I think most devs exist to make my life worse and more painful. Most of their decisions are just incredibly bad and fake secure — their usual excuse for implementing something ineptly or just not doing it at all.
Clowns
Think Nonsense
Regarding that tard-ass person in the post below, I did some research. There are not many countries with no public libraries in the world. This is the list:
- Somalia
- South Sudan
- Yemen
- Central African Republic
- Chad
- Niger
- Afghanistan
- Sudan
- Nauru
- Tuvalu
- Kiribati
- Marshall Islands
- Vatican City
So that means about 97.3% of the world does in fact have access to some form of public library. I could not easily discover how many of those countries’ libraries lend DVDs, but most do. Of course, many people cannot get to or otherwise have problems accessing their library, but that was also true of me as a kid. The nearest one was quite a long drive away.
Do people even think a little before they write absolute nonsense? Apparently not.
Some Advice
This pretentious, clownishly patronizing leftist performative crap gets on my nerves. I live in the US. When I give advice, it’s primarily aimed at US folks. How about I do what I want and you do what you want, while you stop being a condescending prick? That works for me far better.
If you don’t like the advice, here’s a tip: DON’T FUCKING READ IT.
Could We Not
What job interviews taught me about Kubernetes.
This article is wrong. I’ll explain why below.
First, Kubernetes really sucks. It’s just terrible, terrible technology. The networking stack is atrocious. The Kubeclowns took something that should be a routing table and an iptables rule someone could actually read and buried it under three layers of abstraction that all lie to you in different, incompatible ways. And the networking stuff in there is just so slow. Of course it is — it was created by programmers who understand networking about as well as a llama grasps astrophysics.
I could easily write a 5,000-word rant about how shitty Kubernetes is, and how poorly-designed, about how it incompetently relocates abstractions to inappropriate places that make anything 1,000 times harder to troubleshoot. YAML is also a horrid config language that is ridiculously ill-suited for this purpose.
There are so very many insane and terrible decisions in the architecture of Kubernetes. It is one of the worst technologies I’ve ever used. It’s designed by idiots and a suitable choice only for doofuses.
Back to the main theme, though. Kubernetes became stylish to use and that explains part of its adoption.
But the main reason the article is wrong and that it doesn’t understand what is happening with all the Kubernetes BS is that it ignores the power shift that occurred over the last decade or so in the IT space. The dominance shifted from sysadmin types to developers. And Kubernetes is very friendly to developers. It allows them to package and ship broken nonsense with very little real testing. Of course, devs love that because who wants to test, amirite?
Also, devs are inherently very attracted to complexity. Kubernetes is exceedingly complex so this causes them to love it. It has endless (and pointless) knobs to turn, sliders to move around, switches to clickity-clack, endless dials to twiddle and tweak. All worthless and counterproductive, but devs absolutely go gaga over crap like that.
As I said, Kubernetes won because developers are now dominant. It allowed them to ignore security, good networking practices, compliance, and push absolute garbage to production “reproducibly1.” It’s trash technology2 that achieved preeminence because it allowed devs to run amok in areas they did not understand and hated to deal with.
And yes, I use Kubernetes every day in production. Not my choice, but I am not just guessing about how much of a crapfest it is. I live it.
I Go Where the Data Does
The problem with this view is that its not borne out by the data and thus is moronic. I go where the data goes. I don’t care about ideology. Not even my own.
So the actual world shows that smartphone adoption is highly correlated with increasing unhappiness. And that is across countries, which starts to point more at something causal rather than just correlational. I’m not going to do your homework for you but there is more and more clear evidence being presented all the time that smartphones are bad news for happiness.
By the way, 2011-2012 is when smartphones reached ~50% of teen users.
Here’s more. As I said, do your own research. But Alan’s anti-thesis is the antithesis of what’s actually occurring. Not every advance is progress; not every novelty is worth the cost.
Short and Short of It
I’ve been seeing “short-sided” instead of “short-sighted” (or “shortsighted”) recently.
This makes no sense and I hate it.
Not Just a Humblebrag
Something else that is also worse since the 1990s.
Women have always had somewhat stricter beauty standards foisted onto them than men.
But in the 2010s with the rise of Marvel and other similar superhero movies, that began to change. Women were psyopped into believing that if you were not completely ripped Hugh Jackman-style 24/7, then you were out of shape and had a “dad bod.” Never mind that for those scenes, Jackman was on the verge of death from dehydration, etc.
So, now, men also have absurd beauty standards applied to them. I don’t completely blame women for this; as I said, they were psyopped into it.
As someone who has a physique now approaching the Marvel superhero ideal (and could get there easily with 2-3 days of dehydration after a month or two of cutting a few pounds), I can tell you it’s really very difficult to achieve. It requires working out an hour or more a day 4-6 days a week. And not just putzing around. You must do hard workouts combined with eating well. And if you don’t want to use drug enhancement (and I do not), you must do this for years.
These days women assume you’ve never seen the inside of gym if you don’t look like Chris Evans in his post-transformation Captain America shirtless scenes. And that is pretty fucking absurd.
Again, the 90s were better.
Ban Sol
Attempting to pathologize and forbid attraction between humans is like spending effort on banning the sun.
Even if against all odds you succeed, what have you actually done that made any sort of sense?
The Nothing Achieved
PMC liberal “feminist” women’s attempt to make attraction itself verboten is one of the doofiest things I’ve ever seen.
Its clownishness exceeds all previously-established bounds, while its chance of success is essentially zero. It can do great harm while achieving nothing. What a way to be.
Scaled Out
I’ve been running TrueNAS Scale on the new NAS, the one that is home-built (not from a vendor). And I don’t like TrueNAS itself much. It’s yet another power user tool that has removed or gimped its most important and useful features for no apparent reason.
For instance, they’ve removed the recycle bin on SMB so that “Previous Versions” in Windows no longer works. I don’t even run Windows at home on my daily use endpoints, but that’s a real loss. And moronic. Their “solution” is to use ZFS snapshots, but this is a totally different tech that is not as easy and is far more dangerous.
TrueNAS also doesn’t handle certain files generated on the Mac correctly — specifically ones with Alternate Data Stream stuff going on — while commercial NASes seem to deal with these files fine. And no, the supposed common fix did not correct the issue.
The GUI is also pretty bad. It manages to be both too simple and too confusing at the same time somehow, and is missing many features and capabilities (many of which did exist previously and were removed for ideological reasons).
Of the major NASes and their OSes/GUIs I’ve used recently, I’d give QNAP’s a 7, Synology’s an 8.5, and TrueNAS a 4. It feels amateurish and like something I used in the early 2000s.
I will keep using it for now but it’s pretty meh.
Feminism Fallen
Too much of modern feminism has become about punishing undesirable men for merely being attracted to women, and penalizing attractive women just for being appealing.
Which is kind of crazy, when you think about it.
They are primed to go full Islam soon I guess.
Can Just Reason
If the anti-AI people were right about their, “A million tokens should cost the GDP of Ghana!” bullshit, then that means by their logic playing two hours of Fallout should cost $100,000.
This is obviously not the case, so AI simply cannot be as expensive as they claim. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Know More
Wow, the comments on this article about GitHub price increases are absolute horseshit.
Brothers and sisters, all of you are fucking idiots. I say that with love. Love for how right I am.
Price increases are not a sign of the AI bubble bursting or even how much AI “actually costs.” None of what Github is doing has anything to do with that.
This is all a political decision in the sense that this is an attempt by Anthropic et al. to wrest back control from third-party resellers and bring back customers to their own offerings. To be clear, GitHub (owned by Microsoft) is a third-party reseller. It does not develop nor run nor operate its own model and Microsoft has no in-house-developed quality frontier AI.
This is not what y’all clowns think it is, because none of you know a goddamn thing about anything and it’s kind of embarrassing.
Estimating from open-source benchmarks and accounting for all capital/personnel costs, a frontier AI actually costs about $8 per million tokens for something Opus-sized.
They could make massive profit by charging $16 per million, in other words. And that million tokens is enough to drop in a moderate codebase of 30,000–50,000 lines and ask “where’s the bug” or “explain this code.” In other words, a million tokens can do a freakin’ lot.
You understand nothing and know nothing. Just shut up. You’re hurting my head.
Too many people want to believe something that does not match reality and not only is it powerful stupid, it’s boring and tedious.
Targeted Transit
But TRANSITORY!
Those motherfuckers were so utterly wrong. Idiots.
Pronk You
Unfortunately, this is a dumbass metaphor. It’s inapt, inept, and inapposite. It makes no sense if you know even the first thing about cognition, the history of galvanism and the fact that several extremely important results were discovered thereby, or that whether or not AI is conscious is not particularly relevant. Conflating “conscious” and “AI” does not make sense, for a whole host of reasons. “AI1” has been the industry-standard term since the 1950s and encompasses many different technologies. I know that to most people AI is new, but it’s not at all novel to those working in computer-adjacent fields2.
This is intellectual stotting. But unfortunately to someone with an actual capable brain like the bad-ass motherfucker writing to you now, it merely seems like an antelope with three left feet glued to a food truck attempting aerial acrobatics. It only impresses co-dumbasses who haven’t read actual books and who do not know the history of anything at all.
The scientific debate in the era of galvanism was not whether or not the dead could be resurrected via electrical stimulation. That was fiction fodder and the equivalent of pop-sci sensationalism at the time, no different than watching the latest space robots movie and concluding that this represents our era’s science. What Galvani actually discovered was that animals possess what he called “animal electricity,” and though he didn’t understand it he believed it was somehow fundamental to how animals function. And he was correct. That insight alone was an important discovery. Involved in the debate was Alessandro Volta who believed that animal systems did not use electrical impulses to operate and that the frog was just detecting something external only.
Attempting to do more research for his side of this scientific dispute, Volta constructed what was called a “voltaic pile” in 1800. This was the world’s first battery. And, folks, if I need to point out how important that was….well, you’re probably on the wrong site.
Ok, y’all, time to pull it on back now. These people are just fundamentally dumb. Their pseudointellectual faux-superiority only impresses those who can’t completely mog them effortlessly. Luckily I can and I make no bones about it.
To think about it from a larger perspective, what is the point of what people like Meagan are doing there? I know, showing off for their also-moronic friends. But in a larger sense, what is the purpose of publicly looking like a dipshit for anyone with eyes to see? I just cannot make sense of covering yourself in ignominy and dishonor this way.