Here's an example from some code that was thrust at me this week. The rest of the tests try a bit harder to look like tests, but this one is perplexing.
What does it test? The function name suggests its a smoke test. LLMs love to call things smoke tests. That would suggest this would be an early-run test that fails loudly if some basic precondition - like having ffmpeg - fails. Or, I guess we are smoke testing the ensure_ffmpeg function? Anyway who knows. However we first check if ffmpeg or ffprobe are present, which is exactly what ensure_ffmpeg does. If they aren't present, a warning tells us that ffmpeg/ffprobe are required for the video tests, which makes it seem like this should be a parameterizing test that controls which tests are run, which of course it does not do.
So the test literally does nothing and cannot possibly fail, but says it does at least two things, because to an LLM something saying it does something is the same thing as it actually doing that thing.
A new day. A new chance to succeed.
A quiet, recovery day after two days of workmen, blown schedules, and stress.
A day to reset and start anew. Again.
It happens.
Not regularly, which is what makes it stand out. I don't notice the days that unfold quietly except when I remember to pay attention.
Yet so many of them do.
So I'll reset. Chop some wood. Carry some water. Maybe take a walk that's not on the schedule just because I can.
I hope you can do something just because #today
Being at +93ishm _does_ clear the +70m hill (90m actual) but not at an angle that should let me see the 0m points - but I do.
So.
Bouncy signals? Bad maths? Weird RF-over-angle behaviours? (Same kind of thing gets you picket fencing)
I dunno.
hm
I don't think I'm fucking up my maths but am I?
Or is this "don't mix google maps and open maps it only leads to pain"?
I wanted the blue checkmark on LinkedIn. The one that says “this person is real.” In a sea of fake recruiters, bot accounts, and AI-generated headshots, it seemed like a smart thing to do.
So I tapped “verify.” I scanned my passport. I took a selfie. Three minutes later — done. Badge acquired. I felt a tiny dopamine hit of legitimacy.
Then I did what apparently nobody does. I went and read the privacy policy and terms of service.
Not LinkedIn’s. The other company’s.
https://thelocalstack.eu/posts/linkedin-identity-verification-privacy/
Every pedo millie and billie on the Epstein books has a partner that enables their violence.
Do not believe any of them when they cry "I didn't know."
Because they do.
So does she.
"With Al, there are now two types of people. There who are still trying to understand it. And those who are doing it." - Futurist Jim Carroll
As I prepared for and then delivered a presentation on AI yesterday, I couldn't help but think about how much I've integrated various tools into my workflow regularly - and how many people listening to my talk had their minds blown by what I was doing.
The difference is stark - and I've come to see this more and more with what I do.
So why is this happening?
One group operates from a place of curiosity and opportunity, while the other views AI with apprehension and uncertainty. It goes to the key point I've always raised as a futurist - some people see the future as a threat. Other people see the same future and see an opportunity. AI fits right into this mindset chasm - folks who have never been comfortable aligning themselves ot the trends of tomorrow, or even accepting those trends, are clearly stuck in the paradigms of yesterday.
Then there is the openness that people have to learning. One group is actively creating new workflows with AI - understanding it, exploring it, and integrating it into their routines. The other are still very much stuck in old ways of doing things, and have probably never really been a big fan of change in their daily routine.
And that comes to a core point - one group is full of enthusiasm for change, and the other hates it. One group is excited for its potential; the other is fearful.
The very nature of AI presents a conundrum for all of us, and how we rationalize it determines what we do with it. One group accepts that the debate over whether AI will be good or bad understands that, just like the Internet, the debate will never be solved. The other group is busy holding themselves back as some sort of personal rebellion. One decries the growth of AI 'slop,' while the other understands that the slop is inevitable, and so we might as well figure out how to deal with it.
I could go on.
Thirty years ago, I found myself very much in the midst of the same divergence of thinking as the Internet appeared on the scene. It didn't go away and came to have a profound impact on the future of all of us. Some of us aligned with it and built wonderful new careers - others dismissed it and didn't see the same opportunities.
The key thing is, right now, if you are in the second camp, you face a choice - how quickly can you become a member of the first camp?
Keep reading!
---
**#AI** **#Action** **#Skills** **#Learning** **#Adoption** **#Mindset** **#Tools** **#Experimentation** **#Productivity** **#Transformation**
Futurist Jim Carroll believes that "AI augmented" is quickly becoming a critical career success factor.
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.