Damn, the same way Tesla reaches FSD next year, thanks Elon for saving the World one promise at a time! /$

Perfect, I might even set my UA for reddit to mobile then, I need an “excuse” to keep on using it less. I still browse it without an account but I should lose the habit.

crontab, it’s enough to :

• kill any add during specific period
• accumulate usage per app
• check if tabs are opened

and it’s pretty straighforward to configure, e.g.

* 8-17 * * 1-5 killall SlayTheSpire && date >> ~/shame
# prevents from playing during weekday working hours

or for accumulation (which can be reset daily, weekly, etc by simply deleting the minutes file)

pgrep mpv && >> mpv_minutes; if [ $(wc -l mpv_minutes) -gt 1000 ]; then echo beyond threshold; fi

That works also for turning up/down network interfaces.

PS: I use this on myself. I’m not a child but I don’t have perfect self control. It works.

Because Linux phones with proper hardware are sold at 1k and hundreds of people want to but that, not thousands or millions and thus they don’t actually get built. Couple of attempts just lasttear didn’t pan out.

Ad hominem, blocked.

No it’s then a representation of a conversation, not a conversation.

According to Wikipedia "Conversation is interactive communication between two or more people.

[…]

No generally accepted definition of conversation exists, beyond the fact that a conversation involves at least two people talking together."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversation

Saying one has a “conversation” with a chatbot already shows a bias, a desire even, that there is “someone” else to converse with. The way the entire setup is framed is made to invite the suspension of disbelief. It’s a UX trick, nothing more.

To be honest I don’t know what the solution is. What I’m convinced of though is that if we don’t push back, at the very least signify that it is actually a problem, then it silently becomes the new norm.

Edit : related in school context https://lemmy.ml/post/46392253/25351905

FWIW I had to use an equivalent which didn’t work on my setup. I emailed the company, they said try this, try that, which I did, still no dice. They emailed me a form to print, sign, take a photo of, and email them back. I did and the 3rd party that relied on their service was notified.

So… it’s OK to be “annoying” with this kind of services if it doesn’t work respective of your setup itself respective of your concerns.

I’m not saying it will also work, or that it’s efficient, just that it’s a possibility.

home automation server that doesn’t connect to the internet?

Well if uses wireless connectivity with either range broader than your place or is connected to a device that is itself online it can still be a risk. Sure it’s very VERY specific but scanning techniques also improve.

The one thing Microslop excels at is precisely lock-in.

That’s the beauty of totally arbitrary restrictions, you can change them as you want.

Pay by seat? Pay by client? Pay by byte of data stored? Pay by backup location?

… pay by moonphase? Pay by AI personality? Pay by virtual AI seat?

Such BS but why wouldn’t Microslop extend its business model. It worked well so far. It’s not about software, or datacenter, or AI, it’s just about entrenchment.

AFAICT its creator it’s entirely focused on the mobile challenge know, working on /e/OS for his Murena company.

Yes, I didn’t know the expression “local rewrites” but that seems to capture it well.

My bet it’s another version of the inverse of Not Invented Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_invented_here where the IT department or a random manager claims that whatever was generated is “theirs” implying agency. They don’t realize that each iteration will get harder and more expensive (bigger context window) while alternatives have accumulated thousands and thousands of “bugs” or even just usage highlighted limits of their implementation. So they are re-inventing their version at great cost and in the end the difference between what they worked on is basically equivalent of open source equivalents but with no community support and instead a dependency on models and infrastructure they don’t own.

Maybe but that wasn’t my point. My point is that a lot of people now invest a LOT of resources, being token, money, time, etc to invent the wheel again. Instead of relying on e.g. Drupal they’ll “generate” yet another CMS which will work (for a while, in theory) not because it’s a good idea (IMHO it’s not) but because it’s been marketed as doable and even “better” on some aspects (e.g. customizable).

And that’s why GenAI for code is gaining popularity.

It’s not because it’s better than free open-source libraries. It’s because it’s better marketed.

So ombudsman can be for “petty” things, like the belt of my e-bike, but also for much more “serious” things like political corruption, vote scams, etc where I imagine Congress might be correct. As https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ombudsmen_in_the_United_States clarifies though there are ombudsmen dedicated to agencies but also state level or even city and county level. So I imagine the more precise you are picking the right one, the more likely it’s going to be treated, efficiently or at all.

No idea how it works where you are but in Belgium and in the EU we have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_services_by_country is available in most places. Anyway I can tell you when companies receive an email from them, they don’t mess around. I’ve been waiting for a bike part for a year. I contacted the ombudsman, no cost, just 2 emails, suddenly my carbon belt was shipping the very next day.

I agree with everything you wrote but I’m not sure how it helps clarify what I said earlier. So… I think we agree?

On your final point I think the big difference between then (before LLMs) and now is that until recently a very demanding PR, in the sense that the person asking for the merge would have a good idea yet didn’t really get something about the project and thus needed a lot of guidance, it was seen as an investment. It was a risky bet, maybe that person would just leave after a lengthy discussion, maybe they’d move to their own project, etc… but a bit like with a young intern, the person from the project managing that PR was betting that it was worth spending time on it. They were maybe hoping to get some code they themselves didn’t have the expertise on (say some very specific optimization for very specific hardware they didn’t have) or that this new person would one day soon become a more involved contributor. So there was an understanding that yes it would be a challenging process but both parties would benefit from it.

Now I believe the situation has changed. The code submitted might actually be good, maybe not. It will though always, on the surface, look plausible because that’s exactly what LLM have been trained for, for code or otherwise, to “look” realistic in their context.

So… I would argue that it’s this dynamic that has change, from the hope of onboarding a new person on a project to a 1-shot gamble.