ID10T

joined 5 months ago
[–] ID10T@programming.dev 3 points 2 days ago

Sorry, do you really mean to say that the normal employees at Apple are part of the owning class? Because that’s who the article and the comment you replied to are talking about.

[–] ID10T@programming.dev 4 points 5 days ago

Every task starts out as a vague idea that, at some point, needs to be narrowed down to something specific and actionable.

If you’re at a sufficiently large organization and you get lucky, that happens before it makes it to a developer. For the rest of us, it’s an important skill to be able to take a task, ask clarifying questions, and narrow it down to something actionable.

[–] ID10T@programming.dev 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

That’s true! Though doing anything especially interesting or interactive to actually “augment reality” would be challenging without any camera. I’d be very interested in any type of lightweight AR glasses that don’t use a camera, though. Maybe LIDAR?

[–] ID10T@programming.dev 3 points 1 week ago (3 children)

In fairness, though, an app on your smartphone is basically the worst form AR. It forces you to try to look at the world around you through a tiny screen, you can only interact with the app by touching that screen while keeping the camera pointed at the right thing, and you absolutely can’t use your phone for any of the other things you’d normally use it for.

Clunky headsets are better, but only good for use in private spaces and IMO if you’re only going to use the headset in one place, that seems like a better candidate for VR anyways.

IMO the best case for AR basically is a pair of glasses or contacts. Something that takes little to no effort to use and has the ability to augment any area of your vision. Unfortunately, as we’ve seen so far, assholes and perverts seem all too happy to take any device with a camera in it and ruin things for the rest of us.

[–] ID10T@programming.dev 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Not that this gives them a pass, but just to clarify the term: “limited” means you’re only allowed to use the software in the specific ways described by the EULA. The whole purpose of the EULA is to define exactly what “limited” means. In contrast, “unlimited use” would indicate that you’re allowed to use the software however you want unless specifically forbidden by the EULA.

“Limited” does not mean that they can just make up whatever they want later and say “well that’s what we meant when we said limited.” The EULA describes the agreement you make, and both parties are bound to exactly what is described in that EULA.

They can decide to change the EULA later and technically you are free to choose whether you want to accept those new terms, but the nasty part is that they can revoke your current license if you decide not to accept their new EULA and you’re just out of luck because you don’t actually own a copy.

TL;DR it’s a shitty deal either way, but I think it’s important to be accurate. They do define what “limited” means or it wouldn’t be a valid license agreement. That does not imply that the EULA is a good one.

[–] ID10T@programming.dev 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

The trick that AI pulls is just that it is really good at appearing competent, and we as humans really bad at acknowledging how little we individually know about the world around us.

The easiest example to ask AI detailed questions about something that you know you have expertise in. If you try to test its limit, no matter what your particular expertise is, I’m confident that in 5-10 minutes you’ll realize it’s no more intelligent than an average Joe who spent their lunch break Googling the subject or maybe someone who read a book about it once.

To give credit where it’s due, that does mean that these AIs have a much wider breadth of knowledge than any one person could have and that is, objectively, very cool.

On the other hand, that’s why it’s so easy to believe that AI is this all-knowing oracle that can replace all of humanity. It can give you a way better answer in an instant about things you know nothing about than you ever could off the top of your head, so it seems unbelievable. It’s instant gratification that also feels really valuable.

Despite the trick that AI plays on our psychology, you could also just read a book or two or participate in any form of genuine learning, and it really doesn’t take long for you to outgrow whatever the AI is capable of. It takes a bit longer, but now you have grown your actual intelligence and you get to keep it for a $0/month subscription and they don’t need to build another data center in your backyard.

[–] ID10T@programming.dev 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Some people view dystopian sci-fi as entertainment. Some people view it as a warning. What you can’t forget, though, is that some people view it aspirationally.

[–] ID10T@programming.dev 4 points 2 months ago

The Steam Deck really is the best of both worlds

[–] ID10T@programming.dev 23 points 2 months ago

Yes, but then you can’t put in your readme that your blazingly fast new app is written in rust.

[–] ID10T@programming.dev 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The first preview of Workflows is here! Workflows let you automate actions in your library by chaining triggers, filters, and actions together with a drag-and-drop builder. This is the foundation for many exciting automations to come, and we'd love your feedback as we continue building on it.

It’s a user-friendly way to say “when X happens, do Y”.

[–] ID10T@programming.dev 4 points 2 months ago (6 children)

It’s really not even so different. “AI” in the current LLM-era just tricks people into thinking it’s something fundamentally different because it can string together words in a more coherent sentence than we’re used to.

At its core, though, the whole premise of the comment you’ve replied to is the argument that knowledge is dangerous and I hope I don’t have to explain why that’s a bad argument.

[–] ID10T@programming.dev 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Tbh it’s probably more straightforward than that. Kill a $2B government program to so private interests can collect $4B on the same (or worse) previously subsidized services.

view more: next ›