Oh, I’m terribly sorry that I didn’t use the exact wording that the semantic overlord required for his incantations.

Let’s recap, you only read the title, which by definition does not contain all the information, you wrote an extremely arrogant and absolutely not helpful comment, if challenged you answer with even more arrogance, and your only defense is nitpicky semantics, which even if taken at face value, do not change the value of your comment at all.

You are not helping anyone. No, not even others.

Even agents suffer from the same problem stated above: you can’t trust them.

Compare it to a traditional SQL database. If the DB says, that it saved a row or that there are 40 rows in the table, then that’s true. They do have bugs, obviously, but in general you can trust them.

AI agents don’t have that level of reliability. They’ll happily tell you that the empty database has all the 509 entries you expect them to have. Sure, you can improve reliability, but you won’t get anywhere near the DB example.

And I think that’s what makes it so hard to extrapolate progress. AI fails miserably at absolute basic tasks and doesn’t even see that it failed. Success seems more chance than science. That’s the opposite of how every technology before worked. Simple problems first, if that’s solved, you push towards the next challenge. AI in contrast is remarkably good at some highly complex tasks, but then fails at basic reasoning a minute later.

The closest one is about a trip over the Atlantic away.

It’s absolutely opaque to me, especially the non-big-name brands barely get any reliable reviews and especially given the silicon lottery, I can’t tell if every chip is like the reviewed ones.

If I just happen to get the bad module that craps out after 6 months, the positive reviews are not that helpful.

Honestly, that is the typical self-righteous stackoverflow response that is helping no one.

You know exactly what I mean, you know exactly how to treat the question, but you chose to play captain obvious of the second arrogance division and posted this.

Of course devices will fail at some point, what are you even trying to add here?

The problem I see is mainly the divergence between hype and reality now, and a lack of a clear path forward.

Currently, AI is almost completely unable to work unsupervised. It fucks up constantly and is like a junior employee who sometimes shows up on acid. That’s cool and all, but has relatively little practical use. However, I also don’t see how this will improve over time. With computers or smartphones, you could see relatively early on, what the potential is and the progression was steady and could be somewhat reliably extrapolated. With AI that’s not possible. We have no idea, if the current architectures could hit a wall tomorrow and don’t improve anymore. It could become an asymptotic process, where we need massive increases for marginal gains.

Those two things combined mean, we currently only have toys, and we don’t know if these will turn into tools anytime soon.

Realistically, you don’t. You can’t really.

The only way would be to verify each account somehow.

It’s extremely complicated and I don’t really see a solution.

You’d need gigantic resources and trust in those resources to vet accounts, comments, instances. Or very in depth verification processes, which in turn would limit privacy.

What I actually found interesting was bluesky’s invite system. Each user got a limited number of invite links and if a certain amount of your invitees were banned, you’d be banned/flagged to. That creates a web of trust, but of course also makes anonymous accounts impossible.

Maybe that happens if you design a car like an iPod with a bunch of engineers living in California and Texas.

You can’t block people. Who would you know, who registered the domain?

What you’re proposing is pretty similar to the current state of email. It’s almost impossible to set up your own small mail server and have it communicate the “mailiverse” since everyone will just assume you’re spam. And that lead to a situation where 99% of people are with one of the huge mail providers.

Especially since being immune to censorship is kind of the point of the fediverse.

If you’re even a tiny bit smart about it, you can start hundreds of sock puppet instances and flood other instances with bullshit.

Not only cloud infrastructure, tons of industrial automation devices are more or less open on the Internet. Best case that’s just a few minutes downtime in a factory, worst case someone fries the grid and destroys water treatment plants.

And even the actual applications being written for the government aren’t that great. The lowest bidder gets the contract, and security is really easy to cheap out on, if you’re doing just enough to not be legally liable - which isn’t hard.

The older I get and the more insights in the inner workings of the technical infrastructure I get, the more I’m surprised we’re not actively collapsing right now. It’s scary how abysmal security is and it’s scary how unprepared society is. Just as a hint: the European power grid spans the entire EU, Balkans, Turkey, Ukraine. There’s no plan how to restart the grid, if it shuts down entirely. None. Complete terra incognita.

Talking about the “initial fault” in this conflict is moot. We’re at a point, where both sides can reasonably point to some events in the past and blame the other side for the conflict.

Fact is, Iran is a theocratic dictatorship and its allies are religious fanatic militias, while Israel is a liberal democracy, supported by pretty much all of The West™. Of course the expectations towards Israel regarding human rights and international law are slightly higher. And let’s be honest, what Israel is doing right now is certainly not helping calming the situation, or even making long term peace.

The clear answer is: don’t use subversion. There’s really no reason not to use git, since you can use git just like subversion if you want to.

Yes. And it’s okay, but nothing to write home about.

I mean, it’s a messenger. Nothing more. Don’t overhype something that trivial.

Same. Teams isn’t exactly good, but it works pretty okayish most of the time. I absolutely don’t get the love for slack, it seems to be more like an “I use Arch, BTW” thing.

Fucking Genius! (I would add the Simpsons Scorpio meme, but my instance currently is unable to handle images)

500nits according to the store.

As the other comment already stated: it’s extremely complicated and, in my experience, causes weird splits between client and server logic. Maybe I completely misunderstood the idea, but it seems like every use case requires some code in the server to do all the traversing, which also means, that every use case needs to have logic added at both ends of the conversation, which kind of defeats the purpose of loose coupling.

All that may dissolve itself if you’re having hundreds or thousands of different clients and use cases, that all boil down to a relatively small set of traversing methods in the server, but who actually has that many clients/use cases?

It all seems like it’s again one of those “but Google does!!!” technologies that simply don’t make sense for 99% of projects.

Absolutely. I barely touch code anymore, but I talk about how to touch code a lot.