V0ldek

joined 1 year ago
[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Since their output is, in the technical sense of the term, bullshit [1],

== References

[1] Frankfurt H. On Bullshit. Raritan Quarterly Review 1986; 6:81-100.

Let's start collecting a bibliography

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I love the leaves and gold meme and I use it constantly even though quite literally no one ever understands it, so, thank you, now I know there's two of us.

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 8 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Sir, this is a Wendy's, also

There will be no reactionary restoration of the pre-internet past.

did you get sucked up your ass so deep you forgot who's on the reactionary side?

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 6 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

The FDA thing gave me whiplash what the fuck, what did I miss

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (5 children)

It still has to go through peer review, so I fully expect one (1) accepted paper with the title "Large Generative AI Models in Telecommunications - What? No. Why? No!"

Hit me up if you want to collaborate on one lol

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

Dunno, I disagree. It's quite impossible for me to put myself in the shoes of a person who wouldn't see a difference between shouting at an INANIMATE FUCKIN' OBJECT vs at an actual person. As if saying "fuck off" to ChatGPT made me somehow more likely to then say "fuck off" to a waiter in a restaurant? That's sociopath shit. If you need to "built the habit of being respectful" you have some deeper issues that should be solved by therapy, not by being nice to autocomplete.

I'm a programmer since forever, I spend roughly 4h every day verbally abusing the C++ compiler because it's godawful and can suck my balls. Doesn't make me any more likely to then go to my colleague and verbally abuse them since, you know, they're an actual person and I have empathy for them. If anything it's therapeutic for me since I can vent some of my anger at a thing that doesn't care. It's like an equivalent of shouting into a pillow.

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 12 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (5 children)

Don’t y’all get tired of being wrong sometimes? Maybe try to learn from the past.

Fondly remembering all the times we were wrong. Ah, remember that one time we were totally wrong about the metaverse not being the future? Oh, oh, or the classic "cryptocurrencies are just a scam" talk we had to walk back so many times. Damn, good thing we didn't call out WeWork for being a money sink or we'd be looking pretty fucking stupid now!

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 5 points 3 weeks ago

Did Sammy boi try to consult Stephen King on the final price by any chance

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 16 points 3 weeks ago

will become expensive, slow, and dumb

Wouldn't they have to become smart first?

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 11 points 3 weeks ago

Welcome to the wonderful XXI century where our innovations in communication technology and financial instruments allow a hyperoptimised economy where two tweets are more than enough to cause billion-dollar shifts on the market. Completely organic and based on solid fundamentals I am assured by the same people that assured me of this in 2000 and 2008.

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 20 points 3 weeks ago

"Our product that costs metric kilotons of money to produce but provides little-to-no value is extremely difficult to price" oh no, damn, ye, that's a tricky one

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 11 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Wait but he controls the price, not the subscriber number?

Like even if the issue was low subscriber number (which it isn't since they're losing money per subscriber, more subscribers just makes you lose money faster), that's still the same category of mistake? You control the price and supply, not the demand, you can't set a stupid price that loses you money and then be like "ah, not my fault, demand was too low" like bozo it's your product and you set the price. That's econ 101, you can move the price to a place where your business is profitable, and if such a price doesn't exist then maybe your biz is stupid?

 

An excellent post by Ludicity as per usual, but I need to vent two things.

First of all, I only ever worked in a Scrum team once and it was really nice. I liked having a Product Owner that was invested in the process and did customer communications, I loved having a Scrum Master that kept the meetings tight and followed up on Retrospective points, it worked like a well-oiled machine. Turns out it was a one-of-a-kind experience. I can't imagine having a stand-up for one hour without casualties involved.

A few months back a colleague (we're both PhD students at TU Munich) was taking a piss about how you can enroll in a Scrum course as an elective for our doctor school. He was in general making fun of the methodology but using words I've never heard before in my life. "Agile Testing". "Backlog Grooming". "Scrum of Scrums". I was like "dude, none of those words are in the bible", went to the Scrum Guide (which as far as I understood was the only document that actually defined what "Scrum" meant) and Ctrl+F-ed my point of literally none of that shit being there. Really, where the fuck does any of that come from? Is there a DLC to Scrum that I was never shown before? Was the person who first uttered "Scrumban" already drawn and quartered or is justice yet to be served?

Aside: the funniest part of that discussion was that our doctor school has an exemption that carves out "credits for Scrum and Agile methodology courses" as being worthless towards your PhD, so at least someone sane is managing that.

Second point I wanted to make was that I was having a perfectly happy holiday and then I read the phrase "Agile 2" and now I am crying into an ice-cream bucket. God help us all. Why. Ludicity you fucking monster, there was a non-zero chance I would've gone through my entire life without knowing that existed, I hate you now.

 

I'm not sure if this fully fits into TechTakes mission statement, but "CEO thinks it's a-okay to abuse certificate trust to sell data to advertisers" is, in my opinion, a great snapshot of what brain worms live inside those people's heads.

In short, Facebook wiretapped Snapchat by sending data through their VPN company, Onavo. Installing it on your machine would add their certificates as trusted. Onavo would then intercept all communication to Snapchat and pretend the connection is TLS-secure by forging a Snapchat certificate and signing it with its own.

"Whenever someone asks a question about Snapchat, the answer is usually that because their traffic is encrypted, we have no analytics about them," Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote in a 2016 email to Javier Olivan.

"Given how quickly they're growing, it seems important to figure out a new way to get reliable analytics about them," Zuckerberg continued. "Perhaps we need to do panels or write custom software. You should figure out how to do this."

Zuckerberg ordered his engineers to "think outside the box" to break TLS encryption in a way that would allow them to quietly sell data to advertisers.

I'm sure the brave programmers that came up with and implemented this nonsense were very proud of their service. Jesus fucking cinammon crunch Christ.

view more: next ›