Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)A

atzanteol

@ atzanteol @sh.itjust.works

Posts
4
Comments
879
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • How would you design online communities so they don't degenerate over time?

    Jump

  • And, the internet isn’t that old, humanity is still getting acclimated to it. I think there’s still a lot of room for improvement on what the internet is, how it functions, and how to make it work well.

    This is not an "internet problem" it's a "humanity problem."

    For 10,000+ years humanity has not been able to solve this problem without the internet. The more people you add to a community the more likely you are to have problems. The internet just makes this happen more easily and across national borders.

  • How would you design online communities so they don't degenerate over time?

    Jump

  • Despite all evidence to the contrary eh?

    Flight is a physics problem. World peace is a human nature problem. And keep in mind that we've used flight to wage war more effectively.

  • How would you design online communities so they don't degenerate over time?

    Jump

  • Fuckwaddery just has a tendency to draw attention to itself and strain everyone else’s time and patience.

    Bingo. Like I said - one jerk is something you can deal with. But lets say only a small percentage of any user population are fuckwads. As you add users the number of fuckwads scales up linearly.

    But an individual person does not scale up. It's still just you. And you're now dealing with a lot more fuckwads as the community scales up. That's not tenable. One person even politely pointing out a mistake you've made is "a bit annoying but okay". dozens of people doing it in an asshole way is infuriating.

    I think it’s highly likely that there’s a forum design out there that mitigates it, even if it doesn’t eliminate it entirely.

    Nobody has discovered it yet. And I honestly doubt it's possible. We're not made to communicate at such scale.

  • How would you design online communities so they don't degenerate over time?

    Jump

  • Right. On-line communities that work well are effectively impossible.

  • What's the point of Python if it's slow?

    Jump

  • You’re talking out your arse.

    And honestly - what do you expect for a response with a shitty attack like that? Do you need to be a dick?

  • What's the point of Python if it's slow?

    Jump

  • I mis-remembered, it was a linear search though a list rather than a dict that was the problem (I think it was a list because we were looking up multiple entries or something from a list of Objects based on a field). O(N) lookup to be sure so not well optimized. But on list of 100,000 items doing 100,000 lookups it is very slow - > 1 minute whereas in Java it was like a few seconds.

    Yes - refactoring was the solution. I'm not saying it couldn't perform better and it did when we re-wrote it. But that's a low-enough number of items that it surprised me that it was a problem.

  • How would you design online communities so they don't degenerate over time?

    Jump

  • Invite only or a fee to join. Keep it small. No anonymous accounts.

    Just like in-person clubs.

    Humans aren't adapted to interacting with thousands of anonymous people at a time. It brings out the worst in people (Gabe's greater Internet fuckwad theory).

    You can deal with "that jerk" but it's exponentially harder to deal with dozens or hundreds of jerks in a pile on.

  • What's the point of Python if it's slow?

    Jump

  • Python is slow enough to notice in fairly normal usage. Just doing lookups into a dict with thousands of entries, for example, will lead you to researching how to sort and index it.

    Python's great as an interface to C which gives it the illusion of performing well.

  • Linus: Linux is not one of those anti-AI projects, and if somebody has issues with that, they can do the open-source thing and fork it.

    Jump

  • It's funny how you pretend this is a 'moral' issue but then just end up with a copyright law conclusion.

    While AI generated code cannot be copyrighted then it cannot be licensed under a free software license.

    This is a concern - though the legal question is still a bit open on this. The question has been around how much human involvement there has been. A purely "create me a photo of a cat" prompt generating a picture of a cat has very little human involvement (fully AI generated).

    A "generate some code to do this, no make it do it this way, rename these variables, etc." prompt "conversation" may be treated differently by the law. We don't know yet.

  • Linus: Linux is not one of those anti-AI projects, and if somebody has issues with that, they can do the open-source thing and fork it.

    Jump

  • The solution is to make sure those LLM tools help maintainers instead of just causing them pain. There's no question on that side.

    We're not forcing anybody to use it, but I will very loudly ignore people who try to argue against other people from using it.

    And no, AI isn't perfect. But Christ, anybody who points to the problems at AI had better be looking in the mirror and pointing at themselves at the same time.

    Linus is, as usual, a pragmatist. And he's right. All the bitching and gnashing of teeth over AI is ridiculous. If it produces good code then you should accept that code.

    People will bitch and complain about 'slop' but the kernel team has processes in place to manage and review code from thousands of sources. They know what they're doing.

    Nobody serious is going to say "just accept AI created code without review!" That's tech-bro BS. Quality software engineers know to adopt tools cautiously and deliberately.

  • What do you check first when a CI pipeline passes locally but fails in CI?

    Jump

  • Whatever the logs indicate is the issue? How can there be a fixed response to this?

    You should definitely use your builder container to run your tests locally before pushing changes though. That's one of the advantages of containers - a consistent environment.

  • Google pays $250K for Linux vulnerability allowing guest VM escapes

    Jump

  • Google pays $250K for Linux vulnerability allowing guest VM escapes

    Jump

  • OMG.

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

    In security engineering, security through obscurity is the practice of concealing the details or mechanisms of a system to enhance its security. This approach relies on the principle of hiding something in plain sight, akin to a magician's sleight of hand or the use of camouflage. It diverges from traditional security methods, such as physical locks, and is more about obscuring information or characteristics to deter potential threats. Examples of this practice include disguising sensitive information within commonplace items, like a piece of paper in a book, or altering digital footprints, such as spoofing a web browser's version number. While not a standalone solution, security through obscurity can complement other security measures in certain scenarios.

    You don't know what you're talking about - please stop. It's embarrassing. It's a long-standing industry term not some weird phrase I just made up. Nobody is saying "Linux is obscure".

  • Google pays $250K for Linux vulnerability allowing guest VM escapes

    Jump

  • Enjoy your "security". 🙄

  • Google pays $250K for Linux vulnerability allowing guest VM escapes

    Jump

  • Sorry - which part of your comment added anything of value? "can help to minimize the attack surface"? 99% of the time a proxy just passes traffic through. Unless you're talking about a WAF which is a) a different thing and b) NOT what any home gamers are talking about when they recommend nginx, traefik, etc. to newbs.

  • Google pays $250K for Linux vulnerability allowing guest VM escapes

    Jump

  • Just google the term next time rather than embarrassing yourself.

  • Google pays $250K for Linux vulnerability allowing guest VM escapes

    Jump

  • See what I mean?

    As if a proxy blindly passing traffic directly to a backend server "reduces attack surface" in any meaningful way. 🙄

    Edit: Guy edits his post with a bunch of stuff and assumes I've read it later. I can't eyeroll enough...

    1. You've increased your "attack surface" by adding a second application to the stack. Proxies aren't magic, they are also targets.
    2. Sure - you can do those things on a proxy. How many people here are? And why are those things never suggested when people here say "use a reverse proxy"? Because they think the proxy is the security.

  • Google pays $250K for Linux vulnerability allowing guest VM escapes

    Jump

  • The self-hosted crowd thinks reverse proxies protect you from the Internet. Don't expect too much of them.

  • Google pays $250K for Linux vulnerability allowing guest VM escapes

    Jump

  • You could have just said that you don't know what "security through obscurity" is.