- cross-posted to:
- programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
Yes but imo patch is now update
What I hate even more, is that the morons who can’t read more than two syllables decided to shorten “application” to “app”, but now I only ever hear people reading that as “ay pee pee”! What was the fucking point?
I mean, I’m pretty sure this is extremely widespread in China, so I’d say it’s more cultural than anything else. In fact, since there are so many Chinese, that probably means more people call it A.P.P. than app. But I honestly have no clue, and it doesn’t matter to me either way. Words change. It’s nothing to get bent out of shape about.
Chinese phonology doesn’t allow for the pronunciation of “app”, for example. I see a lot of Chinese people spelling it as “APP”, and pronouncing it accordingly. It’s kinda funny to me, since the Mandarin word “yingyong” is only two syllables. “APP” just seems more cumbersome by all account, yet it has become inexplicably popular.
Yingyong sounds cool. It’s got yoyo vibes
The script is compiled to a program which is then executed by the OS.
->
The app is appified to an app which is then apped by the app.
Damnit.
I also hate the way “algorithm” has taken over the public consciousness. You can find people unironically saying “I don’t want any algorithm in my social media feed”, which is a nonsensical statement.
Seems like a pretty reasonable semantic shift to me.
Depends how broad your definition of algorithm is. Is sort by upvotes an algorithm? I say no but sort by hot is.
So it is possible by this definition to have a feed without any algorithm.
This is (theoretically) a programmer forum. I use the programmer definition. By that definition, not having an algorithm is nonsense.
I think it’s the same concept as when people say that they don’t want any chemicals in their food. You know what they mean, but in a technical sense the statement is nonsensical.
Yeah, I don’t like that one, either.
People are onto something though - there’s been a noticeable shift from social media just showing you your feed in a chronological manner to it showing you personally tailored content that shuffles on each refresh and aims to hook you into endless doomscrolling. I understand perfectly well what’s an algorithm, but good luck explaining to people that it’s not that specific thing.
Some people actively desire this kind of algorithm because they find it easier to find content they like this way. I’m not sure if they are immune to doomscrolling and actually have gotten it to work in a way that serves them and doesn’t involve doomscrolling, or if they are doomscrolling and okay with it. But for me, I really wish I could go back to the chronological feed era.
Some people actively desire this kind of algorithm because they find it easier to find content they like this way.
Raw chronological order tends to overweight the frequent posters. If you follow someone who posts 10 times a day, and 99 people who post once a week, your feed will be dominated by 1% of the users representing 40% of the posts you see.
One simple algorithm that is almost always better for user experiences is to retrieve the most recent X posts from each of the followed accounts and then sort that by chronological order. Once you’re doing that, though, you’re probably thinking about ways to optimize the experience in other ways. What should the value of X be? Do you want to hide posts the user has already seen, unless there’s been a lot of comment/followup activity? Do you want to prioritize posts in which the user was specifically tagged in a comment? Or the post itself? If so, how much?
It’s a non-trivial problem that would require thoughtful design, even for a zero advertising, zero profit motive service.
Letting the user decide? If the user decided that they liked fly fishing 8 stars and mother-in-law 0 stars, then the algorithm would show mother-in-law once a week at best and fly fishing 8x out of 10 posts.
If we had one public social media platform that would be the best way. It would force people to filter and learn how to interact with technology. But in our world people are lazy and a platform that picks the best value of X automatically for the most people will win. Even if it’s not actually how people want to see things.
Losing content of one poster and getting double content of others isn’t a solution though.
It tends to be hit or miss.
When I started using Odysee instead of YouTube, my page was full of “women vs men”, woke culture and onlyfans-esque videos.
I realised, subscribing to a creator actually made a big difference in this case, to get them on you page, because it’s not a feed (controlled by an algo), but a simple, categorised list, with the “Following” on top.In contrast to that, the YouTube’s algorithm tended to create relations between videos (using who knows how many criteria) and showed them along with videos from the subscribed and more-often-viewed channels. It used to show some pretty useful results and it would be a crime for me to downplay its usefulness.
Sadly, by the time I left YouTube, it had started putting the doomscroll content on my page, which is probably another reason for why I stopped using it.
I would call it: Another great mechanism, ruined by capitalism.
Other day me and my mom was talking about how TV has all shifted to be nothing but reality TV… and then she said even youtube is becoming the same way… im like uh… thats because thats because you are watching it thus it is giving you more…
So what should we call the thing that we don’t want in our social media feeds that controls what we see?
Engagement based personalized recommendations.
Catchy. Can’t imagine why “algorithm” caught on instead.
It’s because Al Gore invented the internet, so they are known as Al Gore Rhythms.
Manipulation
Jazz hands.
An algorhythm
Let’s not tell them that by definition both a shopping list and a recipe are algorithms.
Isn’t a shopping list more like a data structure? A recipe would be an algorithm. I don’t know, I could be wrong.
Can you put some milk on the algorithm please?
Dont’ worry, the kids will learn about real algorythms when they grow up
I hate that this meme never explains what application meant ‘back then’
I get that it’s a problem now, but if it had a clear enough definition back then, maybe this couldn’t have occurred the way it did?I always understood “application” like a gadget in the software world that just resolved one specific problem, and had that own definition till got distorted
In the Netherlands basically everyone uses whatsapp. In the beginning people would say send me a whatsapp or something like that. But pretty quickly people started to shorten it to just app. So people will say stuff like I just got an app (instead of message), it drives me nuts. Like my family chat group is called “app group”.
In Italy people loves start up companies because they think they all make apps. And they write is as “Start apps”
Lmaoo, Italian here too, I never had the pleasure to see that slip up, where have you seen it on usually?
You don’t talk to enough 40+ years old hahah
Guess not, not yet at least
That’s funny, especially since no one wants a new app on their phone. Right?
Are you sure it’s not appje?
Then: Books, Movies, Videos, Blogs, Articles Now: C O N T E N T
It’s not the word, it’s the reductionism.
We used to call all those media except people naturally didn’t want to lump them all together.
Man, I hate the word content.
Me too. Ever since I read Richard Stallman’s words to avoid article. I kinda wish I hadn’t read it now lmao.
I’m content with it
Yeah, me too. What the fuck is content? Content means contained in something. Contained in what?
Also, “content creator” = OnlyFans
Contained in the app you use, video you watch, article you read, page of a book, sentence in a paragraph, etc.
Web browser? “app”. Web page? “app”. Dialog box? “app”. Phone app that’s just a thin shell for the web site? “appapp”.
See also the client camera movement guide:
This is ridiculous. There’s no way a client calls a dolly a “pan”.
That’s obviously zooming.
I met a guy who would say “pan forward” and “pan it in an angle”.
A Pan-o-rama
Interesting.
The word ‘pan’, came to me from using 3D CAD software and I considered the Jib and Truck actions as ‘pan’ and the original Pan would be camera rotation, which might be ‘turn’ (didn’t use it as much so don’t remember) which was less favourable than using ‘orbit’.
Good to know the word origin.Oh and btw, Dolly would not be zoom, but ‘walk’.
Client cameras love everyone!
I call everything a script. Makes the Java devs real mad. Makes the PM’s super confused.
A million-line project spread over a hundred files
It’s a script!
sqlite is technically just one C source file, so that’s definitely a script.
The compiled binary being another script.
Just in a different language.Being one source file is the definition of a script?
The definition of a script is something the computer executes (if it’s a computer script, of course). Everything else people shove into it is extraneous.
Wait, so the
bashscript that I broke down into multiple files because I was unable to create and use functions properly, could not be considered a script?It’s now just a bash
GNU Autotools: yes.
They hate to hear it.
In a sense it is, before it gets compiled. And yes I’m using the term loosely, please don’t @ me people
I fought hard against that for years. I still only use ‘app’ for phone programs, but I stopped correcting people every time they used the term for anything else. It isn’t technically wrong, but it grates on my nerves for some reason.
If someone told me to use the fdisk app I’d be confused.
Use the ls app.
Then use the cd app.
Then use the cd app.
❯ which cd cd: shell built-in commandNot even technically correct, unless…
When I press ‘Reply’, I am using the Reply app
Ugh I don’t know why but this was the one that got me. Just no.
Windows is the first thing I can think of that used the word “application” in that way, I think even back before Windows could be considered an OS (and had a dependency on MS-DOS). Back then, the Windows API referred to the Application Programming Interface.
Here’s a Windows 3.1 programming guide from 1992 that freely refers to programs as applications:
Common dialog boxes make it easier for you to develop applications for the Microsoft Windows operating system. A common dialog box is a dialog box that an application displays by calling a single function rather than by creating a dialog box procedure and a resource file containing a dialog box template.
I don’t have a single problem with the word “application”
to develop applications for the Microsoft Windows operating system.
Could they have meat “uses for the MS…”?
Language evolves. Why is a computer program not an “app(lication)” exactly?
It isn’t technically wrong
Yeah, I thought I made that clear. I just don’t like it.
A lot of times, the literal definition varies from what people think of when they hear a thing. We call a lot of similar things words that don’t fully make sense but since other people will know what it means, it’s useful. When everything is an app, piles of specifics are glossed over. That probably doesn’t matter when talking to a non-developer, but sometimes it might. Those of us in software like the specificity because it tells us many things we might otherwise have to ask several questions to learn about. So yeah, sometimes it matters, other times it won’t.
Oh, it is. It is… Sigh.
Everyone that goes " thats fire yo!" I spritz with a spraybottle.
As is your right and duty.
The other day I realized they did that because its APPle. I have no evidence but I’m sticking with it
I think I heard “applet” being mentioned for embedded java or something in the early 2000s. I don’t know if that’s connected.
The name of the company is all you need as evidence.
Everything is a file
Files are just streams. Everything is just a stream, in real life too.
What about a process? File gone wild?
I’d call that a file loaded to memory
Most files are loaded to memory in order to make any kind of use out of them. I.e. read/write operations.
That’s true! I supposed it would be more precise to say that all processes are files loaded to memory, but not all files loaded to memory are processes. Sort of like the whole arachnids / spiders situation.
Why not? Represented in /proc? exec() and fam? Read and write to it?
I mean, with virtualization that’s pretty much true
What about a folder?
Pregonte file
Is that how babby formed
how to mkdir
If you can open it in Vim, it’s a file.
You can open me in Vim, Greg. Am I a file?
I felt like I was alone in being frustrated at this trend. However I found a bit of relief to discover, through messing around in a Win98 virtual machine, that they were occasionally using the term “app” back then as well. Of course it wasn’t as ubiquitous as it is now, but whatever.
Also I thought I’d never see the Xbox kid meme again. What an unexpected throwback!
A long time ago I joined a new remote-first company and in my first month they made an event where they brought in all employees from all over the world for a week at a farm hotel for a mix or meetings and leisure activities.
In one specific meeting the CEO was talking app this app that and I was very confused. The product was a server side program that had a web client, an electron app and two native mobile apps. But the CEO was talking about things that didn’t make sense for those apps.
At some point I interrupted the meeting and asked for clarification: what are you talking about when you say app? It’s not the mobile apps?
The CEO made a funny face and mentioned an engineer. I looked at him and he had a smug face and said something along the lines of “well, go on, explain it”. CEO then explained he was talking about the new big project, which was basically an extension system for the server product - and the extensions would be called apps.
That night I found that engineer at the hotel bar and asked more details about it. Turns out he was the team lead on this project and he hated the term “apps” for it and had been very vocal about it before, saying among other things that it would cause confusion with the client apps we have. Most of the company agreed with him at the time but the CEO demanded it be named apps anyway.
These days everyone there thinks that naming it apps was the right call, but I always hated having to refer to them as “server extension app” to avoid any confusion, specially because I often worked on integrations with third party tools and those tools also had their own stuff called apps so instead of just saying something like “the Kabum extension” I had to say “the ChaChin server Kabum app” (as in this example’s context there would also be multiple Kabum clients and ChaChin clients that would all be known as apps too)
I would have recommended an extension to interface with a mobile browser extension.
The Mobile Extension App Extension App.
