Mastodon Feed: Posts

Boosted by brib@bribstodon.xyz ("brib :neofox_floof:​ :Nonbinary:"):
zmef42@hostux.social ("ꓜꓟеꓝ☠") wrote:

I stole this from a woman

jsonstein@masto.deoan.org ("Jeff Sonstein") wrote:

square quad loop antenna, with current balun and RFI choke

ireneista@irenes.space ("Irenes (many)") wrote:

er, forgot the link https://code.irenes.space/evocation/commit/?id=3c36f513532d28ac101fb057e845ce66b8e6da1b

ireneista@irenes.space ("Irenes (many)") wrote:

er, forgot the link https://code.irenes.space/evocation/commit/

ireneista@irenes.space ("Irenes (many)") wrote:

there we go. this was a fun CL to write; it involved dipping back into a layer that had been settled for a while and making it a bit more modular.

jsonstein@masto.deoan.org ("Jeff Sonstein") wrote:

finally got my antenna analyzer reflashed and my laptop updated. I think this will do for tonight's local SSB 6m voice net

stephen@social.calmabiding.me ("Stephen Castro-Starkey") wrote:

I love this! https://kill-the-cloud.com/

jwz wrote:

Nomenclature.

I got a used Mac Mini to use as a sacrifice zone for testing things on recent OSes. Since at this point it seems like you will pry macOS 14.7 from my main machine's cold dead fingers.

Anyway I can't decide what to name it. I'm going with "sucker" so far. I thought about "patsy" but that just makes me think "and edina" which is not what I'm going for.
https://jwz.org/b/ylAG

fribbledom ("muesli") wrote:

Looks like we're entering the hip-hop era of open source.

Expect a lot of remixes.

Boosted by jwz:
dnalounge@sfba.social ("DNA Lounge") wrote:

36 years ago today at DNA Lounge: URBAN DANCE SQUAD
https://www.dnalounge.com/flyers/1985-1999/1990-09-29.html?utm%5Fsource=sp%5Fma

jwz wrote:

It's hard to explain Gavin Newsom to someone who hasn't seen The Dead Zone.

glyph ("Glyph") wrote:

yay the witcher 3 remaster update is free and shows up as an update to an existing witcher 3 install!

uh oh the witcher remaster update just _completely_ breaks the game on crossover. pouring one out for the fine folks at codeweavers today, that has got to be a stressful event

ireneista@irenes.space ("Irenes (many)") wrote:

it will increase startup time, but that's okay.

ireneista@irenes.space ("Irenes (many)") wrote:

so yep, we decided for sure to go ahead with this strategy. our reasoning is that it's more maintainable in the long run because it gives us a way to add functionality to the language without having to run it under the transformations. every piece of code under the transforms is a compatibility burden (need to make the semantics match what happens outside the transforms).

Boosted by glyph ("Glyph"):
silvermoon82@wandering.shop ("Mx. Eddie R") wrote:

So, someone who uncritically accepts and forwards LLM output is a "meat proxy"

There's another subclass who prides themselves on curating what comes out of the chatbot. I propose "slop sieve".

pzmyers@freethought.online ("pzmyers 🕷") wrote:

Don't show El Trumpo. He might be inspired by the Ugly Palace.

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2026/09/29/infinite-thread-xxxxi/

Boosted by glyph ("Glyph"):
campuscodi ("Catalin Cimpanu") wrote:

Social media giant Meta pulled down Brazilian President Lula's Facebook page and blocked his campaign from running political ads but allows paid ads calling for a military coup

It also didn't take down any of the right-wing disinformation campaigns reported in August

https://novaramedia.com/2026/09/28/facebook-blocks-lulas-campaign-ads-just-days-before-brazil-election/

Boosted by glyph ("Glyph"):
mcc wrote:

@glyph *putting on a t-shirt that says "ask me about how the set theory ideas of Bertrand Russell are directly applicable to the Paradox of Tolerance"*

glyph ("Glyph") wrote:

RE: https://wandering.shop/@phildini/117355209284737892

hell yeah let's bring some of that "but how can we possibly afford it" energy to the concept of cops. if you care about budget discipline we cannot afford to have cops, and now we have the data to prove it.

Boosted by glyph ("Glyph"):
phildini@wandering.shop wrote:

California has spent over $400 million in settlements for Law Enforcement misconduct since 2010.

I know because I built a site to track it:

https://captainacab.com/

We're updating every week, and slowly expanding across the country.

(boosts welcome)

glyph ("Glyph") wrote:

The yin-yang symbol is popularly understood as a symbol of a perfect, static balance. But it is explicitly meant to represent *flowing*. It's a static representation because they didn't have animated GIFs 3000 years ago, but the wavy line is meant to represent motion and dynamism, and more specifically, rhythm. There are elements of "balance" in there but it is not the "balance" of perfect proportions.

glyph ("Glyph") wrote:

It's also helpful to read a lot of Taoist literature and in particular the bits where they are reacting against Confucianist hierarchies and rankings; Confucius was the original tech bro. If you want to speed-run the relevant parts though it is helpful to learn what the Yin-Yang symbol is actually a symbol of: https://youtu.be/XMcdIV3vkXs

Boosted by glyph ("Glyph"):
mcc wrote:

@glyph The problem with post-2010 "rationalists" is that if you know formal logic you can tear through their arguments like swiss cheese, but this is not useful, because anyone who's not a post-2010 "rationalist" will go "why are you trying to apply mathematical principles to real life?"; and anyone who is a post-2010 "rationalist" isn't listening

Boosted by glyph ("Glyph"):
mcc wrote:

@glyph In math, when analyzing metric spaces, I've heard this described as the "triangle property"

f(x,y) + f(y,z) ≥ f(x,z)

I am not sure exactly what the terminology would be, but I think of this as being the critical abstract algebra property that "utils" break. We expect

U(x) + U(y) ≥ U(x + y)

EG the utility we get from having X and Y at once is equal to the utility of X plus the utility of Y. Maybe more. But in fact they're uncorrelated. Could be less. Combining two +U things could be -U

glyph ("Glyph") wrote:

Thinking about hiring (or, for that matter, compensation) at the level of the *individual* is just fundamentally broken. What you need is not a well-executing individual. You need a balanced team, one with a healthy dynamic, where different team members can help each other excel at what they do best and help each other compensate for their weaknesses. There is no one perfect profile that you can select for which will get you the best-functioning team.

glyph ("Glyph") wrote:

The thing that most helped me develop this outlook and let go of utilitarianism was building teams. Tech is obsessed with getting the smartest, best programmers onto a team. But the reality is that you cannot be The Most Programmer. Programming is a skill that (like all skills, really) is multifaceted. You can be better at producing lines of code quickly, or modeling problems well, or learning new technologies, or writing documentation.

glyph ("Glyph") wrote:

The "real" solution to the Trolley Problem is not utilitarian. By the time you are actually *in* the Trolley Problem situation, you've already failed. You should have learned about slipping the switch. You should have figured out a way to prevent people from getting tied to the tracks. You should have been curious about who was tying people to the tracks and why. You should have knowledgeable rail operators working these switches not random bystanders.

glyph ("Glyph") wrote:

But the fact that sometimes binary choices must be made, in the most desperate and extreme circumstances, does not mean that we should dedicate our attention and our focus to those extremes or model our day to day choices based on some kind of provable optimum. You often can't prove what is optimal. Sometimes you pull the lever and you don't get to know what the trolley did. You need to be able to do your best *and move on*, rather than fixating on spending that scarce time *ruminating*.

glyph ("Glyph") wrote:

Utilitarianism is appealing because ultimately we all need a framework for making decisions under scarcity. And we all exist under scarcity because our lifetimes are scarce. In any given minute you can be doing X, or you can be doing Y, so you need to be able to choose in that moment: X or Y? Which is better? Which is *more*? Which is *rational*? Pull the lever or let the trolley roll on?

ireneista@irenes.space ("Irenes (many)") wrote:

@glyph we agree with this; we'll also add that good and bad don't cancel out, they coexist. this makes the idea of doing arithmetic on them not very sensical.