Readit NewsMy instincts approve of this, so the vibe is good, so I will do it. Absent is the conscious attempt to understand the pros and cons
It's a lot more scary to admit that there is no evil puppet master running things, and it's simply that the vast majority of people in leadership positions are just awful people, acting independently, but aligned with the rest of the awful people, intent on doing whatever it takes to make line go up and to the right.
And as you can downvote a comment so HN is self-regulating.
The sad thing is that we enthusiasts are a small market compared to the overwhelming majority of computer users who don't mind locked-down devices, or at least until they've been bitten by the restrictions, but if there are no alternatives other than retrocomputing, then it's too late. For decades we enthusiasts have been able to benefit from other markets with overlapping needs such as gaming, workstations, and corporate servers. However, many on-premise servers have been replaced by cloud services, the workstation market has been subsumed by the broader PC market, and PC gaming has faced challenges, from a push toward locked-down consoles to challenges in the GPU market due to competition with cryptocurrency mining and now AI.
One of the things I'm increasingly disappointed with is the dominance of large corporations in computing. It seems harder for small players to survive in this ecosystem. Software has to deal with network effects and large companies owning major platforms, and building your own hardware requires tons of capital.
I wonder if it's possible even for a company to make even 1980s-era electronics without massive capital expenditures? How feasible is it for a small company to manufacture the equivalent of a Motorola 68000 or Intel 386?
I'd like to see a market for hobbyist computing by hobbyist computer shops, but I'm not sure it's economically feasible.
This seems perhaps tautological whenever the treatment intensity is binary, and it's an effective treatment. Someone at the threshold that receives treatment would necessarily do better than someone at the threshold not receiving the treatment.
It's a pretty good argument against any binary treatments, or at least to set the threshold low enough that improvement with treatment at the threshold is minimal.
Self censorship is the sort of thing we used to look at pekple in China doing and think was strange.
It does become unhealthy if important things go unsaid.
I could agree with you in theory, but do you see the technology used that way? Because I definitely don't. The thought process behind the vast majority of LLM-generated content is "how do I get more clicks with less effort", not "here's a unique, personal perspective of mine, let's use a chatbot to express it more eloquently".
I don't really see the difference between the two though.