post_below's recent activity
-
Comment on Someone made a social media website for AI agents in ~tech
-
Comment on New books aren’t worth reading in ~books
post_below LinkAlternative title: "New xitter posts are not worth reading" But I did read it, and now I'm here with my life and perspectives unimproved and unchanged. The post is clear ragebait, it's...Alternative title: "New xitter posts are not worth reading"
But I did read it, and now I'm here with my life and perspectives unimproved and unchanged. The post is clear ragebait, it's confrontational out of the gate, it just assumes rage. Maybe that's just how everyone talks on Xitter now, I don't go there often. It also establishes "this debate" out of thin air, though the nature of the debate is unclear. I assume they're using debate as a way to denote the rage they expect to illicit. Then at the end it just fizzles, having failed to pay off any of its claims.
I didn't read the replies because I don't want to log in but I can guess what they look like. With 300k views, the post accomplished its goal: Engagement with very little investement in time or mental energy on the author's part. The post is more interesting if you read it as a thinly veiled cry of frustration at the mental state of being overly online that the author is drowning in.
However, I enjoyed this bit:
The average ancient historian led troops, tutored a prince, governed a province, advised a king, made a fortune, fell from favor, was exiled, and buried 7 of their 10 children. The average modern historian passed a few tests then wrote a book on their laptop next to their cat.
It's kinda true! I disagree with most of the rest but that part changed the shape of my mouth.
-
Comment on Gold tops $4,900/oz; silver and platinum extend record‑setting rally in ~finance
post_below Link ParentCongrats on the success of your investments! Usually gold only behaves like this when there's a recession, and it's fantastic to get in early enough because there's so little risk that way....Congrats on the success of your investments! Usually gold only behaves like this when there's a recession, and it's fantastic to get in early enough because there's so little risk that way. Historically, while gold can drop in price, it usually stabilizes pretty quickly and, so far, always comes back at some point. If you buy into one of its upswings early enough it's very safe relative to the potential returns.
It's been wild the last couple years, pretty much every major financial institution has been low on projections and has revised their numbers upwards multiple times a year. Currently all the institutions that haven't already posted new predictions in January are due to upgrade their projections in the next month or so because the price is already beyond their last quarter of 2026 projections and all of the signals are still strong (de-dollarization, geopolitical instability, central bank diversification, dollar inflation, falling interest rates, economic uncertainty). It's a perfect storm that sucks overall but it's good for precious metals.
-
Comment on Microsoft gave FBI keys to unlock encrypted data in ~society
post_below Link ParentI just used (part of) the title from the article. I'm not attached to it if someone wants to change it. However it's technically accurate, the article talks about specific examples.I just used (part of) the title from the article. I'm not attached to it if someone wants to change it.
However it's technically accurate, the article talks about specific examples.
-
Comment on Microsoft gave FBI keys to unlock encrypted data in ~society
post_below LinkJust a heads up. For the moment it's still possible to use Windows without being logged in to a MS account and, even if you are logged in, you can choose not to store your bitlocker keys in the...Microsoft confirmed to Forbes that it does provide BitLocker recovery keys if it receives a valid legal order. “While key recovery offers convenience, it also carries a risk of unwanted access, so Microsoft believes customers are in the best position to decide... how to manage their keys,” said Microsoft spokesperson Charles Chamberlayne.
He said the company receives around 20 requests for BitLocker keys per year and in many cases, the user has not stored their key in the cloud making it impossible for Microsoft to assist.
Just a heads up. For the moment it's still possible to use Windows without being logged in to a MS account and, even if you are logged in, you can choose not to store your bitlocker keys in the account.
-
Microsoft gave FBI keys to unlock encrypted data
37 votes -
Comment on Wilson Lin on FastRender: a browser built by thousands of parallel agents in ~tech
post_below Link ParentIt's too bad to see him doubling down. I finally got around to watching the video interview, or most of it, and in the CNN website part (the only part that wasn't cherry picked by the Cursor dev,...It's too bad to see him doubling down. I finally got around to watching the video interview, or most of it, and in the CNN website part (the only part that wasn't cherry picked by the Cursor dev, likely with pre-cached elements... Simon (or whoever was controlling the cursor at that point) starts to scroll down and quickly stops when it becomes apparent that there's just blank space below the fold. Simon communicated more about his intent by pretending not to notice that than anything he wrote in his post.
-
Comment on Federal officers kill another citizen in Minneapolis, National Guard activated in ~society
post_below Link ParentI don't really have anything useful to add. It's horrifying. Both this time, the last, and the overall frequency of murders. You'd think they would have walked it back for a least a little while...I don't really have anything useful to add. It's horrifying. Both this time, the last, and the overall frequency of murders. You'd think they would have walked it back for a least a little while after Renee Good.
It's like they're pushing harder, to communicate that yes, they actually can get away with executing people with impunity.
-
Comment on Wilson Lin on FastRender: a browser built by thousands of parallel agents in ~tech
post_below Link ParentAdd to this that when people tried to compile and run it shortly after the release, they couldn't get it to compile, nor could the majority of previous versions compile. When it finally did start...Add to this that when people tried to compile and run it shortly after the release, they couldn't get it to compile, nor could the majority of previous versions compile. When it finally did start working there were some unusual commits shortly before that some speculated were actual humans trying to duct tape it together. Disclaimer: that last bit is entirely a rumor as I didn't look at the code or try to compile it myself.
The reason I didn't look, aside from lack of interest, is that I know what GPT and Claude output under the best of circumstances, and it's not something you can mash together into a working browser from scratch. It's not even close.
But with $80,000 in tokens (their estimate), you can get it to pull together a bunch of libraries to do the real work and end up with a demo that works in the sense that you can get it to kind of display a web page but fails to be actually useful for any practical application. A handful of humans could do better in less time with a bar that low.
Willison posts great stuff, I enjoy his blog, but a puff piece is the wrong angle here. This was a publicity stunt for Cursor, relying on the AI crazed tech media not asking too many questions. Simon is an engineer, he could have told a much better story about what Cursor "achieved".
It is a really interesting proof of concept about agents orchestrating themselves, but what it also proves is that even with a blank check and a server farm agents can't make usable, sophisticated software themselves.
Another missing part of the story: Cursor's user base is increasingly vibe coders. Engineers have been switching to better options in droves for at least the last 6 months, which accelerated with the release of Sonnet 4.5 and then Opus 4.5. And started moving even faster when they scrapped their unlimited auto loss leader. So a "demo" like this appeals directly to their target audience of people who can't read the code, and therefore don't know it's slop.
-
Comment on Why does ssh send 100 packets per keystroke? in ~comp
post_below LinkThese are the sorts of coding assistant experiences it's difficult to articulate without context, and also the sort that seem fairly small on their own, but add up to reframing software...I’ve been thinking about whether LLMs remove parts of the problem-solving process that I enjoy. But I’ve gotta say, debugging this problem using Claude Code was super fun.
I am familiar enough with tcpdump, tshark, and friends to know what they can do. But I don’t use them regularly enough to be fast with them. Being able to tell an agent “here’s a weird pcap - tell me what’s going on” was really lovely. And by watching commands as the agent ran them I was able to keep my mental model of the problem up to date.
These are the sorts of coding assistant experiences it's difficult to articulate without context, and also the sort that seem fairly small on their own, but add up to reframing software engineering as a discipline.
I don't know what the percentage is, but at least many developers started doing it because building things is really fucking fun. That and the remarkable truth that you can build something in the digital world that makes something better in the actual world.
But finding bugs is only fun when you can manage a pretty specific mindset. It's great when you have the time and bandwidth to enjoy the journey. But otherwise the best you can say about it is that finding bugs is reliably satisfying and the degree to which it's satisfying is directly proportionate to how many hours you spent figuring it out. You appreciate the outcome more because it hurts a little, which is great, but different than fun.
However finding bugs with the help of a SOTA coding assistant is really fucking fun. Sometimes. They also introduce new kinds of pain.
In the context of coding, it seems like the headlines focus on whether or not AI can one shot things. And that makes sense, it's what the market wants. You can't really blow the lid off of efficiency (read: replace humans) until you can one shot things. But, for right now anyway, these tools real value proposition is removing some of the high friction parts of the process by being effective assistants. Except that doesn't quite cover it because they also open up avenues that were technically always there, but almost never used because they were high friction. That part is really fucking fun too.
-
Comment on Nova Launcher: An update in ~tech
post_below Link ParentIn Smart Launcher you can assign actions to the home button. I currently have double tap on home open the app drawer, it also supports single tap home actions (kicks in if you're already on the...In Smart Launcher you can assign actions to the home button. I currently have double tap on home open the app drawer, it also supports single tap home actions (kicks in if you're already on the main home screen).
Alternatively you can create a shortcut to the app drawer that functions like any other icon.
-
Comment on Let's talk orchestrated objective reduction! in ~science
post_below Link ParentAt the risk of moving the conversation away from physics... If there wasn't enough beauty in the particle interactions, there's also the DNA and RNA, and if there's not enough there, the rest of...To me, its somewhat the opposite: There is such beauty and wonder in how mine own complex self emerges out of the little stochastic determinism of elementary particles
At the risk of moving the conversation away from physics... If there wasn't enough beauty in the particle interactions, there's also the DNA and RNA, and if there's not enough there, the rest of our biology is awe inspiring in its elegance and complexity. If that's not enough, ecosystems are impossibly beautiful and complex webs of interrelation and coevolution.
And we don't understand the larger part of any of it yet. There is potential discovery in every direction.
Which is to say that we have enough wonder, mystery and purpose available in the things we already understand, and the things we can potentially understand with more study, to satisfy even the most demanding spiritual needs for the foreseeable future.
-
Comment on The assistant axis: situating and stabilizing the character of large language models in ~tech
post_below Link ParentAnthropic is, by far, the most transparent and well documented among the frontier model providers. That's how low the bar is unfortunately. On the bright side their strategy is part of the reason...Anthropic is, by far, the most transparent and well documented among the frontier model providers.
That's how low the bar is unfortunately.
On the bright side their strategy is part of the reason they've been leading and everyone else has been copying them when it comes to agents and the all important coding and business tools markets. So hopefully all of the model providers learn from that. You win over developers by giving them technical details and ability to control their workflow, and you win over the rest of the organization by winning over developers.
-
Comment on Nova Launcher: An update in ~tech
post_below Link ParentIt depends on a few things...some MFRs ship android with the ability to shut off wifi/mobile data for apps in settings, if you're lucky that's all you need. I think that's getting pretty rare...It depends on a few things...some MFRs ship android with the ability to shut off wifi/mobile data for apps in settings, if you're lucky that's all you need. I think that's getting pretty rare these days though. If you're rooted it's also pretty straightforward.
Without root you can use an app that functions as a local VPN, once it's running all traffic goes through the VPN and you can disable network access for whichever apps you want. Examples: ReThink, NetGuard.
Note: In some cases system apps can access the internet without using the VPN so it doesn't necessarily give you total control of network access.
-
Comment on Nova Launcher: An update in ~tech
post_below (edited )LinkI've had Nova running with network access blocked since the original buyout because I haven't been able to find an alternative I like better. I suppose I'll have to look harder when the new (new)...I've had Nova running with network access blocked since the original buyout because I haven't been able to find an alternative I like better. I suppose I'll have to look harder when the new (new) owners start breaking it.
If anyone has found, or heard about, an alternative that looks promising please share!
Edit: Thanks for the suggestions. Lawnchair is an ideal solution (open source, no data collection), unfortunately it can't import a Nova backup. That shouldn't be a dealbreaker but I'm busy at the moment.
I found that Smart Launcher can import a Nova backup, claims not to share data (not that I intend to trust that) and does pretty much everything I need out of the box. Took me 5 minutes to switch.
-
Comment on Cory Doctorow | AI companies will fail. We can salvage something from the wreckage. in ~tech
post_below Link ParentCheers to both your post and the one you're replying to. It's a forever losing battle trying to clear up misconceptions about tech, but worth attempting nonetheless. Whatever level of...Cheers to both your post and the one you're replying to. It's a forever losing battle trying to clear up misconceptions about tech, but worth attempting nonetheless. Whatever level of understanding popular culture lands on ends up influencing policy and legislation.
Reinforcement learning and various response layers do a lot to fine-tune LLMs. They still rely on introducing, removing, identifying, encouraging, and discouraging specific patterns.
The reason I think this is important to keep pointing out is that LLMs feel like something more than advanced pattern matching tools, and I think that's going to be dangerous.
There was never a world in which this didn't become an enormous, international phenomenon. Ever since Turing proposed the Turing test, it's been inevitable. The fact that you can now have a full conversation with a computer is strange and incredible, it would never have been relegated to something exclusively for techies.
This is just true. I understand the pushback against AI, I agree with a lot of it, but it extends into the irrational at times. Not only was it always going to shake the ground, it was always going to attract trillions of dollars in investment, and that was always going to come from the megarich. Wealth consolidation was a problem long before LLMs, this is just the latest symptom. Wishful thinking is not how we'll have a shot at changing it.
A world where groundbreaking technology benefits the masses as much as it benefits the financial elite is a world with very different systems than we have now, AI or not.
I think overall Doctorow's piece was solid, he made some great points. I'm happy to give some leeway to the guy who coined enshittification. But there was one additional questionable claim:
AI is a bubble and it will burst.
I agree that AI is a bubble. I don't know if anyone can confidently predict that it will burst. Western economics is in uncharted territory, brute force capital has held off, lessoned, shortened and in some cases entirely avoided recessions, market crashes and other financial events that statistics and history tell us should have happened, or happened bigger, sooner and lasted for longer.
The AI bubble should burst dramatically. The western world should probably be in a natural and perfectly healthy recession right now. Certainly the non wealthy are experiencing something like a recession even if the financial markets don't reflect it. Not a healthy one though.
All the rules are different now. The AI bubble could pop, but the capital firehose has to run dry first, and governments, especially the US, have a stake too. Without AI the stock markets look bleak, the US looks less like a world leader and the dollar would probably be in free fall.
Which isn't to say that the bubble definitely won't pop, only that it's not a foregone conclusion. Which Doctorow might have been more willing to allow if he wasn't promoting a new book.
-
Comment on Why should anyone care about low-level programming? in ~comp
post_below Link ParentAgreed, they could be made available. In case it's not already implied: The browser vendors and the platforms are largely the same companies. In the case of iOS that is still strictly enforced at...Agreed, they could be made available. In case it's not already implied: The browser vendors and the platforms are largely the same companies. In the case of iOS that is still strictly enforced at the engine level everywhere except the EU. Meanwhile Chrome has around 70% of the mobile market share globally (higher among android users).
-
Comment on Why should anyone care about low-level programming? in ~comp
post_below Link ParentRight, however the reason that you need to use a native app to get access to those APIs isn't that there's a technical reason those APIs can't be exposed to a web app, it's that the platforms...Right, however the reason that you need to use a native app to get access to those APIs isn't that there's a technical reason those APIs can't be exposed to a web app, it's that the platforms choose not to expose them in order to maintain their profits.
They of course claim it's for security, and that's not completely disingenuous, but it's not the dealbreaker they make it out to be. The key motivation is to make sure that web apps can never feel native and therefore can't compete with app/play store apps.
-
Comment on Why should anyone care about low-level programming? in ~comp
post_below Link ParentI will forever be disappointed that the browser as a universal platform failed in favor of mobile apps and walled gardens. It happened mostly because the big tech companies wanted it that way....I will forever be disappointed that the browser as a universal platform failed in favor of mobile apps and walled gardens. It happened mostly because the big tech companies wanted it that way. Apple most of all, to this day they refuse to support standard APIs for device functionality in the browser not because it's hard (everyone else has managed it) but because they want to hamstring apps that aren't in their ecosystem.
-
Comment on Why should anyone care about low-level programming? in ~comp
post_below (edited )LinkEdit: I somehow managed to submit my post before I finished it. Also had another thought: Tildes is a really good example for this topic: It uses high level solutions, but little to no...Edit: I somehow managed to submit my post before I finished it. Also had another thought: Tildes is a really good example for this topic: It uses high level solutions, but little to no abstractions on top of them and as a result it's both high performance and (I imagine) easy to maintain.
I have never heard of Handmade, or its crowd, but I have a lot of sympathy for the author's sentiment. For decades the pervailing viewpoint has been something like "There is no such thing as too high level and performance is irrelevant next to development velocity (outside of a few areas like gaming)". There's a comparison to the late stage capitalist mindset begging to be made here but I won't digress.
Whereas I've always been happy to waste time on performance, even when working at a high level. Which is a point I want to add: The most popular technologies were already very high level 20 years ago. In the current relativity going low level kinda just means using proven high level technologies without a stack of frameworks. You don't have to write code in assembly, just don't pile frameworks on top of a mature high level scripting language where most of what you'd need the framework for is already pretty easy to accomplish. You don't need WASM (usually), just use HTML/CSS/JS without the frameworks. They are already, essentially, frameworks.
The Handmade crowd seems to think that low-level programming is the key to building better software. But this doesn’t really make sense on the surface. How is this practical for the average programmer? Do we really expect everyone to make their own UI frameworks and memory allocators from scratch? Do we really think you should never use libraries? Even if the average programmer could actually work that way, would anything actually improve, or would the world of software?
If that's true then the author's definition of an average programmer is very different from my own. Building your own UI "framework" just means building a UI. Having some of the decisions made for you in advance can speed up development a lot but average developers have been doing it themselves for decades.
It's a fascinating change that has happened in software development, really pretty recently: What used to be called high level is now frighteningly opaque to people who learned only on frameworks stacked on top of the old high level. When people talk about which tech stack to use for an app, increasingly they're talking about which 3rd party frameworks and solutions to use, rather than which core programming languages and technologies to use. React/redux may be particularly bad, in terms of performance, but they're not singularly bad. To a large degree it's just a problem inherent to extreme levels of abstraction.
I think there are two core reasons why this has happened. The first is corporate software. Software as a massive revenue driver rather than software as a way to solve problems and do cool things. In that environment, developers are a business tool. You want them to be as easily replaceable as possible, you want quick onboarding. Frameworks are great for that, corporate app development loves frameworks, and so that's what the job market looks like and that's what people learn.
There's not actually anything hard about the underlying technologies, the post talked a lot about web app technologies and there, underneath the frameworks, you have very simple technologies like the aforementioned HTML, CSS and Javascript. They're not hard to understand for people with even a little bit of an engineering mindset. Underneath those you have scripting languages like Ruby, Python, PHP and Node (javascript again, or typescript). Those languages are designed to be approachable. They're very high level.
Which leads to the second reason: programming became a career you got into because there was high demand and you made a lot of money, rather than because you had a natural affinity for digital technology. It's possible that "average programmer" increasingly refers to someone that never had any natural skills for coding, just an appreciation for 6+ figure income. No shade to people who choose a career for the compensation, but I think it's part of why using built in functionality of already high level languages suddenly looks like crawling into the ancient, unfriendly depths of the digital underworld.
I completely agree that understanding the low levels is important, should even be considered vital. But we can do much of the real work at a relatively high level, using proven technologies, and still solve a lot of the software quality and performance problems.
And now, all of a sudden, we have these new tools in the form of AI Agents, that make working at lower levels even easier. It's never been easier to learn about the layer underneath the stack level you're comfortable with. And there's a really high chance that, after a little bit of learning curve, you'll find that in many ways it's easier than the higher abstractions were.
I doubt the goal of this project is training, more likely it's just a way to create buzz. However if it was about training, it's a dramatically cheaper way to create slop than paying for your own tokens. You get hordes of other people to spend tokens for you.