it just seems silly.
-
Comment on New guidance to feed babies peanuts early and often helped thousands of kids avoid allergies in ~food
post_below (edited )Link ParentUnsolicited feedback... that reads as pretty passive aggressive. Objectively, based on current research, a parent giving their kids peanuts during the time when it was recommended they shouldn't...I'm pretty dense, but I don't understand what point you're trying to make.
Unsolicited feedback... that reads as pretty passive aggressive.
Someone giving kids peanuts when our existing understanding says it's harmful is bad.
Objectively, based on current research, a parent giving their kids peanuts during the time when it was recommended they shouldn't would not have been bad unless the child was part of a very small group that was going to end up with a peanut allergy no matter what.
I think I understand what you're getting at, that in a broad sense we want people to follow expert guidelines, but that doesn't change reality. That particular guideline was bad and if a parent had information that led them to believe they should ignore it, science now tells us that would be the right call for them to have made.
This is part of the point I was trying to make, strong, unempathetic reactions to people who have the audacity to question things are, in my view, bad for society.
implying you and I are qualified to question it isn't valuable.
It seems to me that you're in a position to make judgements about your own qualifications, but not so much about other people's.
Prior to 2015 there was plenty of research in biology that could lead an informed, thoughtful person to conclude that exposure was beneficial. That it would take some time for further research to alter the guidelines doesn't make a parent who made a considered choice, informed by the data available to them, wrong.
But in the current cultural climate, that is what a lot of people seem to believe. My point, or part of it, is that maybe that's not a good thing.
To pick the most violatile example: we don't want parents to stop vaccinating their kids. That's bad for everyone. But it doesn't logically follow from there that all questioning of conventional wisdom is wrong.
-
Comment on New guidance to feed babies peanuts early and often helped thousands of kids avoid allergies in ~food
post_below LinkThe takeaway here, in my view, is that this is another example of mainstream medical gospel eventually proving to be harmful. There's no reason to believe that won't keep happening. I don't say...The takeaway here, in my view, is that this is another example of mainstream medical gospel eventually proving to be harmful. There's no reason to believe that won't keep happening.
I don't say this to imply that people shouldn't trust doctors, or that mainstream medicine is more harmful than it is beneficial. The opposite is true.
Instead I say it as a way to combat the frustrating phenomenon where both scientists and laypeople, especially on the internet, attack anyone who questions gospel. Indeed that's exactly what used to happen before 2015, and for quite a while after, where peanuts and children where concerned. If a parent posted about feeding their baby peanuts, the internet responded by calling them a terrible person. I was not, for the record, a part of those conversations, I just cringed from a distance.
The reality was that well meaning pediatricians and associated organizations created a generation of life threatening peanut allergies by telling parents they should avoid giving their babies and young kids peanuts at all costs. Eventually research changed the course but the damage was already done.
The problem has only gotten worse as conspiracy theories and political polarization have created this perceived binary between "science" and anti-science. In a hypothetical present day world where the 2015 study hadn't been published yet, people questioning the peanut guidance would be grouped together with right wing anti science conspiricists and shunned by pro-science progressives.
I find the binary nature of these types of conversations really frustrating and, ironically, fundamentally anti-science. I think it's bad for society, peanut allergies being one example. Another example, this time within the scientific community, would be the decades long myopic obsession with amyloid plaque in alzheimers research and the resulting ostracization of researchers who tried to research or promote alternative approaches. And then the fairly recent explosion in progress when that stranglehold was finally released.
The truth is that history shows us we're almost definitely dead wrong about a lot of things we're sure we're right about and we should always do our best to allow for that possibility.
-
Comment on Interpreting the Open Database License in ~tech
post_below Link ParentIf only it was as open as it first appears. If you figure out how to get access to the data, please let me know!but maybe this could be helpful.
If only it was as open as it first appears. If you figure out how to get access to the data, please let me know!
-
Comment on Interpreting the Open Database License in ~tech
post_below Link ParentIt sounds like our reading of the ODbL is a bit different. I think you're right that it's meant to be a license that considers rights relevant to the database as potentially distinct from content...It sounds like our reading of the ODbL is a bit different. I think you're right that it's meant to be a license that considers rights relevant to the database as potentially distinct from content rights, but it also has language that specifically covers content (for example: copying, modifying, distribution and sharing). In their FAQ it talks about a use case where the rightsholder for the content is the same as for the database, or where there are no relevent rights to the content (like public domain). In that example the content can be covered by the ODbL and no other license is necessary. In other cases is suggests a secondary license which, as far as I can tell, OpenCorporates doesn't use.
I also wonder how important the distinction between data and content is in this context. The data in the database and the contents of the database are essentially the same thing as long as they don't have conflicting rightsholders. In that context content might instead refer to something produced from the result of a database query (like a pie chart).
In any case my reading is that the ODbL can be used to refer specifically or solely to database rights but it can also be used as a license for both the database and its content.
After that it comes down to the definition of open. The Open Data Commons, which publishes and maintains the ODbL, uses this definition.
-
Comment on Interpreting the Open Database License in ~tech
post_below Link ParentThanks for the link. One comment there links to a version of the definition of "open" as it pertains to the license. It would seem that they fail under that definition. Maybe they consider...Thanks for the link. One comment there links to a version of the definition of "open" as it pertains to the license. It would seem that they fail under that definition.
Maybe they consider themselves to be using an earlier version of the license where the definition of open is less explicit. Or maybe they just don't care about the license and are yet another company using the word open, and an open license, cynically for social cred points.
you could find it from someone else
That occured to me, but I'm not sure where I would find another source for the database. Any registered journalists on Tildes?
Regarding the API, yes the restrictions are pretty comical, but they also offer, or claim to offer, a full download of the database to qualifying orgs.
-
Interpreting the Open Database License
For reference, here is the ODbL. There is a nice human readable summary. You can also read more in the Wikipedia entry. The most famous database available under the ODbL is OpenStreetMaps. I...
For reference, here is the ODbL. There is a nice human readable summary. You can also read more in the Wikipedia entry.
The most famous database available under the ODbL is OpenStreetMaps.
I recently found out about OpenCorporates, which is a global database of companies, published under the ODbL. I thought this was great, so I applied for access to use the database for a project. I was denied because I'm not a journalist or a nonprofit and instead was invited to pay for access instead. And it's not cheap, likely because company databases are often used in the B2B space.
I replied that this seemed to be in conflict with their mission, especially given that my project was focused on using the data to create a benefit to the public, and their response was that they wanted to protect against their database being copied.
From my reading, this seems to be in direct conflict with the ODbL. Egregiously so, which has me thinking I'm missing something.
Does anyone have any insight? It seems to me that the whole point of the ODbL license is to make data freely available. This is backed up by interpretations I came across while searching and by the ethos of other orgs using the license, such as OSM. What am I missing?
Edit: I'm still excited to hear from anyone with knowledge in this area, or just general insights into how I'm misunderstanding the license.
And also, having learned that The Open Data Commons, which publishes and maintains the ODbL, uses this definition of the concept of open... I'm leaning towards the interpretation that OpenCorporates wants the aura of using a reputable license with the word "open" in it, but isn't genuinely interested in the ethos. Which is disappointing but not shocking, they'd be far from the first.
10 votes -
Comment on Gimp Tutorial for Idiot? in ~comp
post_below Link ParentPhotopea is surprisingly good. Others in the thread have mentioned all of the best alternatives I'm aware of. Inkscape is great though not an all in one solution. I've revisited GIMP multiple...Photopea is surprisingly good. Others in the thread have mentioned all of the best alternatives I'm aware of. Inkscape is great though not an all in one solution.
I've revisited GIMP multiple times over the years because I want it to be a viable photoshop alternative. It just isn't. You can theoretically do everything you need to do but it will take you more time than it's worth. Like its name, it's just awkward. The most recent time I looked at GIMP the thing that stood out is how little had changed in the years since I previously tried it.
So, I'm seconding suggestions like Photopea, Inkscape and Krita.
If the high cost of photoshop (or illustrator) is the barrier, but spending money on software isn't, then Corel Paint Shop Pro deserves a mention as a much cheaper, subscription free, PS alternative. No native linux support though.
-
Comment on US President Donald Trump’s National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 labels common beliefs as terrorism “indicators” in ~society
post_below Link ParentI'm still amazed at each new level of outright bs too, but something that makes it less of a surprise: at each step they're almost invariably accusing the "radical left" of being what they clearly...I'm still amazed at each new level of outright bs too, but something that makes it less of a surprise: at each step they're almost invariably accusing the "radical left" of being what they clearly are themselves. Usually precipitated by it becoming popular, or having recently been popular, to call them the thing. Lots of people have been calling the right fascist? Now we'll call the left fascist. Statistics show political violence overwhelmingly perpetrated by right aligned folks? Let's accuse the left of being the violent ones. An unusually high percentage of us are getting caught raping kids? The left is the party of pedophiles!
It's been Trump's playbook since before 2016, starting with "fake news" and it has exactly his level of creativity and emotional maturity.
The other thing that makes it less surprising is that they reliably leave behind ever more of the semblance of truth, no doubt relying on their supporters being increasingly isolated from reasonable sources of information.
Trump speaking at the UN was a bizarre example of the escalation. He talked to world leaders like he talks to his base, as though him just saying a thing is enough for them to believe it. Of course the world leaders didn't buy it, but I imagine Trumpworld saw it as a signal to go to the next level of shameless fabrication.
-
Comment on Disney decides it hasn’t angered people enough, announces Disney+ price hikes in ~tv
post_below Link ParentDon't feel bad you're not alone, as I write this your whoosh has twice the upvotes compared to the joke you missed. Great illustration of internet discourse :DDon't feel bad you're not alone, as I write this your whoosh has twice the upvotes compared to the joke you missed. Great illustration of internet discourse :D
-
Comment on Wallet voting in ~life
post_below Link ParentYour reading is fair, it's not much different from my own. To simply the difference as much as possible it comes down to the opening: To me that's an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary...Your reading is fair, it's not much different from my own. To simply the difference as much as possible it comes down to the opening:
You cannot vote with your wallet. Or rather, you can, but you will lose that vote. Wallet-votes always go to the people with the thickest wallets, and statistically, that is not you.
To me that's an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. I don't think it gets paid off in the post. People's collective buying decisions are part of the core of capitalism. Bigger wallets have vastly more influence but I don't think any economist has made a serious case that the collective buying power of small wallets isn't a powerful economic force
And without paying off that opening, and instead seemingly countering it, the whole thing feels... I'm not sure if it's baity like I said before, or manipulative, or maybe just not thought out all the way.
Whereas I think the conversation about economic power is something we should be leaning into at this point in history, with our options to make an impact shrinking.
-
Comment on Wallet voting in ~life
post_below Link ParentGenerally I agree with you, we shouldn't burn ourselves out taking on too much responsibility for large scale issues. But it's not binary, the ultimate conclusion isn't: If the original post was...Generally I agree with you, we shouldn't burn ourselves out taking on too much responsibility for large scale issues.
But it's not binary, the ultimate conclusion isn't:
You cannot vote with your wallet
If the original post was more measured and honest, less engagement bait, and it talked about putting down some of the weight we pick up on while still being conscious of our impact, then I'd completely agree.
As it is I think we should be paying more attention to what we financially support, rather than less.
-
Comment on Wallet voting in ~life
post_below LinkThe post feels kinda haphazard to me. To boil it down: "Your consumer decisions don't matter, but here are a variety of examples of ways they actually do matter." Why can't buying choices be...The post feels kinda haphazard to me. To boil it down: "Your consumer decisions don't matter, but here are a variety of examples of ways they actually do matter."
Make individual choices that make your life better. Take collective action to make society better.
Why can't buying choices be collective? If a bunch of people hear that X company does Y evil thing and some percentage of them decide not to give X money anymore, isn't that collective action based on shared values? Or, less abstract, the post mentions boycotts as being effective collective action but somehow magically categorizes that as something other than wallet voting.
It sounds like the real, though less clickbaity, point of the post is actually: don't shame people for their buying choices. I can agree with that.
Wallet voting (let's think of a better term) is hugely valuable in a capitalist economy. Sure, your personal buying choice isn't going to move the needle, any more than your vote in a national election will, but it borders on asinine to suggest that means it doesn't matter at all.
Similar to voting, your choice not to spend money on a national brand won't hurt them, but your choice to vote with that money on a local company absolutely will help them. And if other people decide to make the same choice, even the national brand will eventually see it in their metrics.
I don't think it makes sense to try to convince people that an objectively valuable way they can express their values and impact society doesn't matter. Or at least, if you're going to make that case, make it compelling.
-
Comment on Musings on "Developer Mode" in ~comp
post_below LinkI think I can clear it up pretty simply: Developers actually need and use a lot of tools you'll find in developer modes. There's no scam. It also makes non developer but tech inclined people feel...I think I can clear it up pretty simply: Developers actually need and use a lot of tools you'll find in developer modes. There's no scam.
It also makes non developer but tech inclined people feel cool, and what's wrong with that? And it hides actions that most people don't want or need behind an extra step.
In short, it makes sense. The alternative, a separate version of applications with developer features, is clunky and inefficient. But I suppose you could suggest the same interpretations about classes and power there too. Personally I don't see it in either case.
Finally, in a tech world where giving users less choice and granular control is the norm, I think we should celebrate choice and control under any name.
I like it. Sadly it's hindered by UX issues, too many peoplé would need instructions for typing the accent mark... although, that could enhance the in-group vibe. The app could add a custom button.