An Audacious Plan to Halt the Internet’s Enshittification and Throw It Into Reverse

Edit: Also, important to note up front… This is a policy problem. Anyone who recommends individual decision-making (voting with your wallet) — or worse, actively blames users for their own abuse — is (probably unintentionally) doing the work of tech bosses for free. Their entire goal is to create platforms that are unavoidable and inescapable. The fact that they’ve done so well at this speaks more to the quality of the regulatory environment than to the scruples of the consumers who suffer their regime. You can’t shop your way out of an oligarchy.

deleted by creator

Why would you expect that?

iPhone’s design is more secure than Android (partly because of OS+hardware integration that just isn’t practical in a multi-vendor space), but they still have plenty of zero-days in their implementation. iPhone 7 is old enough that official security patch support is EOL, though Apple has still shipped some critical fixes past EOL.

Meh. They’re dealing with two orthogonal problems here:

1. There’s a right amount of documentation. It’s not zero, but it’s also not “every thought you’ve ever had”. The more your documentation can be generated or validated automatically, the more you can reasonably sustain.
2. It’s expensive to be wrong. You can deal with that by either doing pre-work in order to reduce the chance you’ll be wrong (which increases the cost of later finding out you were wrong), or sprinting towards a deliverable in order to minimize the cost of being wrong (which increases the chance that deliverable will be wrong).

You’re probably better off looking at each of those problems independently first and deciding where on the spectrum your team would thrive. RFCs might hit the sweet spot for both. But if you don’t ask the deeper question, you might just make things worse.

if you want to, say, stop LLM server if available mem is under 8GB and start it again when it’s over whatever LLM needs (in my case it’s 64GB):

So this is the guy that bought all the RAM.

Yeah, we need to be careful about distinguishing policy objectives from policy language.

“Hold megacorps responsible for harmful algorithms” is a good policy objective.

How we hold them responsible is an open question. Legal recourse is just one option. And it’s an option that risks collateral damage.

But why are they able to profit from harmful products in the first place? Lack of meaningful competition.

It really all comes back to the enshittification thesis. Unless we force these firms to open themselves up to competition, they have no reason to stop abusing their customers.

“We’ll get sued” gives them a reason. “They’ll switch to a competitor’s service” also gives them a reason, and one they’re more likely to respect — if they see it as a real possibility.

It’s pretty apt, honestly. It’s just the next step of the climate-denial and cancer-denial playbooks.

We know that the tech bosses are aware of how harmful their stuff is. We know that they hire experts specifically to make their stuff as addictive as possible. We know they bribe the hell out of politicians to avoid getting regulated. We know they cook their books and launder money like crazy. We know their financial models are predicated on getting everyone to use an ever-increasing dose of their stuff. We know that people suffer horrific conditions to help build their devices and moderate their content cesspools.

It may seem crass to compare tech bosses to narco kingpins. But that’s because their methods are crass. They want to seem sophisticated and unique. But they’re not.

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

Using an LLM to work with facts is like using JPEG to store x-ray images. Utterly reckless.

Be really obnoxious about the ballot format in the Florida 2000 election until they either fix it or news outlets do a good job educating people about how to correctly vote for Gore

Eh, it’s fine. It has some bad choices baked into it, but what language doesn’t? And JS in 2025 is miles better than JS in 2005.

I wouldn’t choose it for every project, but it’s a reasonable choice in many cases.

And unlike a regular Linux distro, you’ll have zero leftover systemd units or config files floating around in your FHS dirs. (You’ll have the binaries for Gnome sitting in /nix/store until you do a GC, so you can still quickly switch back if you want to.)

I’m always on unstable. Any time I try to stick to stable, I invariably need something-or-other that’s only on unstable.

These guys live in a bubble, huffing each others’ farts

You must have done something bad to deserve this. Trying thinking about everything bad you’ve ever done. That’ll help.

The seal looks like this:

Code completion is probably a gray area.

Those models generally have much smaller context windows, so the energy concern isn’t quite as extreme.

You could also reasonably make a claim that the model is legally in the clear as far as licensing, if the training data was entirely open source (non-attribution, non-share-alike, and commercial-allowed) licensed code. (A big “if”)

All of that to say: I don’t think I would label code-completion-using anti-AI devs as hypocrites. I think the general sentiment is less “what the technology does” and more “who it does it to”. Code completion, for the most part, isn’t deskilling labor, or turning experts into chatbot-wrangling accountability sinks.

Like, I don’t think the Luddites would’ve had a problem with an artisan using a knitting frame in their own home. They were too busy fighting against factories locking children inside for 18-hour shifts, getting maimed by the machines or dying trapped in a fire. It was never the technology itself, but the social order that was imposed through the technology.

The trunk metaphor doesn’t work very well in Git, because branches aren’t long-lived containers of sequential commits the way they are in SVN. There is no “root” commit that is guaranteed to have a consistent relationship with main, because branches are just names attached to a commit and can be reassigned at will.

For a majority of men, probably, but not an overwhelming majority. Which still leaves a ton of people you could be compatible with.

Don’t overthink it and try to be something you’re not. Just take your time, get to know people, be curious and honest. Stay true to yourself. Don’t apologize and adapt just because you assume you have to.

You’re not trying to date everyone, just the right one. So why bother with what the rest think?

You’ll find someone that “just works” with who you already are. When you do, your dynamic will come naturally as a result of your unique relationship, and it won’t be precisely the same as any timeshare sex model you might have tried to plan ahead on Lemmy.

“We have made a commitment to our employees that all of these efficiency gains, and especially the applications of AI, should also, to some degree, come back in their pay cheques so that they are fully … incentivised [and] aligned with the investors, to drive these changes through the company.”

All… to some degree