/tech/ - Technology

>>15169
>causing everyone that they speak with to be replaced by AI models that constantly agree and praise them
Wake up, Neo. The Matrix has you.

>>15182
>>15797
It's functionally useless to us, but for them they get to brainwash every wholesome doggo lover and casual using the platform. If you go to those kinds of places not realizing what they are you're just primed for brainwashing, and then you take those views into the real world and this massive cycle of retardation perpetuates itself courtesy of big tech.

(I know this is probably obvious to all of you but I had to just say it) The real world implications are tragic

>when shadowbanning isn't passive aggressive and cowardly enough for libs they trap you in a painting
Solar flare or nuclear war can't come soon enough.

it's too much work, involves too much server load and it's too expensive to implement per banned user.

>>23371
its not real

>>22527
Muh entrepreneurship.
I just made the connection that entrepreneur worship is identical with fascist ideology on the theme of the heroic leader cutting through bureaucracy

>>23241
i wonder what the common thread here is (liberalism)

>>23239
Yup, he literally bribed her to shut up about it.

>>23239
But Wikipedia says he's gay.

>>23282
he's probably bisexual. either way his sister talking about it makes the entire situation very suspicious, I believe he did diddle his sister. if it was just money she was after I don't get why she would go to the trouble of lying about it, she could probably just ask for a favor once in a while. so something is definitely up with this guy.

They overhired during Covid and are shredding the excess.

It's the interest rates. The tech sector is extremely allergic to high rates because it relies on either the companies directly or VCs indirectly to impulsively borrow too much money.

>>23278
These layoffs have been happening for 2 years now.

Is the button engineering thing real? It sounds like a strawman. Here's a clear explanation for why it makes sense for these big companies to have specialists: https://danluu.com/in-house/

>>23269
There may not even be an alternative for the specific use case you have. Just tread carefully, I think the thread can be summed up with that

>>23271
>Just tread carefully
Well, this is obvious. Noone should trust anything blindly. That's why people don't trust systemd and Linux for example despite them being OPEN SOURCE!! IT'S OPEN SOURCE, GUYS, THAT MEANS IT'S PERFECT!!

>>23272
Honestly for 99% of people you can trust Tor. If you're some big dicked alpha running some crazy drug service or doing highly illegal shit that people both care about and have a paid incentive to stop, I would not at all trust Tor to keep you safe and would completely remodel your anonymity setup and would look towards i2p or some more advanced setup between you and Tor

>>23274
Wonder why the online drug cartel hasn't yet switched to something else like i2p, they seem to trust Tor way too much to run a multi million dollar highly illegal business. or are all those markets just psyops by glowies?

>>23276
Some of them do, but they get dropped left and right and arrested all the time. Hard to say truly how they're getting fucked as well since we can only really go by what law enforcement says. Either way those types of people have to be looking over their shoulders forever once they get involved with shit like this. Also Im pretty sure there are i2p drug distributors but thats besides the point

>>23112
I see where you are coming from, and while I'm not a real Lisp nerd, there is definitely some beauty in the core principle of the language, and there is a reason why languages like Python, Java and Ruby are so successful: they took many things that were common coding patterns in Lisp during the 1980s and 1990s and reinvented the wheel with ALGOL-like syntax. That's in part why Guy Steele was among the Java committee.
The only thing they didn't steal from Lisp yet is homoiconicity. They tried with languages like Dylan, but nobody gives a fuck about Dylan.

There is also no other programming language — except Smalltalk — that offers the same degree of interactivity as Common Lisp, or hell, even Emacs Lisp, where you can modify the behavior of the editor, which is nothing but a Lisp interpreter, in real time by evaluating a statement after pressing Ctrl-X then Ctrl-E.
Try redefining the "lambda" keyword in Python: it's impossible.
In Emacs, I can evaluate

(defmacro lambda (x) 0)
(defmacro defmacro (x y z) 0)

and completely break my editor. It's real hacker shit.
Protip: VSCode is nothing but Emacs with Javascript, without the interactivity

That said, I don't recommend to clueless beginners to start messing with Lisp if they aren't already familiar with basic programming concepts like variables, control flow, loops, functions, etc.
Lisp documentation is like kicking whales down the beach. Emacs Lisp documentation is terrible. Common Lisp is an old language and has tons of cruft dating back from the MacLisp days, like gazillons of ways to declare a variable.
Imagine yourself being a beginner all over again, and asking yourself "should I use setf or setq to declare a variable? what is dynamic scope?" or "should I use while, dolist, dotimes or the loop macro?" while a few autists start a flame war among themselves about whenever the loop macro is ""unlispy"" or not.
I'm not even talking about Scheme and its gazillion uncompatible dialects. Want to loop over something? I hope you are used to recursive thought patterns. Racket is neat and the documentation is great, but it doesn't have the same interactivity as Common Lisp and Emacs, and I don't code in Lisp to be hygienic.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>23214
>The only thing they didn't steal from Lisp yet is homoiconicity. They tried with languages like Dylan, but nobody gives a fuck about Dylan.
Homoiconicity is not the only reason why lisp is special. In fact, I think it is a rather poorly defined concept. Is python homoiconic because it has an ast package for handling python code as data?
Mainstream languages are further from lisp than just not having an S-expression syntax. Those features they took from lisp (I object to using the word steal here, anyone is within their right to make a programming language with whatever concepts they like) are often taken partially or without surrounding features which make them more useful. For example, python has lambdas but they are gimped by the fact that python has an expression/statement dichotomy and lambdas can only contain an expression (so instead you have to def a local function which is like using labels/flet). Another example is languages like rust which have macros but are gimped in a myriad of ways, like only being callable using a special macro call syntax and the c-style compilation process making them able to access and modify less state than in lisp.
>There is also no other programming language — except Smalltalk — that offers the same degree of interactivity as Common Lisp, or hell, even Emacs Lisp, where you can modify the behavior of the editor, which is nothing but a Lisp interpreter, in real time by evaluating a statement after pressing Ctrl-X then Ctrl-E.
Honorable mention to erlang.
>That said, I don't recommend to clueless beginners to start messing with Lisp if they aren't already familiar with basic programming concepts like variables, control flow, loops, functions, etc.
That is questionable advice since all of these things are slightly different in lisp compared to mainstream languages. There's that old lisp meme that goes something like "anyone can learn lisp in a week, except if they learned fortran first, then it takes two weeks"
>Imagine yourself being a beginner all over again, and asking yourself "should I use setf or setq to declare a variable? what is dynamic scope?" or "should I use while, dolist, dotimes or the loop macro?" while a few autists start a flame war among themselves about whenever thPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>23124
>lowest high-level language
Is this true? Does that mean it's faster than other HLLs? What about Python with a PyPy interpreter or a C compiler?

And how does Smalltalk compare to CL? Or CL to Scheme?

>>23220
>lowest high-level language
>Is this true? Does that mean it's faster than other HLLs? What about Python with a PyPy interpreter or a C compiler?
Not that anon, and I don't really agree that there are significant differences in highlevelness between pretty much all high level languages with gc, but being low level does not mean good performance and vice-versa.
The performance of cl depends on the implementation (like with your python example, except that cl code is usually more portable between implementations). Some implementations like clisp and abcl have garbage performance. Implementations like ecl and ccl have passable performance. The best performing and most used (at least in the open source community) is sbcl, which beats most other high level language implementations like python, ruby, etc. while getting beaten by c unless you really take care in optimizing your code.
>And how does Smalltalk compare to CL? Or CL to Scheme?
Smalltalk is more niche than both cl and scheme. Some cl features are inspired by smalltalk though, like clos (a bit indirectly, with clos being a descendant of symbolics flavors, and symbolics being generally inspired by the work at xerox parc).
The scheme community is generally way more oriented towards functional programming than cl's. But scheme does not really have an unified community since it's difficult to impossible to write scheme projects which can run on multiple implementations, while it's relatively easy in cl. Scheme's main language is way smaller and generally more oriented towards some conceptions of simplicity and purity they have, but in my opinion it just makes scheme a pita to use compared to cl.

>>23220
>Does that mean it's faster than other HLLs?
Looking at sbcl specifically, all functions are compiled at runtime or precompiled. Possible sources of overhead compared to a low-level language would be runtime checks, that may be disabled with (declaim (optimize (speed 3) (debug 0) (safety 0)).
You can also add type declarations to prevent dynamic dispatch and do faster arithmetic. Linked list usage may be optimized by doing destructive operations on them or replacing them with arrays and hashmaps.
Some datatypes and common coding patterns might slow down a program at many loop iterations, but you can get a lot of mileage out of a good common lisp compiler.

>>23208
Regulations are never fucking enough for these guys. Just ban proprietary software outright. No proprietary software, no problem.

>>23211
Even if there were no copyright protections for software, hardware manufacturers like Apple could still make a walled garden by making it technically impossible or very hard to modify the software running on your device.

>>23222
>Even if there were no copyright protections for software
I said outright ban it. Outright ban… the software.

BAN THE SOFTWARE, SOFTWARE SHOULD BE ILLEGAL.

>>23193
There are multiple reasons, like privacy, javascript software freedom concerns (lol) and straight up making websites inaccessible in some non-mainstream setups.

>>23193
>I don't see why people hate the internet gatekeeper
it is literally a protection racket

>>23199
I mean they're not the ones DDOSing everyone so far as I know

>>23203
"this is a dangerous neighborhood" says the cloudflare henchman "there was a ddos attack not far from here the other day"

>>23205
leftypol was actually DDOSed multiple times though

Amazon admits to giving Ring videos to police without permission, surprising absolutely nobody.
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3557545-amazon-admits-to-giving-ring-videos-to-police-without-permission/
Remember that you do not need to know what is happening outside your front door at all times.

suburban surveillance state

Isn't the entire problem of porch piracy caused by US postal companies not having a policy of actually waiting for someone to answer the door? Are the cost savings accomplished by not doing that actually significant?

>>15040
Ring cameras are bad enough but the people who rig up the inside of their houses with cameras are fully psychotic

>>23139
Retro games are played not because they were """better""" (at least not necessarily: there are some retro gaming snobs just as there are modern gaming snobs). They're played because they're good games.

If modern software and games are shit it should be treated as a bug just like security holes should.

>>23055
There is definitely point in keeping archaic software alive: it's still useful. And however useless it becomes with time, it's still more useful than something that doesn't exist.

>>23151
emacs is not archaic, it's from the future

>>23152
Genera was the future! Zmacs is to modern emacs what plan9 is to linux.

>>22609
does sway have configurable gaps

>>23160
You're misinterpreting Stallman's ethics, they're mainly concerned about development, not use. If you use proprietary software you're not "evil," at max Stallman will view you as some kind of a masochist who denies themself their freedom, it's the people who made profit off of that software who are to blame.

That said, I don't care about ethics so I simply support that development model which it is in my interest to support. And since I hate the glowies and the Big Tech and like to tweak my software to my liking it's only natural that I would support libre software. Because there's nothing else to support.

>>23165
What? No. It is about use. And being used.
> With free software, the users control the program, both individually and collectively. So they control what their computers do (assuming those computers are loyal and do what the users' programs tell them to do).
> With proprietary software, the program controls the users, and some other entity (the developer or “owner”) controls the program. So the proprietary program gives its developer power over its users. That is unjust in itself; moreover, it tempts the developer to mistreat the users in other ways.
…
> If the users don't control the program, the program controls the users. With proprietary software, there is always some entity, the developer or “owner” of the program, that controls the program—and through it, exercises power over its users. A nonfree program is a yoke, an instrument of unjust power.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html

>>23168
It's about the development model which ensures that the users control the program. There is nothing in this text that contradicts my point. Unlike the Open Source enthusiasts, the software freedom advocates stress the importance of ethical development instead of merely practical one, that's the only difference. Privacy, modifiability and trust are secondary goals to the Open Source enthusiasts, they always prioritize COLLABORATION, as if it's the most important thing about libre software.

The goal of libre software development is for you to not be used, yes. But if you're used you aren't "evil," the ones who use you are.

>>23175
>they always prioritize COLLABORATION
Which is development. I am not sure what you are trying to say. Privacy, modifiability and trust are secondary to Free Software, too, they are not included in the four freedoms.

>>23176
>Which is development.
Not necessarily an ethical one. You can collaborate on developing proprietary software too. But proprietary software is unethical according to the FSF.
>Privacy, modifiability and trust are secondary to Free Software, too, they are not included in the four freedoms
They are derived directly from the four freedoms and from the user's control over their software. Without this control, all the privacy is basically "Trust us, bro" and all the modifiability is whatever toolkits the devs provide (which are in many cases none at all). Remember that Stallman started it all because he couldn't modify a printer's firmware which annoyed him a lot.

The only reason why OSS even has privacy, modifiability and trust is because most OSS is also libre, not the other way around.