See, that’s a cool symbol. Make the right angle part of that symbol into a snake, you’re done. 1000% better than the AI’s mess.

When we say LLMs don’t know or understand anything, this is what we mean. This is a perfect example of an “AI” just not having any idea what it’s doing.

• I’ll start with a bit of praise: It does do a fairly good job of decomposing the elements of Python and the actuary profession into bits that would be representative of those realms.

But:

• In the text version of the response, there are already far too many elements for a good tattoo, demonstrating it doesn’t understand tattoo design or even just design
• In the drawn version, the design uses big blocks of color with no detail, which (even if they looked good on a white background; and they don’t;) would look like shit inked on someone’s skin. So again, no understand of tattoo art.
• It produces a “simplified version” of the python logo. I assume those elements are the blue and yellow hexagons, which are at least the correct colors. But it doesn’t understand that, for this to be PART OF THE SAME DESIGN, they must be visually connected, not just near each other. It also doesn’t understand that the design is more like a plus; nor that the design is composed of two snakes; nor that the Python logo is ALREADY VERY SIMPLE, nor that the logo, lacking snakes, loses any meaning in its role of representing Python.
• It says there’s a briefcase and glasses in there. Maybe the brown rectangle? Or is the gray rectangle meant to be a briefcase lying on its side so the handle is visible? No understanding here of how humans process visual information, or what makes a visual representation recognizable to a human brain.
• Math stuff can be very visually interesting. Lots of mathematical constructs have compelling visuals that go with them. A competent designer could even tie them into the Python stuff in a unified way; like, imagine a bar graph where the bars were snakes, twining around each other in a double helix. You got math, you got Python, you got data analysis. None of this ties together, or is even made to look good on its own. No understanding of what makes something interesting.
• Everything is just randomly scattered. Once again, no understanding of what design is.

AIs do not understand anything. They just regurgitate in ways that the algorithm chooses. There’s no attempt to make the algorithm right, or smart, or relevant, or anything except an algorithm that’s just mashing up strings and vectors.

So an option that is literally documented as saying “all files and directories created by a tmpfiles.d/ entry will be deleted”, that you knew nothing about, sounded like a “good idea”?

Bro, if it sounded like a good idea to someone, you didn’t fucking warn them enough. Don’t put this on them without considering what you did to confuse them.

Also, nfn, the systemd documentation is a nightmare to read through, even if you know exactly what you’re looking for.

(I’m still gonna keep using systemd because it’s better than the alternatives, though. OP, don’t write stuff off because 1 guy is a dick.)

Fair enough. I guess I’m not saying “there’s no point in --” because I know people do these things. (Man, I wish I had the attention span to read as much as you.) I’m just saying I’m not going to host something just to keep track with no recommendations or interaction because that doesn’t click for me personally.

Same. I don’t really see the point of tracking what you read if you’re not interested in connecting it to other peoples’ readings. Storygraph has been great.

deleted by creator

Sorry, I didn’t know we might be hurting the LLM’s feelings.

Seriously, why be an apologist for the software? There’s no effective difference between blaming the technology and blaming the companies who are using it uncritically. I could just as easily be an apologist for the company: not their fault they’re using software they were told would produce accurate information out of nonsense on the Internet.

Neither the tech nor the corps deploying it are blameless here. I’m well aware than an algorithm only does exactly what it’s told to do, but the people who made it are also lying to us about it.

Leaving my chicken for 10 minutes near a window on a warm summer day and then digging in

I guess I’m not surprised that programmers don’t know how to follow meme standards.

The three panels following the first one are supposed to be helping the first one.

These bugs are always opened by IC developers who need help and have little agency. So,

Closed “won’t fix” with note

Contributions accepted if you want to deliver the fix. If you are not in a position to dictate to your employer how your time is spent (and, if so, I understand your problem) please report to your manager that you will be unable to use this software without contributing the fix. Alternately, switch to [competitor]. Your manager should understand that the cost to the company of contributing a fix for this bug is less than the switching cost for [competitor]. I wish you luck, either way.

And then make the above text a template response, so you don’t have to spend your time typing it more than once.

EDIT: Noticed you’re talking about Gitlab in the question, and I responded about Github, but I’m certain that gitlab does everything the same way, because that’s all the technology is capable of. (I have no way to test the ssh -T command at the end for gitlab, though, so ymmv.)

To clear up some minor confusion here:

1. Github knows nothing about your private key. There’s very little metadata stored in the private key, and github.com has access to none of it. That includes email address or identity.
2. Github has identity information stored for you, and then, separately, you uploaded a public key. The public key also contains no information about you, but github knows it’s part of your account. Additionally, github enforces a requirement that your public key can’t be uploaded to any other account, for the reason I’m about to state below.
3. Github has an index built of everyone’s public keys (or more likely their digests, although the technical details of the index are not something known to me–and it doesn’t matter). When it sees an authentication request, it looks up the digest in the index, which maps to a user account.

At this point it already knows who is trying to authenticate. Once your authentication request succeeds with your public key (the usual challenge-response handshake associated with asymmetric cryptography), github interacts with your ssh client (most likely git) applying the permissions of your user and your user account.

BTW, github has a documented method for testing the handshake without doing any git operations:

ssh -T git@github.com

Depending on your ssh config, you might also need to supply -i some_filename.pem to this. Github will reply with

Hi aarkon! You've successfully authenticated, but GitHub does not provide shell access.

and then close the connection.

Note that the test authentication uses the username git and, again, contains no information about who you are. It’s all just looked up on github’s side.

Well I didn’t see the comment you’re apologizing for so, no apology necessary ig?

Jon Ringer’s actual actions did include pushback against representation for trans people. I’ll take your word for it that this article didn’t mention those exchanges; I’m not readin’ all that.

I’m not gonna read this person’s Evangelion analogy, but I did go to the trouble to hunt down what Jon Ringer actually did.

Here’s a link.

I don’t agree with him, and representation of particular minority groups, including gender minorities, are important when they are particularly under attack. It is important to actively resist the marginalization of groups under attack by elevating their voices.

That said, I’m not sure what Jon did was actually “actionable”. I’d say, stop listening to him and treating him as a leader? As someone with lots of close trans friends, I think this guy lowkey sucks, but I think this suspension is weird.

Terraform and OpenTofu are great tools for building virtual infrastructure, e.g. using AWS API calls to spin up AWS virtual machines and provision them with networks and security relationships and stuff like that–in an automated, repeatable way. They are generalized tools for deploying and modifying infrastructure, even if it’s not in the cloud (there are many tools in these frameworks that apply to self-hosted setups).

The rest of the words after “Terraform fork” are just the names of companies that decided to help OpenTofu, and are not especially helpful in understanding what it is or what it’s used for.

So, I’m curious.

What do you think happens in the infinite loop that “runs you” moment to moment? Passing the same instance of consciousness to itself, over and over?

Consciousness isn’t an instance. It isn’t static, it’s a constantly self-modifying waveform that remembers bits about its former self from moment to moment.

You can upload it without destroying the original if you can find a way for it to meaningfully interact with processing architecture and media that are digital in nature; and if you can do that without shutting you off. Here’s the kinky part: We can already do this. You can make a device that takes a brain signal and stimulates a remote device; and you can stimulate a brain with a digital signal. Set it up for feedback in a manner similar to the ongoing continuous feedback of our neural structures and you have now extended yourself into a digital device in a meaningful way.

Then you just keep adding to that architecture gradually, and gradually peeling away redundant bits of the original brain hardware, until most or all of you is being kept alive in the digital device instead of the meat body. To you, it’s continuous and it’s still you on the other end. Tada, consciousness uploaded.

Well, I think they should revoke that guy’s PGP key

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator