Life is an orderly system of producing disorder

It’s a modern OS, but it’s legacy too.

The posts will continue until reality improves.

[email protected]

As in Trump saying “Good — will you be paying me again?”

The process is supposed to be sustainable. That doesn’t mean you can take one activity and do it to the exclusion of all others and have that be sustainable.

Edit:

Also, regretably, I’m using the now-common framing where “agile” === Scrum.

If we wanna get pure about it, the manifesto doesn’t say anything about sprints. (And also, you don’t do agile… you do a process which is agile. It’s a set of criteria to measure a process against, not a process itself.)

And reasonable people can definitely assert that Scrum does not meet all the criteria in the agile manifesto — at least, as Scrum is usually practiced.

It’s funny (or depressing), because the original concept of agile is very well aligned with an open source/inner source philosophy.

The whole premise of a sprint is supposed to be that you move quickly and with purpose for a short period of time, and then you stop and refactor and work on your tools or whatever other “non value-add” stuff tends to be neglected by conventional deliverable-focused processes.

The term “sprint” is supposed to make it clear that it’s not a sustainable 100%-of-the-time every-single-day pace. It’s one mode of many.

Buuuut that’s not how it turned out, is it?

Brian Eno is pretty cool.

Pretty much, yeah.

Taking over the Democratic Party vs starting a new party is kinda like addressing climate change on Earth vs terraforming Mars.

The former sounds painful and bureaucratic while the latter sounds exciting and innovative.

But if you can’t fix the party or planet you’ve got, which has like 80% of the hard work done already, what hope do you have of doing a new thing from scratch?

I took psychic damage from this

Recently had a password that was acceptable for the account creation page on the website but too long for the login screen in the mobile app.

Took me a while to figure out that pasting into that field was just quietly dropping characters.

At first, I thought “remove this imposter” was a quote from ACB and I was like “Damn, she really woke up to this whole thing, huh?”

As they say, you could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

You do have a right to a lawyer for an extended interview, but only as a US citizen. If they allege you’re a non-citizen, I’m not sure what your recourse is then.

1. Fuck AI
2. This judge’s point is absolutely true:

“You have companies using copyright-protected material to create a product that is capable of producing an infinite number of competing products,” Chhabria said. “You are dramatically changing, you might even say obliterating, the market for that person’s work, and you’re saying that you don’t even have to pay a license to that person.”

3. AI apologists’ response to that will invariably be “but it’s sampling from millions of people at once, not just that one person”, which always sounds like the fractions-of-a-penny scene
4. Fuck copyright
5. A ruling against fair use for AI will almost certainly deal collateral damage to perfectly innocuous scraping projects like linguistic analysis. Even despite their acknowledgement of the issue:

To prevent both harms, the Copyright Office expects that some AI training will be deemed fair use, such as training viewed as transformative, because resulting models don’t compete with creative works. Those uses threaten no market harm but rather solve a societal need, such as language models translating texts, moderating content, or correcting grammar. Or in the case of audio models, technology that helps producers clean up unwanted distortion might be fair use, where models that generate songs in the style of popular artists might not, the office opined.

6. We really need to regulate against AI — right now — but doing it through copyright might be worse than not doing it at all

He’s pretty much describing all three sides of the problem and pretending only one of them matters.

1. The anti-democracy movement, which wants a dictator and has gained enough followers to actually pull it off through democratic means.
2. The pro-democracy movement, which is seeking to counteract the fascists through persuasion (the whining he’s talking about) and careful legal action that doesn’t undermine the very democracy they’re trying to defend.
3. The revolutionary movement, which believes this democracy has already failed so severely that it needs a hard reset, so any action to remove the fascists is justified even if there is collateral damage.

$5.2m? They’re probably gonna spend more than that just arguing this case. It’s never been about the money.

getting all the relevant equipment and personnel

Yeah, doesn’t sound like the kind of coding I’m familiar with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_versus_farmer_hypothesis

Criticising those who criticise liberals for acting morally superior and not taking action to feel morally superior and not have to take action to feel morally superior and not have to take action