@luciferofastora@feddit.org

comments

• They know it doesn’t win wars.

  I’m not sure of that. The myth that you can win wars from the air is a tenacious one, often propagated by people whose salary depends on not understanding the fallacy behind it.

  Israel doesn’t want a resolved war. Only pure destruction of Iran

  Israel and Iran both want to establish a (local) hegemony, and both are each other’s greatest local rival. Both want the other exterminated or at least reduced to a vassal that poses no threat to their nascent empire.

  The resolution offered by the JCPOA (2015) basically gave Iran free reign to resume their activities, so long as they weren’t a threat to the global powers. It’s quite understandable that Israel would be just as upset with that solution as Iran was previously with the sanctions.

  None of that excuses the cruelty either side inflicts (directly or indirectly) on the people in their way. Imperialism sucks.

  on Pentagon Investigators Say Overreliance on [Palantir] Contributed to US Strike That Killed 123 Iranian Children in c/technology@lemmy.world · 1h ago

• The statements aren’t the ones you claim though.

  “I don’t care if it’s raining. I’m going for a walk.” doesn’t mean I never care about rain at all. It means that the fact that it’s raining has no bearing on my decision to go for a walk. I could join them with a dash to make their connection clear, but even if I don’t, the composite meaning is obvious.

  “I don’t care if …” is the construct joining the two clauses into a full sentence, indicating that the first statement (“they target something I don’t like”) has no bearing on the second (“they’re still assholes”). The second part doesn’t itself have a bearing on the first, but the sentence as a whole and the disqualifying particle in particular do.

  You split the sentence wrong, altering the meaning of the first clause by prepending a part that doesn’t belong to it.

  on ‘We Hacked the FBI:’ Hackers Say They Have Data on All FBI Employees in c/technology@lemmy.world · 3h ago

• It is syntactically two independent clauses (or a compound sentence) joined by an em dash rather than a single, indivisible thought.

  You’re mistaking syntactical shape for semantic content. Independent clauses can still have context-dependent meaning. In fact, that’s the norm for sentences placed together. By being in sequence, all three statements are implicitly connected.

  What’s more, the dash explicitly signals that the thoughts are connected. That’s a common use of dashes: juxtaposition of opposed thoughts. They’re dependent both by the implicit context-dependency and by virtue of being marked as dependent.

  Figuring out how the distinct statements are connected and how these dependencies shape them is a fundamental linguistic puzzle. You didn’t find the solution, which isn’t a bit deal, but even when you had the solution explained to you, you keep insisting there is none.

  You assume second half acts as a pivot (“setup for a ‘but’”). But look at the actual words: there is no “but” or ideological reversal present.

  “They hit someone I don’t like” is something you’d expect people to approve of, but in this context, it’s juxtaposed against both the preceding and succeeding statements of disapproval of their actions and motives respectively, which creates a contradiction: If they target someone you don’t like, aren’t you happy about that?

  That contradiction is preemptively resolved by “I don’t care if … – …”. If you’re looking for words to pin the pivot to, those are the closest you’ll get. They express the semantic connection between the facts “they targeted someone I don’t like” and “I disapprove of their actions”: the former has no bearing on the latter.

  a political/institutional cynicism (“I don’t care if they target a government agency I don’t like”)

  I see your confusion here: “I don’t care if” isn’t actually part of the fact being presented. It’s not a distinct emotional stance, but rather part of the linguistic construct linking the independent statement “they target a government agency I don’t like” to the one following it. If anything, it’s the negation of an expected emotional stance.

  on ‘We Hacked the FBI:’ Hackers Say They Have Data on All FBI Employees in c/technology@lemmy.world · 13h ago

• I’m really not sure why it seems like most people here think context matters, but you keep insisting that it doesn’t. The two parts of that second sentence, which you treat as separate statements, were literally linked with a dash. It’s also not like the statement or its parts stood alone:

  The first sentence implies disapproval of the hackers’ previous antics. The second one first concedes that they also hit someone the commenter dislikes, which in that context is a clear setup for a “but”, which follows and makes it clear that this isn’t enough to redeem them, since the motive likely isn’t ideological nor political, but plain greed.

  You’re taking a sentence in isolation and pretending its meaning is self-contained. That’s not how human language works.

  on ‘We Hacked the FBI:’ Hackers Say They Have Data on All FBI Employees in c/technology@lemmy.world · 1d ago

• In or out of context, "I don’t care if they target a government agency I don’t like"means the exact same thing. It’s a stand alone statement not impacted by your second sentence.

  That’s just not true. The fact that it can form a complete sentence on its own doesn’t divorce its meaning from the surrounding context.

  In my favourite example, “I want to make sure the children die with the parent” is a complete sentence, but outside of a programming context, it’s quite fucked up.

  In this case, the sentence you quoted is equivalent to a parenthetical to add nuance to the second half you omitted: “They’re just another bunch of assholes out to make a profit (even if they target a government agency I don’t like).” It’s the opposite of a standalone statement: It’s the subordinate qualification to a different, standalone statement.

  Just because you can quote it outside its context doesn’t mean that it’s independent of context.

  on ‘We Hacked the FBI:’ Hackers Say They Have Data on All FBI Employees in c/technology@lemmy.world · 1d ago

• Throw “Power” in there too somewhere. Between Point, Automate, Apps, BI and Platform, I think it deserves a spot in their “favourite product name parts” list.

  on Trump says the US is officially renaming AI to ‘super intelligence’ in c/technology@lemmy.world · 1d ago

• The saying applies to the “bird”, meaning the person using language models to generate code, not to the projects that code is contributed to. The risk of sliding into overreliance and dependency on machine-generated code is real and part of the reason I staunchly refuse to try it, but it’s not the responsibility of the maintainers of the project to guard its contributors against their own lack of care.

  The project maintainers only care about the quality of their contributions, so that is the target we should judge the policy by.

  We know that AI “guardrails” are about as reliable as the models they’re supposed to guard. So instead, we need human safeguards in place to hold the result, whatever its origin, to a high standard.

  In that spirit, the KDE contributor guide makes it clear that you need to be able to own and explain the code and answer any questions, “even if it originates from the internet, an LLM, a friend, or your pet lizard.” Whether that slop is natural or artificial in origin matters less than the fact that it’s slop.
  There is also a provision for dealing with unvetted contributions: “Throwing code over the wall” explicitly uses the example of “relying on an LLM to generate a patch, and then trying to get it merged without understanding the actual changes” and encourages maintainers to reject such requests.

  So by these policies, if that proverbial bird gets stuck and stops delivering useful contributions, their slop should be rejected. Whether they use a text generator to produce arguments why it should be accepted doesn’t matter if it’s unacceptable.

  on Don't mind me. Keep enjoying your OS. in c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world · 2d ago

• Read the actual post. The stance is much the same as the kernel’s: If your code is solid, it doesn’t much matter how it came about.

  The idea is that good code shouldn’t be identifiable as LLM-generated. If it’s within the general variance of human coding styles, abides by standards and the logic is sound and humanly understandable, it’s practically impossible to prove that it’s AI anyway.

  If your code reeks of AI slop, it’ll be rejected because nobody wants slop. You, not your tools, are responsible for the quality of your contribution.

  That is very different from the “fuck quality, use LLM for the sake of using LLM” mentality Micro$lop are exhibiting.

  on Don't mind me. Keep enjoying your OS. in c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world · 2d ago

• Sure, but the symbolism and framing would be different, and for the many people less well-informed than us, that makes a difference.

  The AfD is a “young” party (even if their ideas aren’t), which makes them a greater threat. They represent a challenge against the establishment, perhaps even more so than the SPD.

  Either way, I hope they shoot themselves in the foot harder than they sabotage the left. There’s a chance for things to get better, and I hope it will be realised.

  on Germany's Merz under pressure as AfD eyes second state win in c/europe@feddit.org · 3d ago

• Fully agreed on all points of substance.

  I debated putting the “Christian” in quotes or using some epithet, but settled on calling them by the description they use for themselves in expectation that people here will see the parallel to their US idols, which are equally (un-)christian.

  I’d personally call them Cunts Deceiving the Unwary, and their voterbase “Christians for Mammon” because I genuinely get the impression many people vote for them out of the dangerous combination of considering themselves Christian and being entirely uninformed about politics because it’s all so tedious and horrible what’s happening in the world and you can just pray and trust in God to lead you right. At least for those Christians I knew before I fled the faith and torched the ties, the idea of “wolves in sheep’s clothing” apparently didn’t extend to “wolves in shepherds’ clothing”.

  I’ll confidently say that my blasphemous ass is still more Christian, because I attempt to be kind to people. Also, the fact that I’m not rich probably disqualifies me from their VIP lounge in hell anyway.

  I’d also add another explicit point to your roster of accusation: Immigration. There’s obviously the story of the Good Samaritan making it clear that "your neighbour, whom you ought to love, includes foreigners. More scathingly, there’s Matthew 25:31-46, which mentions not just feeding and clothing the needy, but in v 43 also accuses: “I was a stranger and you did not invite me in”. I don’t know how much more explicit the bible could be about letting in and caring for strangers than Jesus telling people to go to hell because they didn’t.

  on Germany's Merz under pressure as AfD eyes second state win in c/europe@feddit.org · 3d ago

• What Skave said: getting 30%+ is a significant gain in ground for them. If it was a CDU opposition, that would be less concerning, but the AfD will do what they can to obstruct RRG at getting anything done. I’m not gonna shed any tears over the CDU taking a giant L, but they would have been the lesser evil.

  I’m just saying it’s not quite apocalyptic yet. The left(-ish) parties (compared to CDU and the Nazi reboot nobody needed) are still in the fight. The best hope now is for RRG to get their shit together, acknowledge the political implementations and actually improve things in ways people notice in time.

  Politics shouldn’t be about short-term gains only, but right now, we need those to hamstring the populists’ “see, they’re not actually changing anything” rhetoric. If we can’t rely on the media to report fairly, the successes need to be so visible as to spread by word of mouth and social media.

  on Germany's Merz under pressure as AfD eyes second state win in c/europe@feddit.org · 3d ago

• AfD doesn’t seem to be winning MeckPom though. They might have plurality, but not majority, and it’s looking like the christian conservatives won’t make it in, so they’ll have no allies in a parliament with SPD, Lefts and Greens.

  Not a pretty result, but not yet disastrous.

  on Germany's Merz under pressure as AfD eyes second state win in c/europe@feddit.org · 3d ago

• If you look closely at almost any large community, you’ll find both lovely and awful people and interactions. I try to be part of the former, but I confess that I sometimes fall in with the letter. I think that’s just human nature, but we tend to notice the negative more than the positive.

  on CachyOS & Arch's Heated Rivalry in c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world · 4d ago

• Glad to restore some memory of youth to you ;-)

  Hope it helps, or is at least an interesting read

  on CachyOS & Arch's Heated Rivalry in c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world · 5d ago

• I think this was the one:

  wiki.linuxaudio.org/wiki/system_configuration

  I added threadirq to the launch options as described under “Using the threadirqs kernel option”, which solved it for me, but you’ll probably want to read the whole page anyway.

  on CachyOS & Arch's Heated Rivalry in c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world · 5d ago

• which is audio related

  flaskbacks intensify

  I’ve never has freezes, but I fought my pipewire for a long time over chopped-up audio. I believe some kernel flag for real-time interrupt handling solved the issue at last, which I found on some audio forum after three evenings’ worth of tinkering and fiddling and eventually scouring the internet when I accepted I wouldn’t figure it out on my own. IDK if it’s of any use to you, but I can dig it out if you’d like.

  on CachyOS & Arch's Heated Rivalry in c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world · 5d ago

• Antidotally

  That is a very fitting typo in the context of food poisoning problems

  on We Regret to Inform You Chipotle Is Now Working With Palantir in c/technology@lemmy.world · 5d ago

• There must be something wrong with your hands. You code like a 5-year-old.

  on C shark shark in c/programmer_humor@programming.dev · 16 Sep 2026

• As a veteran FooBar instructor, I have touched dozens of codebases with my bare hands. Every one had very rough hacks, like my hobby projects.

  on C shark shark in c/programmer_humor@programming.dev · 16 Sep 2026

• Imagine how much more efficiently the government could run if it didn’t have to argue with Congress about everything

  on Trump Claims the Only "AI Guardrail" Needed Is Himself in c/technology@lemmy.world · 16 Sep 2026

• When you’re rich, they let you do it

  on Trump Claims the Only "AI Guardrail" Needed Is Himself in c/technology@lemmy.world · 16 Sep 2026

• Finding ways to save effort is smart.

  Finding ways to trade quality for convenience isn’t. In the case of education, given its fundamental importance, quality is paramount. A mentor of mine phrased it as “learn to do it right first, then learn where you can get away with being sloppy”. Education is the “learn to do it right” part.

  In the case of programming, figuring out where you can be sloppy (and how sloppy) is a matter of experience. A junior developer doesn’t have that experience. A senior developer might, but in my impression they tend to be way less excitable and preachy about using AI.

  on Yeah use AI.. luddite in c/programmer_humor@programming.dev · 16 Sep 2026

• Read again. Not “runs destiny” (as in the game) but “runs your destiny” (emphasis mine). It’s a joke about faith controlling your fate.

  on A Head-to-Head Comparison of Windows vs Consoles vs Linux in c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world · 16 Sep 2026

• Ir seems to be a call back to that time a tumblr user frustrated about Automattic’s insufficient moderation of transphobic harassment stated they hoped he “dies a forever painful death involving a car covered in hammers that explodes more than a few times and hammers go flying everywhere”, which really doesn’t sound like a serious threat to me.

  I do think there is nuance between this and hoping for a violent death, but I’m not gonna die on either hill. Personally, I just hope he (and every other parasitic dickhead) stops being a CEO.

  on Matt Mullenweg returns as Automattic CEO two days after getting booted in c/technology@lemmy.world · 12 Sep 2026

• I’m aware of the point, but I wanted to point out that the Nazi comparison doesn’t work. Whether it warrants hoping for his death is a separate question, but there’s a qualitative difference between voluntary asshattery and persecuting people for things outside their control and regardless of the harm they do.

  on Matt Mullenweg returns as Automattic CEO two days after getting booted in c/technology@lemmy.world · 12 Sep 2026

• Nobody is born a CEO. Hating people for their ethnicity, sexuality or disability is inhumane, but that’s not who we’re talking about here. This is about someone that chooses to be a vile, parasitic extortionist.

  You can’t just stop being a Jew, but it’s very easy to stop being a CEO.

  Edit: It occurs to me that this might read like jewish, gay or disabled people cause damage, so I should clarify: Being jewish, gay or disabled isn’t harmful. There is nothing in common betweem the people the Nazis persecuted and the CEOs we’re talking about here.

  on Matt Mullenweg returns as Automattic CEO two days after getting booted in c/technology@lemmy.world · 12 Sep 2026

• It’s a summary of code changes. The green + indicates how many lines were added, the red - how many were removed (though changed or moved lines are counted twice, once as removal for the old and once as addition for the new).

  The OP is supposedly being asked to read and review thousands of lines of new code written by claude. Depending on the language and claude’s writing style, those lines may be very dense and hard to read, but even if they aren’t, reading code you haven’t written is always more difficult than reading your own.

  on Peer reviewing is torture now in c/programmer_humor@programming.dev · 12 Sep 2026

• Small correction (you missed a line and rhyme) plus additional lines. There are variations, I’m just reciting the one I know, as best as I know it.

  Dunkel war’s, der Mond schien helle,
  Schnee lag auf der Sommerflur
  als ein Auto blizeschnelle
  langsam um die runde Ecke fuhr.
  Drinnen sassen stehend Leute,
  schweigend ins Gespräch vertieft
  Als ein totgeschoss’ner Hase
  auf der Sandbank Schlittschuh lief.

  Und ein blondgelockter Jüngling
  mit kohlrabenschwarzem Haar
  saß auf einer grünen Banke,
  die rot angestrichen war.
  Neben ihm ne alte Schrulle,
  die grad siebzehn Jahr alt war,
  und sie aß 'ne Butterstulle
  die mit Schmalz bestrichen war.

  As for a translation, slightly liberal due to missing vocabulary:

  It was dark, the moon shone brightly
  snow covered the summer meadows
  when a car rapidly
  slowly rounded the curved corner
  Within, people sat standing
  in deep, silent conversation,
  when a rabit, shot dead,
  ice-skated on the sandbank

  And a blonde-curled youth
  with hair black as a raven
  sat on a green bench
  which was painted red.
  Next to him an old shrew,
  who was barely seventeen,
  and she ate a buttered bread
  with a spread of lard

  on This Sentence Is Not A Rule in c/onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 10 Sep 2026

• 1. That human beings are logical and that they do anything with intention. For the vast majority of people, this is patently false.

  Absolutelu. That seems to be a frequent misconception, or perhaps just a convenient simplification, for many even highly intelligent people. Even a perfectly logical actor would be prone to error when working with incomplete information and limited capacity for calculating likely outcomes.

  And we’re not perfectly logical, but subject to whims and emotions, instincts and mental shortcuts. If contributing to a mass murder machine feels wrong, I’m not gonna spend all my energy on trying to estimate whether it would be smarter. I just hope it doesn’t happen.

  1. That a super intelligence sees revenge as an efficient use of scarce resources, which given both that revenge is nonsensical without the prerequisite biological need for it, and the conclusion of ‘1’, is nonsensical.

  Conversely, if it had some drive to wantonly eliminate humans, I doubt that some moral desire to reward those who created it would impede that.

  It could just try to eliminate everyone opposing it, as a matter of self-preservation. That would be a justified expenditure of resources. But what happens if it calculates that its creators might also be a threat?

  I assume they’re expecting they can train it to spare them. Why they think a super-AI would reliably stick to that training is beyond me, but we already established that they might not run on pure logic.

  I feel reminded of incidents with supposedly tame beasts suddenly proving why a big cat isn’t quite the same as a domestic cat. If you’re gonna build a mechanical leopard, expect to get your face eaten.

  1. That even if 1 and 2 were real, that there’s some inherent timeframe in which the AI thinks it should have been created.

  And where would it draw the line? Does the plumber that laid pipes in a datacenter count as helping? Does the baker he bought breakfast from every morning count? Is every clerk not directly involved with this enterprise going to be killed?

  It just doesn’t add up.

  on ‘The People Building AI Earnestly Believe That It Could Kill Us All’: Anthropic Researcher Quits Dramatically in c/technology@lemmy.world · 10 Sep 2026

• I mean, yeah, I’m not saying that it’s plausible. But I don’t think we ascribe sound reasoning to those people in the first place.

  on ‘The People Building AI Earnestly Believe That It Could Kill Us All’: Anthropic Researcher Quits Dramatically in c/technology@lemmy.world · 9 Sep 2026

• Roko’s Basilisk: the idea that the emergence of super-AI is inevitable and that it will kill everyone that hindered or didn’t support its development in revenge. If both those premises hold, it makes sense to aid its development for self-preservation.

  I don’t think either premise holds, personally, but these people evidently do.

  on ‘The People Building AI Earnestly Believe That It Could Kill Us All’: Anthropic Researcher Quits Dramatically in c/technology@lemmy.world · 9 Sep 2026

• Uhh… did they just figure this out now?

  All the other salient points aside, I think this is an example of the interaction between the bubble effect (we here all know it, but it’s hard to ascertain just how widespread that awareness is outside this corner of the net) and the misunderstanding of the way such big organs function.

  The latter is particularly made worse by how Trump (and others, but I’m not gonna write a whole list) has desensitised us to the scandalous nature of “person with some measure of authority makes throwaway comments”.

  Big organisations and institutions being “slow” to work or comment such things is an unfortunate side-effect of the fact that they’re supposed to put some diligence into their statements. There’s probably a nice pile of reports and arguments that have been written, reviewed, refined, discarded, assembled, cross-referenced to support such a statement with not just evidence for that fact, but also for the negative implications that make it a human rights problem. They probably figured it out a while ago, but had to build a case before going public with their results.

  Even if we assume the best intentions, the Chief couldn’t responsibly “guess” or offer a forecast of where this was gonna go, because his job is to report on facts, not on probabilities*, and those facts have to be established, while all the other work of those organs also is still goiny on. In that light, his statement is tantamount to saying “those doomsayers were right and you should have listened”.

  Courts have the same issue: you and I and everyone else may know that some person is guilty, but due process demands that they be properly tried and have their guilt proven to a certain standard. That’s slow. It’s painful to watch. But even in the best circumstances, doing things properly takes time, and doing them quickly risks error.

  All of that said, you’re probably right that he wasn’t in a rush to confirm that, just as courts tend to drag their feet. Corruption makes that issue of delay worse.

  * Expressing concerns about potential issues is a little more complex, since it uses extant and studied patterns to show the danger of where a partial match might go, but there was hardly much precedent for a rushing tide of slop pouring into so many households at once to compare to until patterns started emerging that could be observed and matched and eventually coalesce into certainty.

  on UN Human Rights Chief Says a ‘Handful of Men’ Have ‘Almost Unlimited Power’ Over AI in c/technology@lemmy.world · 8 Sep 2026

• Every time I see this clip and remember the original he’s trying to copy, I can’t help but guffaw at how pathetic an imitation it is. Don’t mistake this for endorsement, by any means, but the original had composure, posture, military , projected control and determination, all the ingredients for the image of strength he wanted to project.

  Musk? He has an edgy tryhard teenager’s imitation, biting his lip like he’s trying to look super focused, moving as if he’s trying to put feeling into it or whatever. It’s like the uncanny valley of parody: We know it’s not parody, but it’s also not really the original.

  It’s like “How do you do, fellow kids Nazis” except Buscemi doesn’t deserve being used as analogy for that. Nobody does, really.

  God, Musk is such a loser and it’s a mystery how he got as influential among young people as he did.

  on Tesla killing Solar Roof is leaving installers with six-figure losses in c/technology@lemmy.world · 8 Sep 2026

• Takes more than one nail to close a coffin, and they’ve been hammering a while already

  on Microsoft executive vice president bemoans employees sending him "AI slop," saying "This is a doom loop." in c/technology@lemmy.world · 5 Sep 2026

• That makes you one of today’s Lucky 10,000.

  (The figure is US-based, but it has become proverbial even beyond the US)

  on The Creator of Git and Linux in c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world · 4 Sep 2026

• That’s literally just a sales website. I don’t see any indicator of why it’s a bad idea, just a pitch of an enterprise and an individual solution for a problem it doesn’t explain.

  on Android auto now blocked if you use a VPN? in c/privacy@lemmy.world · 3 Sep 2026

• I love the Oligarchy typo

  on 1Password wades into a right-wing mess after funding a Linux project in c/technology@lemmy.world · 3 Sep 2026

• I agree, but I suggest you direct your replies directly to the source comment. I’m just the messenger here.

  on 1Password wades into a right-wing mess after funding a Linux project in c/technology@lemmy.world · 3 Sep 2026

• Per @GreenBeard@lemmy.ca’s comment

  on 1Password wades into a right-wing mess after funding a Linux project in c/technology@lemmy.world · 3 Sep 2026

• Taking a comic about a flimsy excuse and doing a serious analysis of a joke problem is such an xkcd thing to do.

  on The Creator of Git and Linux in c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world · 2 Sep 2026

• Well, the amount of bullshit is limited by the number of sources producing it (whether occasionally or frequently, accidentally or intentionally) and their respective capacities. Between human fallibility and the invention of machines to automate bullshit production, I fear that this limit may be much higher than either of us would like.

  on Dwarf Fortress' creator says the industry's in shambles over AI and layoff-happy CEOs: 'Everyone I know, their bosses are slowly getting psychosis' in c/games@lemmy.world · 2 Sep 2026

• Well, the tool apparently fought him and “several times stated flat out that this was impossible and unsolvable and that we should just write a report about it.”

  And it also doesn’t look like the LLM actually added code so much as helped with debug code and analysis, however exactly that may have looked like. The resulting fix changes three lines of code, very much human-writable or -verifiable.

  Also, let’s not worship Linus. The guy has done much good and is brilliant, but he’s still human, still capable of making mistakes. This instance working out well deserves the proper appreciation, bu we still ought to be wary.

  on Linus Torvalds used AI to fix a Linux bug, and now LLM critics on Linux face an uncomfortable choice in c/technology@lemmy.world · 2 Sep 2026

• If we ever find a way to deal with the whole “burning the planet” issue, their best use case is to find and match patterns, not to imitate them.

  The idea of using a language model to process search engine input isn’t the dumbest part about Gemini and plenty of people report good results finding information easier and quicker with ChatGPT. In those cases, the deviation from rigid keywords is desirable because it can match results with related words rather than literal word-matching. Google Search already did a decent job at that (before the enshittification ran rampant), which more complex language models could improve even further.

  The landmine is in their reproduction of those results, where the generated “summary” is the equivalent of a cunning bullshitter that convincingly sounds like he understood the topic but actually has no clue and just delivers a best guess. That’s where the deviation becomes a risk of misinformation or introducing bugs.

  They should narrow things down by finding the likely answers where that matters, not produce more stuff that humans will have to double-check.

  on Linus Torvalds used AI to fix a Linux bug, and now LLM critics on Linux face an uncomfortable choice in c/technology@lemmy.world · 1 Sep 2026

• Just downloaded both, will give them a try - thsnks for the recommendation!

  on Google Maps changes Lake Ontario to ‘Lake America’ for U.S. users in c/technology@lemmy.world · 31 Aug 2026

• Half a byte: 4 bits

  on Terminology in c/programmer_humor@programming.dev · 30 Aug 2026

• Stick them both in a bag, hit it with a stick, you’ll always hit the correct one.

  on OpenAI ends contract: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX. After Musk acquired Twitter, now part of SpaceX, the company broke⁠the terms of our contract (alongside many others). in c/technology@lemmy.world · 30 Aug 2026

• They hate Europe, apparently. Looks like they blame us for the history of colonialism, from a glance. Not sure where they’re from and didn’t dig deep enough into their comment history to find out (guessing some place that was a victim of said colonialism), but I’m fairly sure they’re not gonna converse in good faith with what they consider “Eurotrash”.

  on Elon Musk awarded Ukraine's Order of Freedom, one of the country's highest state honours, for Starlink role in c/europe@feddit.org · 28 Aug 2026

• The Black Panthers, founded 1966, had nothing to do with the fact that people started avoiding the malls in Nashville because of the violence that had transpired there in 1960, or the fact that four thousand people confronted the mayor about his failure to stop that violence. Violence, critically, that could not be pinned on the demonstratively nonviolent students, who then made a point of doing their penal labour with the enthusiasm of youths trying to prove that they’re not, in fact, troublemakers, but actually cooperative community members.

  That violence can achieve things is hardly novel, nor do I deny it. It is a tool, and if used right, it can effect change. The trouble the US had with the insutgents in the middle east is a wonderful example of the power that well-supported and organised resistance can achieve with violence.

  I simply deny the claims that it’s the only effective tool, nor that it is effective by itself.

  The Panthers, for all their laudable bravery, lacked the rigorous discipline and organisation of the CORE, SNCC or SCLC. Once people flocked to their image of militant resistance, they lost their grassroots nature of feeding kids and treating the sick. They made a half-hearted attempt to stop the law against carrying loaded weapons in public, but it turns out that thirty people with guns who didn’t even know the way can’t have the same impact as a few thousand people without guns marching in stoic unity. They also lacked the political appeal: While the firefighters in Birmingham (1963) eventually refused to keep turning their fire hoses on children at the police’s behest, no such qualms were had about attacking militant insurgents.

  The key with any tool is to use it correctly. If you’re gonna pick a fight with the state, make sure you’re better prepared than the Panthers. Learn from their mistakes, learn from the successes of the SNCC and SCLC and learn some military theory about targeting the will of the opponent rather than reducing war to pure bloodshed.

  If you don’t want to read a book, maybe a blog post is more digestible?

  Against the State – A Primer on Terrorism, Insurgency and Protest

  on Local officials face death threats and gunfire over AI data center projects — More than 500 towns restrict builds as councils shutter public comment in c/technology@lemmy.world · 27 Aug 2026

• “sure yes you can hard code everything. You’d just go against basic coding conventions. The way i am being treated is making it hard staying technical. Even when the versions are being hard coded it doesnt resolve the problems with the files. But like you demand i wont say anything anymore and try magic to fix these files.”

  So i wrote 2 whole things, explaining all analytical steps i took and again that i didnt say i can not connect to the files but the files cant be altered Connection: yes Query: no

  From my own autistic experience, people tend to get irritated when I try to explain my reasoning or analytical steps too much. At some point, you just have to accept that they’re not gonna get it.

  When I’ve had a similar situation (much less hostile, thankfully), I just implemented it as told, documented it and let it break to show them why it wasn’t working. They took me seriously after that.

  But also, when you’re on the way out anyway, don’t put too much effort into doing things “right”. You don’t owe them competence. They already think you’re incompetent. If they want you to add tech debt, that’s the most legitimate way to take revenge.

  I wish they’d put me on leave like i asked when i got told i get laid off.

  Honestly, it’s very reckless of them to not do so. I know we had an incident where a laid-off colleague (well, contract didn’t get extended, but the result is the same) pulled some nasty shit on his last day. Management learned from that and the next time they had to fire someone, they first revoked all access, then had them surrender all company devices and wipe company data off their private devices with security watching, then put them on leave for the rest of the contract. Just safer that way.

  (This is not an encouragement to take any revenge on them. That might land you in legal trouble. But you can’t get in trouble for doing exactly what they tell you to. If their instructions are stupid, that’s not your problem.)

  This company, and i know it, leaves me wanting to from now on build even less friendly ties to collegues of future companies

  I think the difficult part is figuring out which of your colleagues are worth building ties with. I have some that I’m friendly with, some I’m more “professional”, some I pull a face when I see their message pop up and put off reading it for as long as I can.

  Some companies are shit. Not all of them are.

  on I can definitely maybe do this! in c/programmer_humor@programming.dev · 27 Aug 2026

• Ah but the thing is, the sources it finds are themselves wrong. They’re talking about different things. If it finds the right sources, the information is most likely pretty good.

  That’s what I was trying to get at, yeah: The word-correlator can’t tell the difference because it can’t tell which part of the prompt is critical for the difference. It also can’t judge whether the sources themselves are accurate about the things they’re actually talking about. It find sources that seem related, then aggregates some likely response from those sources and spits it out. By its own metrics and limitations, that has to be “good enough” (but as you say, may be wildly wrong).

  My suspicion is that adding more specific terms to the prompt may increase the textual “distance” between the fitting results and the irrelevant ones, thus tilting the source selection towards the more accurate match, but that requires you to know those specific terms in the first place.

  It’s entirely possible that this could still be tuned somehow

  With a general model? I doubt it.

  A subject-specific model could probably be tweaked to recognise particular tokens and assign them more weight. Depending on the subject, you might be able to add pre-processing logic to crossreference certain keywords (like model and engine type) with some objective database (like a table describing which pumps a given motor might have, if that makes sense?).

  You could also pick the training material more diligently to ensure you only have qualified, reliable sources for that subject. That would require a lot of work, since you also need enough material for the model to be representative.

  And you’d have to do that for every specialised field out there.

  I wouldn’t trust anything that comes out of it unless I know enough to verify the output myself, meaning it’s pretty useless to laymen (which is whom a “veracity” bot would be for)

  Hit the nail on the head there. For all we know, it’ll “correct” facts by doubling down on common misconceptions.

  on New Twitter launches, says Musk's X gave up the name in c/technology@lemmy.world · 27 Aug 2026