@bender@twtxt.net … boom, 5500+ hits on that blog post. 🤣 Should I start monetizing this shit?! 🤪 (Don’t worry, I won’t. German law gets super annoying if you do that kind of thing.)

@movq@www.uninformativ.de oh, I knew it wasn’t you. It is just nice to see your hobby was noticed. :-)

@bender@twtxt.net Oh, well, thanks, I guess? 😅 (This “zdw” person isn’t me. I don’t even have an account at HackerNews. 😅)

@bender@twtxt.net upvoted too 👌

Upvoted, @movq@www.uninformativ.de! See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48331329

@itsericwoodward@itsericwoodward.com noticed absolutely nothing. Happy developing!

@itsericwoodward@itsericwoodward.com Excited to see twtxt tooling in the Node ecosystem! Any plans to implement the Twtxt v2 extensions? Things like Twt Hash + Subject (proper threading), Multiline, etc. — all documented at https://twtxt.dev 👀

@itsericwoodward@itsericwoodward.com All good here 👌

@bender@twtxt.net Thank you, we think so too.

I’m glad you like it!

@itsericwoodward@itsericwoodward.com that second one… 😍! Shadow is such a handsome boy!

@movq@www.uninformativ.de Hahaha, a ride indeed. Exactly, this affected each and every Atom feed and only Atom feeds. All RSS feeds worked like nothing ever happened. This std::string to time_t to std::string to time_t dance only happens for Atom feeds. RSS feeds, on the other hand, go right from std::string to time_t and be done. That’s precisely what the second option is aiming to propose for Atom feeds, too.

I will clarify that tomorrow in the article.

It’s very interesting what kind of quirks accumulate in software over the years. Especially quirks, the basically noone knows of anymore. Until something explodes and gets rediscovered. Luckily, that doesn’t happen all that often.

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org Oh, nice. That was quite the ride. :-) And all that because of locales. 😳

But, did I understand that correctly? All Atom feeds were broken, right? Because they all use that same code path with that strftime/strptime dance in it?

@bender@twtxt.net No way, impossible! Which pattern could you have possibly spot? :-D

@bender@twtxt.net Doesn’t happen often. And when it does, it’s a matter of just a few minutes.

@movq@www.uninformativ.de Oh yes, very cruel. Absolutely. But also beautiful sometimes.

@movq@www.uninformativ.de Wow, quite the background noise! I like the birds, though. :-)

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org love them! I hunt for those here. I enjoy watching it as it happens. Never that red, though.

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org I notice a theme here, but can’t quite place my finger on it… 🤭

@movq@www.uninformativ.de that was lovely! I especially liked the rain. I truly am a sucker for rain!

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org It’s OK, it’s still WIP. You’re just helping make it more robust. 😁

@arne@uplegger.eu I’m similar… I use “I” most of the time (mostly in planning or trying to focus, ex: “I’m going to do X, then Y”), but I also use “you” when fussing at myself for my perceived faults or mistakes (that’s my “lizard brain”, we don’t get along so well because he’s kind of a jerk).

@prologic@twtxt.net you went to sleep so early! It’s barely 14:19. 😂

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org Nature is cruel.

And the humidity sucks. It’s been a horrible day. 🥴

@prologic@twtxt.net Jesus, that’s expensive. 🥴

@bender@twtxt.net LOL 😂

@prologic@twtxt.net my gosh, that’s some expensive lottery! I have the feeling I would win, but I never play. 🤭 Wife, on the other hand, does. East and west coast, with a bunch of her friends (a pool). They win nothing, for many years. 😅

@movq@www.uninformativ.de $95 🤣 So I’m down a fair bit 😳

@prologic@twtxt.net lol, well, better than nothing, eh? What did the tickets cost? 😅

@movq@www.uninformativ.de I came across that in some of these threads, too. I should probably give OpenRsync a shot.

@movq@www.uninformativ.de I guess I’m not so lucky haha 🤣 Only won $32 AUD 😅

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org @tftp@tilde.town Someone has pointed out that there’s OpenRsync:

https://www.openrsync.org/

Since I run OpenBSD on my servers, I actually do use that and have never noticed any incompatibilities with the “normal” rsync.

@bender@twtxt.net I’ll think about it. :-)

@movq@www.uninformativ.de Hah 😅

@movq@www.uninformativ.de Hah 😅 One thing I’ve learned in my life (as I’ve had many good manegers over the years teach me as much) is:

Strong opinions, held loosely.

I have my opinions too, but I also see positives and benefits and I am optimistic that we will collectively figure out a path forward.

@prologic@twtxt.net You actually did? 😅 Good luck. 😅 I never dared to, I’d probably get addicted. 🤣

@movq@www.uninformativ.de Amen 🙏

@prologic@twtxt.net Oh yeah, same here. 😞 Let’s all just win the lottery and stop with this damn work thing. 🤣

@movq@www.uninformativ.de All good, I’m tired too. Work has been burning me out lately 🥵

@movq@www.uninformativ.de Yes 👍

@prologic@twtxt.net (I hope I’m not too incoherent. I didn’t sleep very well recently and have a lot of unrelated stuff on my mind. 🤣)

@prologic@twtxt.net Ah, so that’s what “Bob” is. I saw that popping up in email notifications. 😅

@prologic@twtxt.net

it’s “probabilistic” not “deterministic”

Yep, I know. And when I tell that to people and tell them “if we use AI here, we lose the ability to debug this stuff”, then all I get is: “But it’s good enough. We don’t need to debug this. Non-deterministic computing has its use cases.”

But that is just not how I’d like to model/implement our business processes. 🤔 I want something reliable, not “it mostly works”.

@movq@www.uninformativ.de I’m kind of flag you bring thi sup, because you simply can’t. You wouldn’t even be able to in an atypical neural network either (which is what ehse things are anyway). The problem here really isn’t the so-called “AI” (I wish we’d stop calling it AI), but the flawed usage(s) thereof. I believe I even stated earlier in this thread that sometimes it may not do what you expect, it’s “probabilistic” not “deterministic” – those pushing for greater use need to understand this, those not happy with the “push”, should educate the ignorant here (especailly managers pushing for weak, insecure and bad uses).

@prologic@twtxt.net Ahh, I see. Okay, I’m with you there. On this high level, I can understand how the thing works.

Maybe my wording isn’t good. 🤔 Let’s take a real life example from what we do at work.

There’s this AI chatbot. It gets support requests from users, so the user says something like “I need access to a particular system”. This triggers the bot to “run” the instructions stored in a large Markdown file, like “check if the user is authorized to do this, then issue the following API requests”, and so on. This is essentially like running a little script, except it’s written in natural language (German) and there’s no “script interpreter” but just the AI.

Now, suppose that the AI doesn’t quite do what was intended. There’s some subtle bug. How do you debug this? How do you find out how the AI came to the “conclusion” to run step A instead of step B? And how do you find out how exactly you have to change your prompt so this doesn’t happen again next time?

If this was an actual script/program instead of AI, you could repeat the request and attach a debugger or throw in some printf() or whatever. How do you do that kind of thing with AI? How do you pinpoint exactly what the problem was?

(Or is this just a stupid idea? Do we have to give up that way of thinking when using AI? Is the era of debuggability over?)

@movq@www.uninformativ.de I think your points are pretty clear to me, that’s fine. I’m just seeing if you can perhaps see things a different way maybe?🤔 I would challenge the assertion that you cannot understand how Claude Code generated an output; which I can demonstrate easily with a fairly trivial example by the input:

Write a program in Go that sums a list of numbers from stdin and prints the result.

@prologic@twtxt.net Yeah, it’s hard to get my point across here. I tried to address that a few paragraphs down.

Yes, I can tinker with AI techniques on a general level. That’s cool but not really my area of interest.

What I certainly can’t do is learn how specific AI products work. I can’t possibly find out why Claude Code produced that particular line of code. Claude is just a magic box that does something and I have to trust it.

@bender@twtxt.net So yeah, no, I do not have an inner monologue at all. Most of the time my inner mind is busy just replaying music or visuals (or at least it used to before I lost my sight, these days it just replays visuals and sounds), but there is never a time when I “talk to myself”, ever, I don’t ever think through something, a problem or an activity and have self-arguments. I just do.

@bender@twtxt.net Fine, Let me answer properly and concretely 😅

Would you want your children not to learn anything, because “they have AI”?

No, children still need to learn. That will never change. What they learn however will over time.

Are you OK with your children using the AI for all of their homework?

Yes, frankly I am. Why? Because much of what we teach them in school is utterly pointless.
For example, learning to read Shakespear never taught me anything useful in my life. I regret much of my school years to be honest.
I leanred to read and write, sure. But I learned Math, Science, Computing and how things work on my own by being very curious.

What sense will it make?

That assumes I answered “no”, which I did not. So it all makes perfect sense :D

What kind of future would that bring for them?

This assumes I said “Yes”, which I did :D It will be an itneresting future that’s for sure. I don’t think we can just bury our heads in teh sand and pretend it’s all going to go away, It will not. It will make things very interesting for sure, as we’re already starting to see what’s possible and what’s changeing. For example; ordinary people are using these LLM(s) to write their legal suit and defense in courts with varying levels of success.

Even if AI were to become omniscient, what will it be of the human race then?

I’m not convinced it ever will. In fact, I am not convinced we know how to create true intellience at all.

What would we do?

What would be so different from say an Alien invasion from far superious beings?
What would we do that? Band together and defend humanity?

Serve the AI? Maintain the AI?

That assumes that “AI” will become intelligent and omniscient, which I don’t believe it ever will.

Would we have found the true meaning of life then?

If the meaning of life is to create our own sub-species liken to ourselves, sure, maybe. But is that even a reality? not sure, I doubt it. We barely understand ourselves at the best of times, let alone how our minds works.

To care for AI, Is that it?

How would this be different to caring for a friend, a family member If we could ever truly reate an actual sentient being with real feelings and intelligenace, is there any reason to worry? Could we not be freinds and have mutual goals and form relationships?

@prologic@twtxt.net so, “people with no inner monologue—a condition researchers sometimes refer to as anendophasia”, says the AI. Then “it is not a disorder: lacking an inner voice is simply a different, perfectly healthy way of being human”. Ah, so a condition, but a healthy one. Got it.

Again, I am not talking about a true monologue. If you have never thought “OK, let’s do this!” before engaging on an activity, then alright. Weird, in contrast to the rest of us, hard to believe, yes, but I believe you. Much of the troubleshooting, and creativity that comes with thought involves, well, thoughts. Maybe you are closer to AI than the rest of us, indeed! 🤪😂

@prologic@twtxt.net don’t get mad at me, but the long block of text didn’t address any of my questions. 😜😅