Maybe you should read the article, because the increase in Linux users correlates with a reduction in Chinese users.
- Posts
- 4
- Comments
- 56
- Joined
- 1 yr. ago
- Posts
- 4
- Comments
- 56
- Joined
- 1 yr. ago
- Jump
New site design and philosophy for Stack Overflow: Starting February 24, 2026 at beta.stackoverflow.com
Slop overflow, for when the slop machine can't lie to you well enough
I’m not sure that I’ve phrased this question well, or that I even know how to ask this question well.
Consensus seems to be no, you didn't ask this well. I think you could be onto something but you didn't communicate any information to argue your point.
I think the problem comes from your premise. The WWW is not something that can have an information management strategy, good or bad. The WWW is a communication system that allows us to talk to other parts of the world, it is not the servers that the WWW talks to. Even if the servers were the WWW, they aren't run by just one group. Anyone can run a server that connects to the WWW. This makes it impossible for there to be a single information management strategy; instead, every server has their own information management strategy. You also fail to describe what you mean by an "information management strategy" and what you consider to be a good or bad one.
And now, some editorial notes:
Once upon a time, I looked at the web as akin to an igneous rock, whereas now I think of it as a sedimentary rock.
Starting with a metaphor is fine, but without context (either before or after) it doesn't mean anything. E.g. "Once upon a time I thought I was a duck, but now I think I'm a goose" sounds profound but it doesn't actually contribute anything to the conversation.
The web has changed a lot in the last ~5 years. Sure, it can withstand a nuclear blast or whatever it was designed to withstand, but it clearly wasn’t designed to have usage patterns designed to endure.
You're misunderstanding what was designed to withstand a nuclear blast. Web servers are not the self-healing communication standards that connect them.Also, you use "designed" twice which makes it sort of tautological. I.e. "it wasn't designed to be designed".
For me, the thing that really drove this point home
You still haven't stated a point. You've only asked a question up to this point in your post. You then bring up some anecdotes which you probably meant to support your point, but a reader can only guess what that point is so it's confusing and unhelpful.
Anyway, I mention all of this because my first impression was that humans sought to record what was known so as to build upon that. Now, my impression is that the digital commons got turned into [a] forum of captive buyers without the language used ever changing, so it’s a shift that’s difficult to detect.
Is this your point??? It doesn't have anything to do with your original question. If you're going to argue a point, then please introduce it before you provide information to back up your point. While a standard essay layout is not required, the idea of an introduction, supporting information, then conclusion is always a good logical flow that everyone can follow.
By the end of your post, I'm still left wondering what information management strategy you want or what improvements you want to the existing one that the WWW uses.
The article briefly talks about female drivers too, which is what I talking about.
Women drivers can toggle on a preference to receive trip requests from women riders, giving them even more control over how they earn.
(and the image/gif seems to imply it'll exclusively accept rides from women riders)
But yes, if gender is self-declared then it'd be pretty easy to abuse by a malicious rider (I assume, without proof, that drivers have to be vetted somehow). If they require a phone number for new rider accounts it shouldn't be too hard to keep banned malicious users out, though. There are more foolproof ways, but they have other issues (e.g. ID verification is a privacy nightmare and potentially transphobic depending on local government policies).
It's been a little while since I've used any sort of taxi service because the local public transit is pretty good, but I know a lot of the USA isn't so lucky there either. That's more of a cultural problem though.
On a semi-related note, it's quite ironic that Uber made a change for only their home nation on International Women's Day.
That also only solves half of the problem. Female drivers also want to be safe and doing background checks on everyone who has an Uber account isn't very practical.
At least up north around where I live manhole covers are often also either holes or bumps in the road due to things shifting around from the freeze/thaw cycles. Basically potholes with a purpose. Hitting bumps is bad for your car, so that's a pretty good reason to avoid them. Though I'd never swerve around a bump if I was going to come close to someone else, since that's much more dangerous.
Your usage and implementation of
get_files_in_diris quite awkward. It is returningNoneon errors and then you're returningOk(())when it returnsNone, ignoring a bunch of errors. Why not just haveget_files_in_dirreturn aResult<Vec<PathBuf>, io::Error>? You could drastically simplify the function by just?ing the results.Sort of cool from an engineering standpoint, but realistically the best layer of security for WhatsApp is to not use it. Meta is a security vulnerability.
Skip brings Swift app development to Android. It is a tool that enables developers to build genuinely native apps for both iOS and Android from a single Swift and SwiftUI codebase.
In case anyone is struggling to find what the project is about (like me)
The main post is already badly downvoted so I probably shouldn't even bother to engage, but this whole article is actually just showing a lack of knowledge on the subject. So here goes nothing:
Corporations have been running algorithms for decades.
Millennia*. We can run algorithms without computers, so the first algorithm was run way earlier than decades ago. And corporations certainly were invented before the last century.
Markets weren’t inefficient because technology didn’t exist to make them efficient. Markets were asymmetrically efficient on purpose. One side had computational power. The other side had a browser and maybe some browser tabs open for comparison shopping.
I suppose the author has never used all of those price-watching websites that existed before 2022. I also question how they think a price optimization algorithm is useful to a person who is trying to buy, not sell, something.
Consider what it took to use business intelligence software in 2015. [...] Language models collapsed that overhead to nearly zero. You don’t need to learn a query language. You don’t need to structure your data. You don’t need to know the right technical terms. You just describe what you want in plain English. The interface became conversation.
You still need to structure your data because you need to be able to have the LLM understand the structure of your data. In fact, it is still easy enough to cause an LLM to misinterpret data that having inconsistently-structured data is just asking for problems... not that LLMs are consistent anyway. The existence of the idea of prompt engineering means that the interface isn't just conversation.
The moment ChatGPT became public, people started using it to avoid work they hated. Not important work. Not meaningful work. The bureaucratic compliance tasks that filled their days without adding value to anything.
Oh ok better just stop worrying about that compliance paperwork because the author says it's worthless. Just dump that crude oil directly on top of the nice ducks, no point in even trying to only spill it into their pond.
Compliance tasks are actually the most important part of work. They are what guarantee your work has worth. Otherwise you're just an LLM -- sometimes producing ok results but always wasting resources.
People weren’t using ChatGPT to think. They were using it to stop pretending that performance reviews, status update emails, and quarterly reports required thought.
Basically, users used it to create the layer of communication that existed to satisfy organizational requirements rather than to advance any actual goal.
Once again with the poor examples of things. If you can't give a thoughtful performance review for the people who work below you, you're just horrible at your job. Performance reviews aren't just crunching some numbers and giving people a gold star. I'm sure sometime in the future I could pipe in all of the quick chats I've had with coworkers in the office and tell an LLM to consider them for generating a review, but that's still not possible. So no, performance reviews do actually require thought. Status emails and quarterly reports can be basically summarizing existing data, so maybe they don't require much thought but they still require some. This is demonstrable by the amount of clearly LLM-generated content that have become infamous at this point for containing inaccurate info. LLMs can't think, but a thinking human could've reviewed that output and stopped that content from ever reaching anyone else.
This is very much giving me the impression the author doesn't like telling others what they're doing. They'd rather work alone and without interruption. I worry that they don't work well in teams since they lack the willingness to communicate with their peers. Maybe one day they'll realize that their peers can do work too and even help them.
You want the cheapest milk within ten miles? You can build that.
The first search result for "grocery price tracker" that I found is a local tracker started in 2022, before LLMs.
You want to track price changes across every retailer in your area? You can do that now
From searching "
<country>
price tracker", I found Camel^3 which is famous for Amazon tracking and another country-specific one which has a ToS last updated in 2018. The author is describing things that could already be accomplished with a search engine.You want something to read every clause of your insurance policy and identify the loopholes?
Lmao DO NOT use an LLM for this. They are not reliable enough for this.
You want an agent that will spend forty hours fighting a medical billing error that you’d normally just pay because fighting it would cost more in time than the bill? You can have that.
You know what? I take it all back, this is definitely proving Dystopia Inc. But seriously, that is a temporary solution to a permanent problem. Never settle for that. The real solution here is to task the LLM with sending messages to every politician and lobbyist telling them to improve the system they make for you.
The marginal cost of algorithmic labor has effectively collapsed. Using a GPT-5.2–class model, pricing is on the order of $0.25 per million input tokens and about $2.00 per million output tokens. A token is roughly three-quarters of a word, which means one million tokens equals about 750,000 words. Even assuming a blended input/output cost of roughly $1.50 per million tokens, you can process 750,000 words for about $1.50. War and Peace is approximately 587,000 words, meaning you can run an AI across one of the longest novels ever written for around a dollar. That’s not intelligence becoming cheaper. That’s the marginal cost of cognitive labor approaching zero.
Nevermind the irony of calling computers doing work "algorithmic labour", this is just nonsense. Of course things built entirely on free labour are going to be monetarily cheap. Also, feeding War And Peace into an LLM as input tokens is not the same as training the LLM on it.
We are seeing the actual cost of LLM usage unfold and you'd have to be willingly ignoring it to think it was strictly monetary. The social and environmental impact is devastating. But since the original article cites literally none of its claims, I won't bother either.
Institutions built their advantages on exhaustion tactics. They had more time, more money, and more stamina than you did. They could bury you in paperwork. They could drag out disputes. They could wait you out. That strategy assumed you had finite patience and finite resources. It assumed you’d eventually give up because you had other things to do.
An AI assistant breaks that assumption.
No, it doesn't, unless you somehow also assume that LLMs won't also be used against you. And you'd have to actually be dumb or have an agenda that required you to act dumb to assume that.
Usage numbers tell the story clearly. ChatGPT reached 100 million monthly active users in two months. That made it the fastest-growing consumer application in history. TikTok took nine months to hit 100 million users. Instagram took two and a half years. The demand was obviously already there. People were apparently just waiting for something like this to exist.
Here's a handy little graph to show how the author is wrong: Time to 100M users. I'm sorry, I broke my promise about not citing anything. Notice how all of the time spans for internet applications trend downwards as time increases. TikTok took 9 months 7 years before ChatGPT was released. I bet the next viral app will be even faster than ChatGPT. That's not an indicator of demand, that's an indicator of internet accessibility. (I'm ignoring Threads because they automatically create 100M users from their Instragram accounts in 5 days, which is a measure of their database migration capabilities and nothing else.)
Venture capital funding for generative AI companies reached $25.2 billion in 2023 according to PitchBook data. That was up from $4.5 billion in 2022. Investment wasn’t going into making better algorithms. It was going into making those algorithms accessible.
I'm sorry, what? LLMs are an algorithm. Author clearly does not know what they are talking about.
DoNotPay, an AI-powered consumer advocacy service, claimed to help users fight more than 200,000 parking tickets before the company pivoted to other services. LegalZoom reported that AI-assisted document preparation reduced the time required to create basic legal documents by 60% in 2023.
I thought LLMs were supposed to be some magic interface for individuals. The author is describing institutions. You know, the thing the author started out bashing for controlling all the algorithms and using them against the common folk who didn't have those algorithms. This is exactly the same thing, just replace algorithm with AI.
The credential barrier still exists. You can’t get a prescription from ChatGPT. The legal liability still flows through licensed professionals. The system still requires human gatekeepers. The question is how long those requirements survive when the public realizes they’re paying $200 for a consultation that an AI handles better for pennies.
Indeed, that will be an interesting thing to see once AI can actually handle it better and for cheaper. Though I wouldn't count on in anytime soon. Don't forget the AI at that stage will still have to compensate the human doctors who wrote the data it was trained on.
Oh, I just about hit the character limit. I guess I'll stop there.Remember folks, don't let your LLM write an article arguing for replacing everyone with LLMs. All it proves is that you can be replaced by an LLM. Maybe focus on some human pursuits instead.
I wouldn't count it as just math. Probably more science or engineering. I did some DSP stuff during my computer engineering degree. But then again, science is applied math and engineering is applied science.
From my, admittedly limited, interaction with mathematicians in my life and a bit of extrapolation:
- Academia: teach advanced mathematics and do research in mathematics for a university. There's still lots of unsolved problems in math and also plenty of overlap with computer science, which also has lots of research possibilities
- Public sector: governments of all levels need at least statisticians, if not more specific mathematics skills depending on what they're trying to do (e.g. research, engineering, economics, etc.)
- Private sector: lots of engineering companies employ a few mathematicians or at least physicists who are really good at math to make sure their next bridge/plane/ocean-boiler will actually work
There's a lot of overlap between all three but I roughly split them up based on where I'd expect the majority of jobs like that would be (e.g. I'm sure NASA employs a good deal of mathematicians, but so does Lockheed Martin and friends). Also a lot of people get a degree in mathematics and then specialize further with a masters and/or doctorate in computer science or physics, since both of those can be quite math-heavy and are better-funded fields.
Yes, they announced it in January https://steamcommunity.com/app/301520/eventcomments/756142351544498226/
Yes, RC15 is closed-source and targets a heavily modified 2015 version of the game. This is open source and targets the latest version of the game and is probably compatible with versions of the game that are slightly older than the latest version, but not as old as 2015.
No, the article is just not very precise with its words. It was causing the program to panic.
GlitchTip makes monitoring software easy. Track errors, monitor performance, and check site uptime all in one place. Our app is compatible with Sentry client SDKs, but easier to run.
For those that have no idea what GlitchTip is, it's a service tracing service like Sentry.
This basically what I think too. I will add that I make sure other people (current and future) can enjoy it as much as possible too, so that means I will avoid anything needlessly destructive even if it is enjoyable
The
strict_*set of integer function look interesting though I'm unlikely to use something that panics by design. I'm sure that's useful in programs that panic to indicate problems. Do those exist? I always treat panics as a design failure.Duration::from_mins()is useful for me since I've been doingDuration::from_secs(minutes * 60)for some things in my projects, which bugged me a bit.
"Men" is not a race and it's not even sexist. It was just hyperbole that some people chose to take seriously to be offended. Though there might be some merit to it sounding a bit like victim blaming since it's advising potential victims to do something that they're unlikely to do, which could be weaponized to blame them for being a victim later.