On a related note, does anyone know of a good (open source) golf simulator/game for Linux? Serious level gaming more than just entertainment, I'm thinking something like FlightGear of golf games.
I don't know any since I'm not playing any golf simulator games myself, but most games on Steam work in Linux with Proton so you might find something there. That's not open source of course but you had it in parenthesis which I think means this was optional :)
Why bubbles happen? Because investors, out of greed, pour into corporations that burn their cash.
The internet was a bubble: you could make a web page and sell it for millions because next year it was going to be worth billions. And then internet grew up.
AI is technology that's still beginning to find its place to settle. It's far from mature and that's perfectly fine. We'll have reached a reasonable plateau once the technology and the related stack stops changing every month and instead develops incrementally and boringly over the span of few years. That's like internet in the 2008-2010, and many investors will have a collection of new burn marks by that time.
Not only financially there's an unsustainable push for AI by the zealots du jour who are more often than not managers rather than engineers. AI is championed most ruthlessly as a silver bullet revolution by people who least grasp the limitations of AI. It'll take some time to figure out the dreamed-up proceeds won't be there, and "then what?".
I predict that the real bottlenecks of development will re-emerge as soon as the limitations of AI will manifest out of the hype. They bottlenecks are human-based, in development processes and in human interactions. A large part of development is trying to understand what we want and what we need and you can't offload that to AI.
My impression is that people who can work on stuff like that are the kind who just take the stuff in the world for granted. "This is how the world is, we need digital restrictions so now we need to implement them." "I don't have a say about whether DRM or remote attestation is standard business practice or not, it is just how it is."
This is akin to how two kinds of people respond to law. The first kind think "This is the law, we must follow it" and the other kind think "This law doesn't make sense, we must change it".
People who look at pedestrian traffic lights and cross when it's green vs. people who look at cars and cross when there are no cars coming. The first say you must follow traffic rules and the second kind say they wouldn't be alive if they looked at the green/red light of law instead of whether there are oncoming cars: a green doesn't mean it's safe to cross and a red doesn't mean you can't cross if only there are no cars.
Somebody had to work on it before it was how the world is. When Microsoft proposed a scheme involving remote attestation and DRM in 2003, the New York Times published a critical article. Google SafetyNet a decade later barely got a whimper out of major tech outlets, much less the mainstream press.
>Somebody had to work on it before it was how the world is.
The mindset the parent described extends to what they're asked to do. They don't challenge it. It doesn't have to already be law for them to accept it and build it. It's enough that the ask comes from authority (a boss, a government) and pays.
> The first kind think "This is the law, we must follow it" and the other kind think "This law doesn't make sense, we must change it".
Indeed. I can't understand the people who blindly believe any law is good just because. Stop, think. Is the law good? What's good about it? What's bad about it? Can it be abused? Then maybe it should be changed?
I advocate that every law should have an annual review to catalog every case where it has been applied. How many were sensible positive outcomes? How many were unintended consequences? How many were clear abuses of the letter of the law? Every legislator should vote on the record based on that annual review to either renew or cancel the law.
> I can't understand the people who blindly believe any law is good just because. Stop, think. Is the law good? What's good about it? What's bad about it? Can it be abused? Then maybe it should be changed?
I think many people have an expectation that (all) laws are just and needed because... somehow they're the law.
In reality, laws can be unjust, unnecessary, biased, and completely arm-wrestled together by people strictly following an agency of their own. Other laws are put together by sheer ignorance and lack of thinking beyond mere good intentions. The first question shouldn't even be "is this law fair" but "was this law made fairly".
It creeps me that people treat laws as axioms whereas they're just polished and reinforced opinions. Sure, many laws we can agree on, and many others that don't agree on aren't worth changing, but you should always question the law and question where it came from before choosing to accept it.
I can see the same pattern with technology such as the various digital restrictions management (DRM) schemes.
There are so many laws on the books that reviewing all of them every year is completely impossible. Doing what you propose would require the government to be greatly shrunk and simplified (which, to be fair, I'm not necessarily against).
Personally I would put myself somewhere between your two "kinds of people". Many individual laws are bad and should be changed, but the rule of law itself is a good, stabilizing force that should generally be respected. If people only followed laws they 100% agree with then that would be chaos, therefore even bad laws deserve at least a modicum of respect.
> There are so many laws on the books that reviewing all of them every year is completely impossible.
Oh well, so maybe there are too many laws, let's simplify.
That is only partially tongue in cheek.
I'd say if there is no time to review and vote to keep or cancel a law, it is automatically cancelled. If it was important maybe someone will reintroduce the legislation later. Fewer laws are better, we should consolidate around laws with the most bipartisan support and scrap the rest.
But also in how I envision the system, if a law is repeatedely affirmed year after year, it should receive an increasing TTL. The formula should also have some modifier for which party controls legislature at the time. So if some law is reaffirmed multiple times under legislatures controlled by different parties, it's probably a fairly uncontroversial law, so we can increase the refresh rate to 3 or 5 years (avoid multiples of 4 since that is election cycle). Over time, the TTL can increase and perhaps there should be a way to eventually promote it to a permanent law, but that should have a very very high bar.
One can dream.. of course it won't happen, so back to your country controlled by a few oligarchs grifting for their personal profit.
> I advocate that every law should have an annual review to catalog every case where it has been applied.
I like this idea but frankly I don't trust our lawmakers to do a fair assessment of this. Maybe there's an independent, non-partisan committee that does this.
> I like this idea but frankly I don't trust our lawmakers to do a fair assessment of this.
Absolutely true. But at least it would force every legislator to put their name yay or nay on every law every year. There are few things that politicians hate more than having to be on the record for supporting or rejecting something.
Then we all could review the full list of laws they voted for or against and vote accordingly.
> My impression is that people who can work on stuff like that are the kind who just take the stuff in the world for granted. "This is how the world is, we need digital restrictions so now we need to implement them." "I don't have a say about whether DRM or remote attestation is standard business practice or not, it is just how it is."
I like to call those people "ventablackpilled". Being blackpilled is all about gloom and doom, but being ventablackpilled is beyond being blackpilled. It is when you actively want the world to be a worse place because you believe that that is how the world works.
Ironically, the very OP statement is exactly that: trying to make the world a worse place because they believe that that is how the world works.
The solution to avoiding dictatorship is engaging in politics and preventing dictatorship directly through that. Trying to retreat into the (perceived) wilderness and build barriers to dictatorship doesn't really work. But since people drafting that statement don't believe that politics work and it is, in fact, possible to both have a vibrant political scene (we have what, five viable political parties vs the American two?) and not let kids send nudes, they try to drag everyone into the same mind frame.
much much worse are the ones taking the biege pills, who of course will drag anyone who notices into there world of where which one of 59 shades of biege constitutes the true way into non confrontational , we will escalate and swat you for any hint of agitation while we decide not to decide to not provide the very function they are in charge of,passivity and conformity to bieng childless and into flabby sad kinky stuff.
legions of them.
You're giving too much thought into the issue or trying to construct something like a conspiracy out of it.
I sometimes work with people who worked on or at least worked with DRM-like stuff (Trustzone etc.). The people who make those systems and the structures that allow it falls squarely on banality of evil. It is not a big evil org or people with their own evil agendas (unlike Palantir, i think they are the true "ventablackpilled" ones). They are thousands of developers who push JIRA tickets like everyone. Many of them live in the developing world and they just pray to keep their jobs. The reason that big tech attracts developers despite their obvious and much bigger (IMO) evils is the same reason that attracts developers who make systems that can be completely closed down.
Many of the developers are not outright evil either. They sometimes voice their opinion. Their opinion doesn't matter in comparison to the business goals.
Sometimes it is understandable to write blocking software. Not all equipment is sold. Many industrial equipment is leased. So the actual owners want guarantees that their devices cannot be modified by renters.
The amount of info you can extract from an Apple phone or Graphene OS is limited due to same restrictions working in your favor too.
Similarly phones can be locked down due to radio restrictions. Nobody wants infinitely exploitable SDNs in peoples hands. It makes such SDNs a juicy target for enemies like Russia to exploit and turn into scalable attack vector as spoofing and jamming devices.
The reason those are attack vectors is also banal. We made our bed as engineers, voters, governments and business leaders one sloppy work at a time. We made shitty chips and shitty software with no care for security or safety. We sold millions of them and nobody wanted to pay to "do it right way". Worse is better. Silicon Valley style scaling up is the goal. Competition is for suckers. All those and every single one of us ate the fruits of shitty hardware and software that are protected by closed down systems. We engineers got the cushy jobs, our business leaders made 10x 100x gains from our work. We either had little voice (because making a big noise is guaranteeing that your cushy job no longer exists) or whatever we had is ignored in the hubris of shipping shit to billions of people.
<< We made our bed as engineers, voters, governments and business leaders one sloppy work at a time. We made shitty chips and shitty software with no care for security or safety. We sold millions of them and nobody wanted to pay to "do it right way".
I dunno. By that I mean, I am sure it happens, but I am not sure this is the reason for it. FWIW, I am not an engineer, but I have a window into that world.
In my little corner of the universe, we are going through belt tightening exercises already. So it is an interesting game of less meetings, shoving as much as you can onto others and the classic 'doing more with less'. In other words, even for internal customer's 'doing it the right way' is imply not a priority. On the other hand, getting more people, bigger budgets and somehow money saved is. 'Doing it the right way' is a distant ideal.
All that said, I don't think you are that wrong with the 'banality of evil' thought.
> This is akin to how two kinds of people respond to law. The first kind think "This is the law, we must follow it" and the other kind think "This law doesn't make sense, we must change it".
There exist more kinds:
- the "rebel": "this is a law/rule, so I have to trespass it". This often holds for people who are either annoyed by rules or red tape or for people who see no hope of changing the law. An example are the "blade runners" in London who organize to destroy lots of surveillance cameras at once, in particular those that are used to enforce low-emission laws. [1]
- the "evil": "this is law, so I will (ab)use it for my personal gain".
> My impression is that people who can work on stuff like that are the kind who just take the stuff in the world for granted.
Some are also doing it for the technical challenge, especially those working on new tech rather than refining what already exists. Like the people who try to solve the great problems of mathematics/physics (or find interesting new ones) for the challenge of it (and sometimes refuse prizes & recognition if they do solve or otherwise discover something vital).
This sort of person is often blinkered to the possible extreme long-term outcomes, or are able to mentally separate themselves from them (“I just made the discovery, I didn't use it to do anything bad” or “I was paid for it, follow the money source and blame them”). Of course once a genie is out of the bottle, other sorts of people are more than eager to ask it for wishes…
> This is akin to how two kinds of people respond to law. The first kind think "This is the law, we must follow it" and the other kind think "This law doesn't make sense, we must change it".
What? I don't understand how this is a "two kinds of people" generalization, when the two categories aren't even mutually-exclusive?
One can think a law is bad and should change, while simultaneously recognizing the rule of law and following it.
It's pretty weird to try to pit those two perspectives against each other
If there is a stupid law, there are several things you can do:
You can follow it anyway and make no attempt to improve the situation, allowing the stupid consequences to follow indefinitely. (Notice that anyone who follows the law while doing nothing because they've been convinced reform efforts will be ineffective are in this group.)
You can follow it anyway while trying to change it, attempting to limit the time the stupid consequences exist.
Or you can refuse to follow it.
But the people in the last group should still be trying to reform the law, both so that they don't have to risk being prosecuted for doing the right thing, and in order to get the people in the first and second groups to stop doing the stupid thing the people in the third group are already refusing to do.
There are laws in existence that no one even "law addicts" would follow unless brain damaged. On top of that sheer amount of laws makes on "following those" simply impossible. there are also conflicting laws. Some laws are even refused to be enforced by the police.
It is a dynamic world where respect for law, trying to change law and plainly saying: "go fuck yourself, not gonna do it" should and do coexist.
Absolutely all laws followed strictly to the letter would kill a society.
If you don’t expect it to be obeyed or enforced, then I would say that means it should be fast tracked to be changed. “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”
The point is that if you don't follow the law as is then what expectation can you have that anyone follows your changed law - and if no one does then what's the point.
>People who look at pedestrian traffic lights and cross when it's green vs. people who look at cars and cross when there are no cars coming. The first say you must follow traffic rules and the second kind say they wouldn't be alive if they looked at the green/red light of law instead of whether there are oncoming cars: a green doesn't mean it's safe to cross and a red doesn't mean you can't cross if only there are no cars.
Don't forget the selfish jerks who simply ask for whatever class of traffic that isn't them to be punitively regulated to their benefit.
(both literally and transferrable to other issues as a metaphor)
Suppose there is some peon at Microsoft who is ordered to write code for Pluton and then does it because they don't want to be fired, expecting to hide behind the Nuremberg defense. The people in your second group will naturally disapprove of this.
But regardless of that, we can ask the same question of the person giving the orders. Someone in these companies initiated these programs, so are they merely fools who couldn't predict the obvious consequences that others did, or are they truly malicious?
> Suppose there is some pe[rs]on at Microsoft who is ordered to write code for Pluton and then does it because they don't want to be fired, expecting to hide behind the Nuremberg defense. The people in your second group will naturally disapprove of this.
I would rather say: people who are too "rebellious"/"non-obedient" don't get into a position where they are ordered to write code for Pluton.
This is spot on. My wife will walk to the ends of the earth to find a crosswalk because she doesn't want to jaywalk. I use my eyes to see if there are any cars and will cross when I deem it safe.
That said, I'm not going to pretend I'm one of those people who say "this law doesn't make sense, we must change it." it's more like "this law is not convenient to me right now and I am willing to suffer the consequences of breaking it" but frankly I'm not going to start a grassroots effort to try to change it.
I got my C64 in 1985. Obviously, I can revisit the graphics and sounds of that machine online now, via emulators and youtube videos. But one thing I always remember is the smell of warming circuit boards that oozed from the casing soon after you turned on the computer.
Anecdotally, the cassette player that came with the machine had a misconfigured tape head. Because there was no internet nobody knew why it didn't load most of the games I got with the machine. However, saving and loading programs did work. So, I started writing programs from the user manual and game listings from some programming books I found in the library, and saving them on my cassettes. Because the user manual covered not only some tutorial BASIC but also the machine's graphics, sprites, sounds, and what other features I eventually, after getting some hang of writing BASIC, did also realize that what I could create with the machine hardware itself was virtually unlimited. I didn't necessarily know what the commands did with the underlying hardware but I knew if I poked certain numbers into certain addresses I could make my sprites appear on the screen and make them move around.
By the time I got the cassette player fixed by some computer repair shop, learned about tuning the tape head, and I could finally load all the games bundled with the machine, I was seriously hooked with programming and the highly desired games no longer seemed that interesting in comparison. I knew someone sat down and wrote all those games and instead of playing them I could learn to do the same myself.
I remember only having enough money to buy the C64 initially and being so relieved to have the checksum on the typed in programs match up, it was ephemeral but it was either that or cartridge programs. The tape drive was the next purchase for me and finally the hard drive. It was still a bargain for the features IMHO compared to the Apple II and other competing devices like Sinclair and Ti99.
I LOVE how the C64 OS was a programming language (BASIC). Even if you used the hardware the gaming, you had to learn a little bit of programming (LOAD "*",8,1).
The only point you can conclude out of these discussions, especially in an interview, that it doesn't matter what the answer happens to be on $CC and $ARCH but you wouldn't want anyone to write stuff like that in the first place.
Failing to recognize the dangers would be an instant fail; knowing that something reeks of undefined behaviour, or even potential UB, is enough: you just write out explicitly what you want and skip the mind games.
We're still in the early ages and must discern hard what AI is good for, what it can maybe do, what it could potentially do and what it just can't do, and move those threshold marks very conservatively. AI is also cheap enough that it's worth shots of experiments. As long as you don't really rely on AI it's easy to test the capabilities of this new conversational autocomplete, and the random gains it offers can be magnificent (except when they aren't, of course).
What has generally worked for me is paraphrasing the old adage "Write the data structures and the code will follow" over to AI. Design your data, consider the design immutable and let the AI try fill in the necessary code (well, with some guidance). If it finds the data structures aren't enough, have it prompt you instead of making changes on its own. AI can do lot of the low-hanging fruit and often the harder ones as well as long as it's bound to something.
Yet, for now, AI at best has been something that relieves me from having to write a long string of boring code: it's not sustainable to keep developing stuff relying on AI alone. It's also great when quality is not an issue; for any serious work AI has not speeded me up noticeably. I still need to think through the hard parts, and whatever I gain in generating code I lose in managing the agents. But I can parallelise code generation, trying new approaches, and exploring out because AI is cheap. AI is also pretty good for going through the codebase and reasoning about dependencies whether in the context of adding a new feature or fixing a bug: I often let AI create a proof-of-concept change that does it, then I extract the important bits out of that and usually trim down the diffs down to at least 1/3 or less.
AI further helps with non-work, i.e. tasks that you have to do in order to fulfill external demands and requirements, and not strictly create anything solid and new. I can imagine AI creating various reports and summaries and documentation, perhaps mostly to be consumed and condensed by another AI at the receiving end. Sadly, all of this is mostly things not worth doing anyway.
Overall, I cringe under all the hype that's been laid on AI: it's a new tool that's still looking for its box or niche carveout, not a revolution.
I don't think we're in the early ages... LLMs technology has essentially stagnated since GPT3.5, we just have bigger models that can handle more context. We're trying to cope for the lack of progress of the actual technology by coming up with contraptions of multiple models stuck together, Mixture-of-Experts, Reviewer models, PM models...
That was surprising. Goes against the idea that deregulation allows companies to squeeze consumers and earn excess profits.
I've held the belief that an occasional bankruptcy is basically a sign of healthy competition within an industry: those companies going down literally didn't know how to be any more efficient or they could've survived.
Regarding airline business, a crapload of more people are flying now with better prices than before the industry was deregulated. Sure it must hurt someone at one end, eventually. Part of the business is standing through price wars because someone will always lose: the best companies can endure that. While airline industry probably fluctuates as described in the article there are plenty of other cyclic industries. Churn itself isn't anything new.
On the other hand, Spirit as mentioned in the article stopped making profit in 2019. Some years later, chapter 11 filings and then another round.. That's like a 7-year runway (pun intended) to insolvency.
Because fixed costs are what they are, I think, is the reason you can drive the business quite precisely to the brink of inoperation: it could literally come down to pure luck between how full your planes happen to be and how close you are to the next payment of some critical loan whether you can take off into the air for another month or so.
I consider it a feature that acts as a filter.
reply