Makes sense. I've always assumed that OpenBSD has a very narrow use case anyway. I love it for a network firewall because the configuration files are sane and easy to understand (stares at systemd networkd). I set it and forget it.
it is easier to setup a openbsd vm and have it handle all the network routing and wireguard stuff, than it is to simply disable the unrequested zeroconf stuff included in systemd-networkd/resolvd.
I personally think systemd, which I despise, won and effort would be better allocated trying to improve it (e.g. ripping the zero conf stuff from it to begin with)
> "In addition to help prevent the pen from leaking, [...]"
So maybe the hole somehow prevents leaks, which would prevent drying in the sense of no more ink :) Maybe it prevents leaks by making the ink at the tip dry out.
Fountain pens are a different matter and many modern pens have perforated caps. The usual fix is a spot of candle wax to seal them up. (The wax can easily be removed with warm water should you feel the need).
A ball point pen dispenses ink by the little ball rotating. So the lid is more to prevent that happening than to stop the residual ink dying.
That said, the only time I've ever had a ball point leak is when the ball is upwards and the ink reservoir opening down, so I would always put the lid on and pop it in the pocket lid down, making a mockery of the clip.
I wonder how little snitch sets the dns encryption up. In macOS, you need to setup encrypted dns via a profile System (Settings => General => VPN, DNS & Device Management) and then in the browser. However, I think terminal and appstore still use whatever server is obtained via DHCP and is not encrypted.
(newbie checking) tsnet is a really interested idea -- that an application can act like a device with networking baked in. that applicatin access can be controlled at the network level via the tailescale ACLs.
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but some jobs shouldn't exist. We should fire some terrible jobs that can be done by machines.
Most of the content being manufactured today is quite lazy and I'm fine with AI writing it because I won't see it anyway.
But replacing a person without helping them grow into a new and more impactful job isn't the way to do this. I wish more companies would 'fire' certain types of work and help their employees grow into other roles.
The problem is that many of what you describe as "terrible" jobs are just a low-overhead way for creative folks to pay their bills. You don't make a living writing timeless poems or painting masterpieces, at least not usually. You make a living doing copyediting or painting commissioned artwork - and then work on achieving greatness in your free time.
AI doesn't have to be good to destroy this income. This is making it harder for creativity to thrive. Relatively few budding artists can count on private patronage or government sponsorship, and both of these come with plenty of strings attached. And pie-in-the-sky ideas like universal income are not going to wish the problem away.
There is some history here, like the musicians that went on strikes and picketed radio stations after one dared to play a record on the radio instead of a live orchestra!
Music is sort of its own thing. Individual musicians can put their music out there and gain a following. Visual art not so much. Not many people care about “great artists”. Most visual artists make a living making art assets of no particular individual expression and are at a lot of risk imo. I’m not sure that I believe most musicians make a living composing music.
Also the creation of musak can be done by much more wider amount of people and requires less studying. Like driver I we requires less studying than driving a black cab without GPS.
> Relatively few budding artists can count on private patronage or government sponsorship, and both of these come with plenty of strings attached.
It follows that mass-AI adoption should tilt the creative economic model more towards state-funding, ideally supported by a tax on AI usage. (i.e. taxing and reallocating some of the value saved by using it, to redress the things it's probably destroying)
Curious to see how you'd write this legislation. Because I know a lot of programmers and lawyers, and they're all a lot better at finding loopholes than preventing them.
Those are some pretty high-level bullet points. Say I'd like to build out a rendering farm with a bunch of GPUs to support the movie industry. On paper, my hardware is good for rendering, crypto, and AI. Do I get taxed?
>state-funding, ideally supported by a tax on AI usage
Why should the state be funding artists in the first place? If the public can't be convinced to patronize artists directly (eg. buying their stuff), what makes you think they'd want to be compelled to fund artists via taxation?
For the same reason democratic states should fund news and education -- because it's in the public's interest to have these things.
And because when you run a capitalist economy, things that aren't profitable... don't spontaneously spring into existence at scale.
Unlike the travesty we made of rolling out social media, maybe we should think about what AI will cannibalize in the future, what we'd like to keep, and set up systems to financially support those things?
Personally, I'd rather not live in a future where all music, art, and news is the same milquetoast pablum regurgitated by an LLM.
But that means finding an economic model where not-that is feasible.
>For the same reason democratic states should fund news and education -- because it's in the public's interest to have these things.
Is it? What are we going to miss out on if art's purely commercial? The most visible art that the public sees is already commercial, whether it's music on spotify or movies in theaters. Hell, even most art that's in museums are commissions funded by wealthy patrons. If anything, government funded art is a recent phenomena, and we have gotten along just fine without it.
> What are we going to miss out on if art's purely commercial?
Opinions that are commercially unpopular, and the larger and more diverse talent pool to generate art of all sorts.
Patronage is a corrupting influence, and I'd feel much better about most art being funded through public grants (even via a baroque allocation system) than by Starbucks.
Because it's funny, labor organization never seems to come up as a theme in Starbucks-sponsored art...
> If anything, government funded art is a recent phenomena
That's stretching the truth a bit, or are we not considering the Catholic Church or Medicis government? Or not recent?
(to pull the most pop-culture examples, without delving into the actual royal courts/republics)
How would you prevent the government from similarly imposing a corrupting influence on artists?
There are plenty of historical examples of art that opposed the government and likely played a part in changing public opinion. There's a pretty reasonable argument to be made that art plays an important role as a check on authority when needed.
You put the organization that funds it at arm's length from the actual government.
Positions in it, all the way to the top, are regular jobs that get hired for, not political appointments. Write something into its charter about the funding never being conditional on content, only on some proof of ability. Make the amount of funding (for the organization as a whole) indexed to something meaningful—like inflation, or Congressional salaries, or something like that, with a multiplier based on national population—rather than having to be appropriated annually or at some fixed level.
It's not perfect, and it can't be, because Congress can always decide they don't like what it's doing and go back and meddle. But there are many safeguards that can be put into place to reduce the amount of direct government interference with such an organization—and those above are just what I could come up with off the top of my head in a couple of minutes. Given a committee with an actual mandate to assemble something like this, and people who are genuinely interested in doing so, I'm sure a much more solid framework could be ironed out.
Agreed. I don't think it's easy or that unchecked government funding is a panacea.
But I do think it fills in a public need that the free market is blind to. And perhaps structurally incapable of addressing. (Bezos running a charity newspaper notwithstanding)
The NIH / DOE / NSF grant process has its trend-following and insider problems, but generally parcels out money in an acceptable way. It's not impossible.
Of course there are plenty of creative people who pay the bills by doing things other than the commoditized analogue to their art, no? The stereotypical actor waiting tables comes to mind, as does Einstein in the patent office.
Frankly it used to be a lot easier to support yourself working a blue collar job part time or full-time (40h) and still have a lot of free time left over for creative endeavor. The technologically mediated rise of productivity has been accompanied by steady erosion of perceived value for non-technical labor, along with a great deal of implicit classism ('i don't want to do a job like that, therefore such jobs are worthless').
Has it occurred to you that those jobs are finite? Can restaurants continue to exist if we have scores of under/unemployed people working as waitstaff, who don't make enough money to eat out themselves?
Previous rounds of innovation and steep changes in work/jobs, all the way back to the industrial revolution, were both a) not seamless transitions and left huge swathes of highly skilled people impoverished for the remainder of their lives, and b) for those who did transition to new jobs, there were new jobs for them to transition to. Not everyone can learn to be an AI developer. What jobs does AI create? Is everyone who isn't well versed enough in IT infrastructure going to have get a job as a janitor working the data centers for Azure cloud? Those are going to be some clean bloody floors.
I get so tired of the rhetorical "this has happened before," no it really fucking hasn't. Not on this scale, and not when having money was so utterly critical to one's ability to survive.
>That brings up an old question: who gets to decide a job is terrible?
Them market. If your job provides value, then you shouldn't have problem finding people to pay you to do it. If you can't... maybe we shouldn't keep it around.
>Maybe someday, someone in power will decide a job you gain fulfillment from is a terrible job.
What are you trying to get at here, that because losing your job sucks and anyone's job could be at risk, we shouldn't be eliminating jobs at all?
> That brings up an old question: who gets to decide a job is terrible?
Well, if a job can be done by a machine, it should be done by a machine - after all, if there is one thing common across humanity, it is the desire for progress.
The problem is that unlike what was believed a century ago, automation did not lead to less work for humans at all, quite the contrary: our ancestors fought (often literally to death) for the 40 hour week, and that was enough to feed a family on. Nowadays both people have to work (way more than) 40 hours a week to afford a shack, and politicians wonder our generation doesn't have kids. Guess fucking what, why they don't. And ask yourself where the fuck all that extra wealth from all the women working full-time ended up, hint: not in your bank account.
> Well, if a job can be done by a machine, it should be done by a machine - after all, if there is one thing common across humanity, it is the desire for progress.
Is that really progress though? Honestly, more and more jobs can be done by machines. But what about the fact that human beings need to connect and feel at least that they are contributing somewhat to society?
Progress is not synonymous with automation. And it's not universal across humanity. The Amish recognize that not all automation is good and they hold meetings to decide which technologies should be introduced.
Many people realize that there is an ideal point of automation -- and complete automation is not ideal.
> Is that really progress though? Honestly, more and more jobs can be done by machines. But what about the fact that human beings need to connect and feel at least that they are contributing somewhat to society?
Well, if people's basic needs would be taken care of (=UBI financed by taxes on automation, or by just plainly taxing the rich), they could have time left for actually contributing to society - anything from caring for the elderly to making art.
> they could have time left for actually contributing to society - anything from caring for the elderly to making art.
That is an assumption that is not obviously true at all. Plenty of people are not creatives and not self-directed enough to do so. But even if they are motivated, can we really be sure that such a soceity would work, because people will know they are not truly needed?
To be honest, already, society seems rather meaningless in some ways and I think a lot of people find meaning in their work that they would not if no one really valued them economically.
And also, people may make art, but automation now also seems to imply that the world will drown in a sea of AI-generated art that may make actually getting such art to a wide audience almost impossible.
To me, it is far from clear than a totally automated society will be any sort of utopia.
I honestly have no idea why the fantasy persists that people given free time will broadly start contributing to society when there's so much evidence to the contrary like the Asian hikikomori phenomenon and their western equivalents. People will simply vegetate in front of their TV / smartphone.
Because actual scientific studies that have been conducted on such efforts have shown, over and over and over and over again, that it's true.
Some people, when given the resources to thrive without having to work, take a bunch of time off in order to heal from long-term burnout. But even most of them will eventually return to doing something productive of some sort.
"...actual scientific studies..." eh? Let's set aside that one can find studies that say anything one wants, let's set aside that replication is much less likely in the social sciences, please list the top three studies that you personally read that persuaded you that your position is true. If you do provide them, I will take the time to read them; my extensive time spent in the lower social economic strata of society gives me a lot of data points that say otherwise but I'll give the papers a fair shake. If you pull the "do your own research" rhetorical gambit or just dig up the top hits by Googling, that means you were bluffing about "scientific studies" all along.
It is a fantasy that technophiles tell themselves so they can sleep a little better at night even though they are at the forefront of an unsustainable society.
> Is that really progress though? Honestly, more and more jobs can be done by machines. But what about the fact that human beings need to connect and feel at least that they are contributing somewhat to society?
> if there is one thing common across humanity, it is the desire for progress.
I agree that more stuff should be automated, but you’re so very wrong on this one that you should spend more time with human beings to understand why you’re so wrong. Ironical for someone who’s advocating for automation.
> Well, if a job can be done by a machine, it should be done by a machine
This is an opinion, although I suspect you hold it strongly.
> after all, if there is one thing common across humanity, it is the desire for progress.
How do you define progress? Pure production and consumption? Net increase in subjective happiness across all people?
If I can make a book recommendation, check out the Culture series by Iain M. Banks. These are well-trodden thought experiments in science fiction, and they're more relevant than ever.
> Well, if a job can be done by a machine, it should be done by a machine - after all, if there is one thing common across humanity, it is the desire for progress.
Sure, but what is "progress"? Who gets to define it.
Are we sure "if a job can be done by a machine, it should be done by a machine" is universally true -- and even if it is, who and what says that that's necessarily equal to "progress"?
It may have ended up in more than doubling the sqft housing per person, increased cost of paying for the negative externalities resulting from the altered system, better technology for the rich/poor alike, etc.
I envision a world where people work only 10 hours a week or not at all for an employer because machines take care of that. Humans are free to do whatever they want, be it sports, arts, craftsmanship, socializing, care work or whatever.
The problem is that the author's job was already pretty far down the "fire certain types of work" pipeline. By his own account, he was writing 1 column every 3 weeks, for an unprofitable magazine, as a freelancer with no formal employment relationship. If they'd been responsible in the way you're wishing for, they would have never hired him at all, knowing they don't have the money to treat him as a valued employee.
That’s the problem right now. Throughout the history, jobs get diminished and new ones came on.
However, the transition took many many years to happen. Take an example a conductor in a bus to collect the fare, took many years to replace and via stages.
With AI, there are so many jobs (I agree shouldn’t exist) that had been impacted really quick before even preparing to learn a new skill.
Another problem is you don’t expect everyone to learn at the same pace.
If you have tried to use a search engine to look anything up in the last few years you have seen AI generated articles that aimlessly meander for paragraphs without providing an actual answer to your question.
Those answers were previously (occasionally)contained within succinct articles written by someone who did some research or was an SME.
Maybe it was the case that content farms were degrading the ability for information to be found on the internet, but AI has basically dropped a nuke on search results.
To be fair to LLMs, you can create a custom rule for it to be brief and concise, or pretty much anything really. I personally blame the users who are actively trying to seem like wordsmiths by having all the pointless fluff around the meat and potatoes.
I am not sure if AI is purely to blame for this. Looking at recipes I have to scroll through lot of text to see the recipe and ingredients list... Similar thing goes for product recommendations. I remember it being pretty bad even before LLMs.
Let’s not rewrite history here. Search results were full of aimless, meandering SEO-optimized articles long before it became possible to generate those with LLMs.
The problem is that we have chosen an economic system based around jobs. If you don't have a job, you die - quickly or slowly, directly or indirectly, doesn't matter, society has no use for you. So people are obviously incentivized to try to create bullshit jobs they can slot into.
