Readit News logoReadit News
clutter55561 commented on We mourn our craft   nolanlawson.com/2026/02/0... · Posted by u/ColinWright
clutter55561 · 2 days ago
Many have mentioned woodworking as an analogy from a personal perspective, but for me the important perspective is that of consumers.

Sure, if you have the money, get a carpenter to build your kitchen from solid oak. Most people buy MDF, or even worse, chipboard. IKEA, etc. In fact, not too long ago, I had a carpenter install prefabricated cabinets in a new utility room. The cabinets were pre-assembled, and he installed them on the wall in the right order and did the detailed fittings. He didn’t do a great job, and I could have done better, albeit much slower. I use handsaws simply because I’m afraid of circular saws, but I digress.

A lot of us here are like carpenters before IKEA and prefabricated cabinets, and we are just now facing a new reality. We scream “it is not the same”. It indeed isn’t for us. But the consumers will get better value for money. Not quality, necessarily, but better value.

How about us? We will eventually be kitchen designers (aka engineers, architects), or kitchen installers (aka programmers). And yes, compared to the golden years, those jobs will suck.

But someone, somewhere, will be making bespoke, luxury furniture that only a few can afford. Or maybe we will keep doing it anyway because our daily jobs suck, until we decide to stop. And that is when the craft will die.

The world will just become less technical, as is the case with other industrial goods. Who here even knows how a combustion engine works? Who knows how fabric is made, or even how a sawing machine works? We are very much like the mechanics of yesteryear before cars became iPads on wheels.

As much as we hate it, we need to accept that coding has peaked. Juniors will be replaced by AI, experts will retire. Innovation will be replaced by processes. And we must accept our place in history.

clutter55561 commented on Dark Alley Mathematics   blog.szczepan.org/blog/th... · Posted by u/quibono
dooglius · 3 days ago
EDIT: ok this was nagging at me for a while as something being off, I think this is actually wrong (in some way that must cancel out to accidentally get the right answer) because I need to multiply by 2 pi c to consider all rotations of centers around (0,0) at a given radius, but then my integral no longer works. Ah well, that's what I get for trying to method act and solve quickly, I guess the hooligan stabs me. I think at least this approach done properly could save some dimensions out of the Jacobian we need to calculate. Original post below:

Much more elegant: consider every circle that fits inside the unit circle, and we will work backward to find combinations of points. We only need consider centers on the x axis by symmetry, so these are parameterized by circle center at (0,c) and radius r with 0<c<1 and 0<r<1-c. Each circle contributes (2 pi r)^3 volume of triples of points, and this double integral easily works out to 2 pi^3/5 which is the answer (after dividing by the volume of point triples in the unit circle, pi^3)

clutter55561 · 3 days ago
Damn! I read your answer before bed and actually had trouble sleeping trying to understand it!

Thanks for editing your answer though. The thug got you in the end, but you saved me in the process.

clutter55561 commented on Streets of Minneapolis   brucespringsteen.net/news... · Posted by u/clutter55561
clutter55561 · 12 days ago
Wow. Just wow.
clutter55561 commented on LearnixOS   learnix-os.com... · Posted by u/gtirloni
threethirtytwo · a month ago
I couldn’t care less. It always pisses me off when a reviewer of my PR just flags the entire thing because of inconsistent capitalization. It’s the right correction and I always follow through but it’s also pedantic.

It’s technically more correct. But it’s also not a very big deal. Actually it matters more in code for search-ability but for documentation and comments? Give me a fucking break.

clutter55561 · a month ago
I see nothing pedantic in flagging capitalisation errors, but I see loads wrong with imposing one’s sloppiness on others.
clutter55561 commented on The App Store was always authoritarian   infrequently.org/2025/10/... · Posted by u/bertman
lioeters · 4 months ago
It was made clear to the public in that dinner with tech CEOs, how they bent the knee, spoke sweet flattering words, and gave gifts to the naked king. That was some medieval theater, and they all knew if they upset the king, he will crush their wealth like a tower made of Lego bricks.
clutter55561 · 4 months ago
That, for me, was a turning point in the western society as well knew it.
clutter55561 commented on The App Store was always authoritarian   infrequently.org/2025/10/... · Posted by u/bertman
schoen · 4 months ago
Note that Apple's app store transparency report (thanks to them for publishing this, they don't have to)

https://www.apple.com/legal/more-resources/docs/2024-App-Sto...

says that there are over 1700 apps removed per year due to "government takedown demands". Since this is separate from about 2 million (!) apps they rejected from the app store and about 80,000 apps they removed from the app store on their own initiative, it stands to reason that they would have disagreed with quite a lot of those requests, but they still obeyed them.

One could think about this in at least two ways:

(1) If the 2,000,000 apps they rejected or the 80,000 apps they removed on their own initiative were very dangerous or very harmful in some way, one might believe that Apple's huge and arbitrary power over iPhones is ultimately beneficial because it's mostly used to protect people, and only slightly used to uphold state power over citizens.

(2) If you compare this to the baseline of "OS developers shouldn't decide what software you can run", then it's already, well, thousands of programs, probably often quite popular ones, that people are being intentionally prevented from using because their governments disapprove. And probably quite routinely for reasons that large parts of the population would disagree with. It is already a frequent event; in some countries (it's a long tail so the absolute majority of the removals in 2024 were attributable to the PRC!) it's plausible that most iPhone users directly experience the results of app censorship.

(You could add to this that users would also be divided about some of Apple's decisions on its own initiative, primarily apps that the company banned for sexual or violent content, usually fictional. Some users may agree with Apple using its power this way and other users may disagree. A recent example is that they've banned the SpicyChat AI erotic chat app, and probably many other "AI boyfriend/girlfriend" apps. In the past, they've banned apps created by various porn sites.)

I think this issue is confusing. I've always believed that device owners should have complete control of their computing devices and not be subject to other people's power when using them. You can see people in this thread pointing out that sometimes this power is being used to protect users (including from having their devices hijacked by malicious third parties, which would also tend to significantly undermine their control of their devices... although one can then argue about what responsibility different parties had to actively prevent that outcome). The argument that technological paternalism contributes to maximizing users' practical control is an argument that must be engaged with. And also, sometimes it's simply not being used to protect users at all.

By the way, if you get into the object level issue then you can get even more confused:

(1) I think the U.S. government probably wanted to ban this particular app merely because it was successful at helping people avoid deportation. But it might turn out that, with this app or with some future app that looks superficially similar, it actually is being used to coordinate violent attacks, even if the developer didn't intend that outcome. At some point, governments will have a case that there is some kind of meaningful physical-world harm associated with the observed usage of some piece of software. (More on that in other points below.)

(2) If Apple literally prevented itself from having the power to approve or reject software for iOS (e.g. by allowing "sideloading", which was the norm for almost all historical computing environments), then you literally could have apps that explicitly describe themselves as meant to coordinate violence (against law enforcement, against minority groups, against specific people, or whatever). This is not a strawman. It's really easy to write such an app. There is no reason to think that people who know how to write apps are all refraining from writing violence-coordination apps. In other contexts, people might be able to agree not to blame toolmakers for downstream uses of their tools, like not blaming radio manufacturers for having their radios be able to receive the broadcast incitements to genocide in Rwanda in the 1990s. So maybe we would eventually similarly be able to agree not to blame Apple for making an OS that could run the "Let's Kill ______" third-party app. But we should understand that on some occasions such an app would probably exist. You know, there are video games whose content is actually pretty gross by almost any given standard. A lot of people have been able to agree that those games can exist, or at least that people other than the developers bear no responsibility for their availability.

(3) You could say that Apple should just make good ethical object-level case-by-case decisions about how to use its power, which is probably what they try to do most of the time, but they sometimes fail, or sometimes there isn't a consensus within the company or within a society about what the right call should be. In this case, we're going to be back here again and again talking about the merits of different app bans, when they manage to get wide enough attention. Remember, again, there were already 1700 app bans per year last year, and presumably lots of governments are only just waking up to the possibility of demanding them!

(4) Governments are already using offline harms to justify incredibly intrusive control of computing and communications. Some of those offline harms are real, not speculative. For example, there really were lynchings coordinated via WhatsApp groups and via WhatsApp memes in several developing countries. The remedies and "solutions" that many governments have suggested in response to such things are incredibly scary.

clutter55561 · 4 months ago
Excellent points. I don’t think anyone has a problem with app removal per se, but with the fact that Apple is bending the knee to a corrupt government to buy favours. When that happens, people lose trust that apps were removed for safeguarding and start wondering “what are they hiding from me”.
clutter55561 commented on The App Store was always authoritarian   infrequently.org/2025/10/... · Posted by u/bertman
slightlyoff · 4 months ago
Author here. You seem to have missed the bleedingly obvious point that responsibilities are a function of scale.

Nothing you allege was missed, and indeed it was considered at length in the longer series on these topics:

https://infrequently.org/series/browser-choice-must-matter/

clutter55561 · 4 months ago
Not sure what you mean by “responsibilities are a function of scale”. “With great power comes great responsibility”?

Like I said, it is a good article, about an important topic, but you already knew that. I mostly agree with you - not that my opinion is particularly important. It prompted me to comment for only the second time.

I’ll take a lot at the rest of the series later.

clutter55561 commented on The App Store was always authoritarian   infrequently.org/2025/10/... · Posted by u/bertman
clutter55561 · 4 months ago
Well written, but its starting point seems to be “Apple used to be force for good”. — It is a corporation. It wants your money. This is not new. This is not any different from Lilly (Mounjaro), or Google, or any other, er… corporation.

The idea that a CEO will stand up to his democratically elected dictator is absurd. Why should he, when the dictator is merely implementing the policies he said he would during the campaign and still got elected? Why should he make himself and his company and his shareholders martyrs?

Because many people hold Apple to higher standards, that is why.

clutter55561 commented on AI: Accelerated Incompetence   slater.dev/accelerated-in... · Posted by u/stevekrouse
clutter55561 · 8 months ago
A lot of the discourse around AI, and LLMs specifically, suffer terribly from FOMO and cognitive biases such as confirmation bias and anthropomorphism. The fact that AI/LLMs are commercial concerns makes it even more difficult to distinguish reality from bullshit.

I’m not a LLM user myself, but I’m slowly incorporating (forcing myself, really) AI into my workflow. I can see how AI as a tool might add value; not very different from, say, learning to touch-type or becoming proficient in Vim.

What is clear to me is that powerful tools lower entry barriers. Think Python vs C++. How many more people can be productive in the former vs the latter? It is also true that powerful tools lend themselves to potentially shitty products. C++ that is really shitty tends to break early, if it compiles at all, whereas Python is very forgiving. Intellisense is another such technology that lowers barriers.

Python itself is a good example of what LLMs can become. Python went from a super powerful tool in a jack-of-trades-master-of-none sort of way, to a rich data DSL driven by Numpy, Scipy, Pandas, Scikit, Jupyter, Torch, Matplotlib and many others; then it experienced another growth spurt with the advent of Rust tooling, and it is still improving with type checkers, free threading and even more stuff written in Rust - but towards correctness, not more power.

I really do hope that we can move past the current fomo/marketing/bullshit stage at some point, and focus on real and reproducible productivity gains.

u/clutter55561

KarmaCake day25May 27, 2025View Original