It's supposed to be available in plaintext to the end customer (government), at their secured archive, but not available in plaintext to TeleMessage.
>TeleMessage lies about this in their marketing material, claiming that TM SGNL supports "End-to-End encryption from the mobile phone through to the corporate archive."
Surely someone of your expertise and renown recognizes this difference.
I think I'm on (relatively) the same page as you regarding inappropriately anthropomorphizing LLMs, but aren't both "confabulation" and "hallucination" typically/historically cognitive science terms dealing with humans? So, they both would be anthropomorphizing? And if so, why is one better than the other?
"Confabulation was originally defined as "the emergence of memories of events and experiences which never took place" - From the year 1900
Yes both terms anthropomorphize. And I do think anthropomorphic terminology is reasonable. For models. Given the disclaimer that strong similarities do not necessarily imply serious equivalence.
But if we are going to anthropomorphize, we should at least keep the meanings of words consistent.
The definition/source of confabulate you give is great. I think its modern use includes fill-in facts, and often emphasizes the fill-in of details of events, experiences, and factual knowledge in terms of how our memories & recall work on a normal basis.
"Religious" isn't being used to refer to people rewriting tools in Rust.
It's used to refer to people zealously commenting on message boards that every single tool ever built should be rewritten in Rust, and if you aren't rewriting your tool in Rust, you're an idiot.
> It's used to refer to people zealously commenting on message boards that every single tool ever built should be rewritten in Rust.
Ok, but between me, GP and the article, who said that? Where are the Rabid RIIR fans?
And before you misquote me, I said, why wouldn't you rewrite stuff in Rust, if the status quo is ridden with bugs, and safety issues? And why shouldn't a Linux distro switch to it if they desire.
>Ok, but between me, GP and the article, who said that? Where are the Rabid RIIR fans?
The person you replied to said: "The religious element of rust programmers seems more extreme than other languages."
You interpreted that in a way that ended up with you asking "What is religious about rewriting tools in Rust".
I clarified that the typical way "religious element of rust programmers" is interpreted is not the act of rewriting tools, but the proselytizing about rust on message boards. I then gave an example of what that proselytizing typically looks like (which was not a claim that you said something like that).
That is the "religious element" being referred to. The proselytizing is the religious element, not the act of rewriting tools in Rust.
(The meme "Rust Evangelists" didn't manifest out of thin air because people hate memory safety or whatever -- it's because people are really, really passionate about Rust, and are vocal about that passion)
> The proselytizing is the religious element, not the act of rewriting tools in Rust.
Ok. Where is the proselytizing taking place in the article?
Is the sudo-rs did work, the proselytization? Where is it?
> The meme "Rust Evangelists" didn't manifest out of thin air
That's not how memes work. It's just something that appeals to some group that spreads it. It can be true, false and fabricated out of thin air.
What if I told you, that "What if I told you" meme isn't what Morpheus says to Neo? The scene itself is so divorced from meme it doesn't carry much resemblance (here https://youtu.be/L8H9DqkrkcY)
>Ok. Where is the proselytizing taking place in the article?
It's not? It's like you're picking random words out of my comment to quote without bothering to read what I'm writing. Nothing of what I said is about the article. It's about your misinterpretation of what fossuser meant when they said "religious element".
I can't explain the same thing for a third (fourth, I guess? since I just tried again) time, I'm running out of different ways to say it. So I'll just leave it there.
Your meta-commentary on memes is neat and all, but again, somehow, completely misses the point I was making.
> It's about your misinterpretation of what fossuser meant when they said "religious element".
My point, where is the proof of that "religious element" beyond memes? Is it in the article? Is it in the links? Where can we see this religious fervor in action?
The article is very matter of fact. I expect people to be matter of fact as well.
I swear to God, I feel like I'm asking for the Individualist Eleven book, and everyone asserts me it exists, and they read it, but no one can ever finds it.
> Your meta-commentary on memes is neat and all, but again, somehow, completely misses the point I was making.
It's necessary because memes aren't real. They might have started based on some interactions that 10 years ago, but by their nature they will mutate and twist.
>My point, where is the proof of that "religious element" beyond memes? Is it in the article? Is it in the links? Where can we see this religious fervor in action?
You can argue with fossuser about the validity of what they said.
I'll offer my opinion, which is not some proof from god or anything that you seem to be seeking, which is that I find significantly more annoying comments from Rust users, about how something should be rewritten in Rust to fix everything, than any other language. But, again, this is not proof from god. I'm just a guy making an observation based on my lived experience. You have a different lived experience. Glad we could clear that up.
> which is not some proof from god or anything that you seem to be seeking
You know what, you or anyone else can start with actual proofs. I don't want your lived experience and memes as proof, I need messages, posts from people (bonus points for sudo-rs members) that show how zealous they are about Rust and rewriting all the things in it.
I'm a Java dev, that just dabbles in Rust. I've seen observed many claims about Rust zealotry with no actual proof. Whenever I ask for them, I get a blank stare and dodging.
Hence, my comparison with the book from Ghost in the Shell. It, too, was a meme, an actual memory virus. Everyone read it, and no one could find the proof it existed.
(I'm sure if I pick any specific quotes, you'll start arguing the semantics of what is "zealous", how whatever number of comments I pick are outliers, or not proof enough, etc. So, here's one query, of many, that you can pick through.)
In the end, I really could not care less if you agree with the characterization or not. But your enthusiastic defense is fun. If you keep going, you'll be coming close to being an example yourself!
First, a simple grading system:
0 - No RIIR sentiment
1- Joking or
2 - Mentioning Rust in positive light
3 - Suggesting Rust positive light for project
4 - Asking for RIIR, saying stuff like this wouldn't happen in Rust
5 - Demanding RIIR
| | | RIIR grade (0 -> 5) | Notes |
| --- | --------------------------------------------- | ------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------- |
| 1 | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43912708 | 4 | Parent post is talking about Rust |
| 2 | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43910022 | 0 | Talks about Fish rewrite |
| 3 | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43909844 | 0 | Discusses Issues |
| 4 | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43909222 | 1 | Jokey on RIIR |
| 5 | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43906665 | 0 | Talking about RIIR |
| 6 | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43905224 | 0 | Promotes a rewrite in C versus a Rust rewrite |
| 7 | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43897309 | 2 | Discusses Rust in positive light, but nothing about rewrite |
| 8 | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43865281 | 0 | Discusses negatives of JS backends |
| 9 | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43851214 | 0 | Talks about knowledge bias |
| 10 | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43851075 | 5 | RIIR (maybe joke) |
| 11 | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43840479 | 0 | RIIR is mentioned in passing, not actually used |
| 12 | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43833836 | 4 | RIIR suggestion |
| 13 | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43832828 | 0 | Advises against Rust |
| 14 | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43832638 | 0 | Not RIIR |
| 15 | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43832349 | 4 | Asks for RIIR (maybe jokingly) |
| 16 | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43827713 | 0 | Congratulates on Rewriting in C#/Unity |
| 17 | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43797673 | 0 | Neither it nor the GP are acually RIIR |
| 18 | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43791746 | 3 | Mentions Rust in positive light |
| 19 | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43791093 | 1 | Joke |
| 20 | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43791090 | 1 | Joke |
| 21 | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43781819 | 2 | Arguments for writing code in Rust |
| 22 | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43769094 | 5 | RIIR |
| 23 | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43768282 | 0 | Negative on RIIR |
| 24 | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43766357 | 0 | Explaining what RIIR means |
| 25 | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43766000 | 4 | Asks for RIIR |
| 26 | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43764348 | 0 | Discusses implementation in Rust |
| 27 | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43757201 | 0 | Talks about Rust |
| 28 | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43731538 | 2 | Mentions Rust in positive light |
In summary, there are 28 items on the first page, totalling 38 points.
Doing an average, it's about 1.35 points, which suggest that on average, people are somewhere between joking about RIIR and mentioning Rust in positive light.
However actual number of RIIR between 2-5 depending how you look at it, 5-17%. Assuming the rest of pages have a similar spread, and that targeting only keywords of RIIR captures accurately the sentiment - I suspect the latter is the case. I've seen more negativity about Rust in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43910745 in few hours, than positivity about Rust in several days.
And I've seen my comments that are positive about Rust get way more downvoted, than comments skeptical or negative on Rust.
So sudo is ridden with bugs and safety issues, as opposed to the Rust alternative? I came across a lot of ridiculously absurd logic bugs in the Rust version. Maybe you can still see GitHub Issues.
Just looking at the finely woven shirt I'm wearing right now, and I'm sure the average 17th-century artisan was not able to hand-craft something like that.
Textiles is one of the first industries that was impacted by the industrial revolution, so it's unsurprising that the product is now as perfect as it can be. On the other hand I wonder how affordable it would be if it was not produced in low-income countries.
>I'm still searching for successful vibe coding examples.
I'm wondering what this means.
Kind of by definition, you wouldn't be able to tell "successful vibe coding" from "successful coding", right? Unless someone announces it. And a quick look at the comments here, or any other thread with about AI & coding, would immediately tell you is a bad idea to announce.
There's a few things you just don't say on HN, because you'll be piled-on immediately: don't criticize Kagi, don't hint at being pro-cryptocurrency, don't announce you "vibe coded" something even if it's extremely successful, etc.
(The immediate downvotes on this is actually hilarious, and proves the point)
No he's saying if you are a generalist you shouldn't try to market yourself as that. Usually employers are looking for specialists that are perfectly moulded to the one exact task they need at that very moment.
It's misguided of course, but that's what they think they want and if you say "I've done all sorts of things and I'm good at all of them" they'll hear "I don't have much experience with anything" and discount you.
On the flip side few reasons why I don’t favor generalist profiles (while being one myself).
- resumes which claim generalist tend to be SEO’ed than real, or AI generated and they will say experience dozens of technologies most of which would be untrue, throw everything and see what sticks .
In most cases it just tells me what they have heard of rather than what they know especially if they are not very senior .
- It takes really hard effort to be beyond a superficial generalist, even when they know some of those skills and remember them during an interview it is not with a lot of depth they pursued only in passing interest not in a professional capacity (that is fine, but it is a lot work to make the distinction in evaluation on all relevant skills in a timed interview)
- It is harder or simply not viable for a specialist to interview a generalist , so you need to have few to hire more . If you don’t have any or they are not doing interviews you are not going get more .
- Being a generalist with depth of understanding means you are the type of person who needs to understand things properly before doing them . .You are lot of time learning things which are not required for get the task completed.
That means either you need are prepared to spend a lot of personal time and be perpetually stressed or be slow in completing something .
It is hard thing to master to let it go . I don’t think I have learned it yet
- Complexity and depth of technologies change a lot in short duration when they are corporate backed .
I learned Linux architecture or vim or git 20 years ago they haven’t changed much. You can be productive in any of these to stacks very quickly even if you didn’t use them for years .
Last I worked on android or swift is more than few years ago . I doubt I could even build a serious app without spending major time . To be productive to learning curve is steep and the prior knowledge is limited in usefulness.
>Being a generalist with depth of understanding means you are the type of person who needs to understand things properly before doing them . .You are lot of time learning things which are not required for get the task completed.
It's just how my career swung me. I would have loved to have developed as a subject matter expert, but everytime I get into the swing of things, layoffs came around or the studio shut down. Now I'm freelancing and that by nature requires a generalist approach.
no one's really investing in specialists, so I have no idea how the millentials/Gen Z of the world will ever get to properly specialize. Specialization requires time to master something, and that time implies stability to do that thing.
>To be productive to learning curve is steep and the prior knowledge is limited in usefulness.
business wise, sure. It's a shame all business sees as "productive" is based on how many widgets you churn in that time. It's no surprise such companies want to force AI into it without quality considerations.
> Being a generalist with depth of understanding means you are the type of person who needs to understand things properly before doing them . .You are lot of time learning things which are not required for get the task completed.
Ha, I feel seen. Though also I wouldn't frame this quite so negatively. I've seen a lot of tasks "completed" by people who just got the job done without fully understanding it and they frequently get it done badly.
Generalist over here as well, that is kind of what pushed me to boring fields, UNIX, Windows, Java, .NET, C++, vanilajs,...
Changes also happen, but they are kind of glacial with areas where we are hunting the new shinny every here.
Usually I tend to be a laggard on the adoption graph, the large majority of stuff hardly makes the curve, and I have better things to do with my time.
Plus that vintage stuff that isnt' cool to write blog posts about, usually pays good enough.
Stuff like Android or iDevices suffer from yearly fashion, platform owners feel compeled to reboot the development experience every year, forcing app developers to keep up, and also as means to sell new devices.
I'm one of those generalists who's done everything from bare metal work, to cloud stuff, to most things in between. Very few companies hire for that. They usual have some particular pain point they need fixed and I have experience with that. But it's easy to explain that if they need help with all this other stuff the product needs to get out the door, sure I can pitch in with that, and more importantly, I understand intimately how my piece fits in with all the other pieces in the stack and that makes it far easier for me to design and build components that fit into their wider environment.
That's something hiring managers do find compelling.
Exactly what I wanted to get across. That's why I have 3 personal pages/blogs and a separate forum. Only people very close to me know for all of them. Otherwise people get weird about you doing so many, so varied things. Here I m not talking even about work related relationships, on a personal basis people feel insulted and as if it is a competition if you list what you do when they ask you to. I have super focused, 16h days at the lab/office, of course I ll get a lot done... https://supermemo.guru/wiki/Planning_a_perfect_productive_da...
Most HR hiring managers, and headhunters alike, have a real hard problem trying to see the point of generalists.
They want the easy way out, what to focus on.
As I usual say I tend to do whatever, so is the life of agencies, however when applying for positions sell the skills relevant for the position.
Not e.g. "I can do .NET and Java", rather "I can do .NET, proud of X, Y and Z projects in .NET, and by the way, I may do Java as well if needed, there was this project...", something like this.
I think the counterintuitive thing is that the marketing communicates a lack of confidence. It's... sortof odd to think about it that way, but to communicate actual confidence in your field, you mostly have to be willing and able to have a conversation about whatever topic your interviewer fancies. Being able to do that comfortably speaks volumes that your resume and project portfolio struggle to replicate.
well if the marginal value of labor goes to zero, only those with capital will be able to survive. we may need to think about what kinds of redistribution are socially acceptable.
Minimum wage is barely (in many cases not even barely) enough to live on. Raising minimum wage is a herculean task that rarely succeeds. Federal minimum wage hasn't been raised in 16 years. But we'll have not only a livable UBI in 20 years, but one that's enough to "retire to a life of leisure"?
Minimum wage isn't directly comparable, because that's the government setting a rule on what two private parties can agree to. It's not the government but the employer who pays it.
UBI is distributed by the government directly, so it's basically a question of what gets taxed, how much inflation results, and whether that inflation and taxation proves more unpopular than the UBI is popular.
This is silly. To a first approximation, zero percent of the opposition to minimum wage increases comes from a principled stance of "I support taxation, even high taxation, but I am opposed to the government interfering in private labor market contracts"; 100% of it is from "they're taking my money!". There is no reason to expect any less opposition from the much, much larger amount of wealth redistribution which would be required by UBI.
What does minimum wage have to do with taxation? It's not the government paying those wages, it's McDonald's, and the opposition to it comes from people who say it will result in McDonalds closing stores or replacing cashiers with touchscreens rather than paying more for employees; ie, low-value labor simply becoming unemployable rather than getting a pay boost.
There are a lot of counterarguments to a high minimum wage, some even from UBI proponents, but none of them are "they're taking my money" because that doesn't make sense in the context of a minimum wage.
You can frame the opposition to a minimum wage that way, e.g. if you raise the minimum wage then the cost of a Big Mac goes up and you're the one paying it. Or, suppose you're a small business owner who employs three people and you pay them each $20,000, and then after paying them you're left with $50,000/year for your own salary. If you were required to pay them each $30,000 then you'd be left with $20,000 yourself, and that might make you pretty unhappy. More to the point, it might make you close the business and go get a job doing something else, and then those three people lose their jobs instead of getting a raise, which is precisely the argument against a minimum wage.
But that still doesn't apply to a UBI, because a UBI is universal. The person buying the Big Mac or running the small business gets it too, and the breakeven point would be around the average income, so you don't have the problem the minimum wage has where the people paying the cost are often the people who weren't making that much money to begin with.
There's plenty of reasons to doubt, but you could reframe it as "lower pension age to zero".
In optimistic scenarios, if AI can do so much that nobody's even getting paid to make robots, then AI are making robots that also makes the cost of living lower.
In practice, I think that the path from here to there is unstable.
We can't even get universal health care or a decent minimum wage through the opposition from our oligarchs, and those are much, much smaller asks than UBI. Why on earth would you expect UBI to be possible, never mind inevitable?
"Universal healthcare" is typically used as a euphemism for government-operated healthcare providers, which would wipe out both the health insurance industry and a lot of private healthcare providers. You get the strongest opposition to a policy when a specific group sees it as an existential threat, because that group will then organize to lobby vigorously against it.
Minimum wage is a price control. Price controls are trash economics and should not be used. They're a political issue in the US because a federal minimum wage is doubly counterproductive, since different states have a different cost of living. But because of that the states with a higher cost of living see a smaller deleterious effect from a higher minimum wage. Then representatives from those states can claim to want to raise the minimum wage so they can paint their opponents from the lower cost of living states as the villains when they fight against it. But nobody really wants to increase it because it's a bad policy, most of the proponents are from states whose constituents wouldn't even be affected because their state already has a minimum wage in excess of the federal one, the proponents just want to make their opponents vote it down again so they can cast aspersions over it.
A UBI is equivalent to a large universal tax credit. A slight majority of the population would receive more than they pay on net because the median income is slightly below the mean income, which creates a large base of support. If everyone voted purely in their own personal financial interest it would have simple majority support. Meanwhile most of the people who would end up paying on net would only be paying slightly (because they make slightly more than the average income), and in general the net payers are a very large diffuse group with no common interests or organizational ties to one another.
A UBI is a thereby easier to bring about than either of those other things.
Your argument pays no attention to how economic behavior changes due to existence of UBI, ie, how many people choose to work less and thus drop out of the pool of people paying in.
It doesn’t really make sense to me to live in a world where people are given money by the government while simultaneously expected to pay taxes. Its a high overhead when the same could be achieved by printing money and handing it out to everyone equally (which acts as a redistribution of wealth same as taxing the rich and paying credits to the poor, since it devalues the dollar as more supply is added)
I'm not really familiar with audio stuff, but holy do I ever appreciate the write-ups you've done. This is absolutely fascinating stuff. I'm eager to keep reading. The video from Mick Gordon was awesome, too.
Glad to hear it. I have fun writing them, often I find it's a great way to clarify my thoughts even just for me. But also I enjoy reading other people's devlogs so am glad to contribute. :)
It doesn't matter what the courts say if the executive can disregard that. But this is exactly what they are trying to achieve with this whole "unitary executive" BS, and willing abettance from Republicans in Congress.
>TeleMessage lies about this in their marketing material, claiming that TM SGNL supports "End-to-End encryption from the mobile phone through to the corporate archive."
Surely someone of your expertise and renown recognizes this difference.
reply