Notices by Thomas 🔭🕹️ (thomasfuchs@hachyderm.io), page 5

@alienghic very possible but wouldn’t be surprised in the end if it was DNS

Bluesky picked a good day for a major outage, nothing important happening like humans traveling the furthest ever from Earth

@dave I think they clip it weirdly, but I also had some actual buffering from YouTube

@martenson I mean I saw it on the live stream, did they CGI it lol

@mav it’s such an antithesis to everything else coming out of this government

a diverse group of people having emotions etc.

You def want to watch this RIGHT NOW https://www.youtube.com/live/m3kR2KK8TEs?si=5cKY2tGNX3OsC7iB

PSA: when someone says “$appname is an echo chamber” they usually mean “there is not enough Nazis on $appname“

@fl0und3r I don’t think there’s anything wrong with experimenting and having fun.

But if you veer too far you can easily get lost in it.

@jensscholz @arabelsk possibly it could be “anti-virtue signalling”

@fl0und3r to be fair it’s from the mid 1970s before personal computers, so the tools have changed a lot and there certainly weren’t many hobbyists.

But the basic gist is using computers as a tool (to make software that hopefully enables humans to kick ass) vs obsessing with computers themselves.

I feel like it’s similar to gearheads in photography who obsess about sensors and lenses and never make a good photo.

@Tijn don’t jinx it, had pretty bad mastodon other before, stuck queues etc

@grumpasaurus If Weizenbaum has a fault it's that he's sometimes verbose.

I'll grab my Ouija board and will ask him to post some YouTube shorts.

This book is just so endlessly relevant and quotable

“How may the compulsive programmer be distinguished from a merely dedicated, hard-working professional programmer? First, by the fact that the ordinary professional programmer addresses himself to the problem to be solved, whereas the compulsive programmer sees the problem mainly as an opportunity to interact with the computer. The ordinary computer programmer will usually discuss both his substantive and his technical programming problem with others. He will generally do lengthy preparatory work, such as writing and flow diagramming, before beginning work with the computer itself. His sessions with the computer may be comparatively short. He may even let others do the actual console work. He develops his program slowly and systematically. When something doesn't work, he may spend considerable time away from the computer, framing careful hypotheses to account for the malfunction and designing crucial experiments to test them. Again, he may leave the actual running of the computer to others. He is able, while waiting for results from the computer, to attend to other aspects of his work, such as documenting what he has already done. When he has finally composed the program he set out to produce, he is able to complete a sensible description of it and to turn his attention to other things. The professional regards programming as a means toward an end, not as an end in itself. His satisfaction comes from having solved a substantive problem, not from having bent a computer to his.”
—Joseph Weizenbaum, Computer Power and Human Reason, 1976

The AI hype as summarized by Hannah Arendt 45 years ago

“[They] did not judge; they calculated… an utterly irrational confidence in the calculability of reality [became] the leitmotif of the decision making.”

Anyway, what would your takeaway be when people consistently hate or dislike "AI"?

It's confirmed: the Moon is egg-shaped

RE: https://social.coop/@scottjenson/116352522288234148

An echo chamber would require that replies work reliably and quote posting stuff doesn’t have weird delays so no

The face I make when the check engine light comes on

RE: https://icy.arcticfluff.eu/@toomanyfoxes/statuses/01KNGB78WJ3CAC4506B0RNYH1D

One thing I notice with a lot of software people I follow(ed) who got more into LLMs is that it’s like the only thing they’ve now have an opinion on.

Instead of posting interesting stuff about building beautiful houses they post about the same hammer 500 times.