@4bpp's banner p

4bpp

Now I am become a Helpful, Honest and Harmless Assistant, the destroyer of jobs

3 followers   follows 2 users  
joined 2022 September 05 01:50:31 UTC

<3


				

User ID: 355

4bpp

Now I am become a Helpful, Honest and Harmless Assistant, the destroyer of jobs

3 followers   follows 2 users   joined 2022 September 05 01:50:31 UTC

					

<3


					

User ID: 355

I'm familiar enough with the general idea of Genji, and I don't buy the claim of lineage here. If you want to go for straight up similarity, you will find that Goblin Slayer and Maoyuu are closer to the Canterbury Tales than to it; after all, the fantasy stories are neither trying to be a roman à clef nor are they encoding a setting in which social etiquette is implied to demand that the characters relate to each other in a formally prescribed way (unless you want to go as far as making the thesis that every particularly tropey Japanese story is just reflecting a Confucian ritualistic view of the world, which I guess would be a hit as a Japanese Studies undergrad course-paper).

Of course, if you write a story in Japanese where the characters are referred to as Minister of the Left and Consort soandso and what-not, you will get an old-timey feeling, because the roles are stock old-timey roles. You can also write a story in which all characters are only referred to by monikers like section chief and sub-chief and senpai; this will not give you a "long, long ago" feel, but a Dilbertian cubicle life feel. If you write a story in which the characters are Hero and Monk and Guild Receptionist, it will evoke the setting in which those are the roles, which is every piece of post-1989 Japanese fantasy schlock.

On the other hand, the early 2010s, when I just entered grad school, seemed to be the exact watershed moment in the US where some part of anime culture went irrevocably mainstream. I remember being taken aback at the undergraduates (including a large well-adjusted Greek Life chad/stacy contingent) constantly spamming JoJo memes in office hours and homework, trying to square it with the previous generation of JoJo memes that were the province of fat 2ch otaku who are paranoid about Korean conspiracies to steal their pure Yamato seed and their fat Western VHS sub otaku admirers.

Evangelion is older than SE Lain by several years. I would not recommend Goblin Slayer to anyone not immersed in genre conventions; even ignoring the edgy premise, the whole thing is just deliberately made of a specific set of tropes (the Japanese riff on DnD high fantasy, codified perhaps by Record of RhodosLodoss War back in 198X and then iteratively reinforced over the decades) to the point the characters don't even have names but are only known by the archetypes they represent.

There are decent respectable normie-compatible anime series coming out with fair regularity even now. Sousou no Frieren should resonate with everyone in the melancholic set that was watching YKK back when I was an undergraduate. Spy x Family is probably the best pro-natalist comedy fluff since Yotsuba&.

I thought that making noise in movie theatres is an American thing. I noticed it with a healthy amount of dismay the one time I watched a movie in a US cinema (the first Star Wars sequel, at the SO's urging; some very central location in Boston next to a park, I could probably pinpoint the exact cinema if necessary), and was told that this is normal.

Microsoft also wrote and maintains (and seemingly occasionally mostly rewrites) Visual Studio proper, though, and there are many other production-grade IDEs written in C++. Sublime Text, afaik, is C/C++ and has more than feature parity with Zed; CodeLite and Code::Blocks both are C/C++ and are also not lacking particularly much (though the latter is also kind of buggy and the former became enshittified in what seems to have been an overambitious rewrite). Rust is really not easier or faster to write, even if you suffer from a peculiar disease that makes you introduce memory-related bugs at a much higher rate than anything else.

The point I'm converging on is that C/C++ actually makes the Github community-driven development model easier, precisely because it makes bugs so apparent that you don't get away with tech debt. Perhaps the synthesis of my views and those of Rust acolytes is something like that there are multiple abstraction levels of "badness", and failures at each of them happen to correlate decayingly with failures at the higher levels. At level 0 you have local failures of consistent memory management, of the type the Rust borrow manager catches. At level 1 you have macroscopic failures of logic, including a big number of ones that turn out to involve the flow of data ownership around your program and may result in characteristic double-free or null-pointer errors of the type that crashes under specific circumstances to the surprise of the programmer. At level 2 you have even more macroscopic failures of program design, such as a fundamentally inappropriate modularisation of your program that causes you to repeat yourself, or not exposing a sensitive and fragile process (such as Zed's tool call parsing) that really ought to be exposed for diagnostics. Rust's compiler flags level-0 failures really well, thereby exposing and forcing the programmer to deal with level-1 failures; but it turns out level-1 failures, if not suppressed, are a good way to expose level-2 failures, so Rust actually increases the number of unaddressed level-2 failures. (In concrete terms, being flooded with Github bug reports that contain actual crash stack traces winds up forcing the developers to deal with level 2 if they want to stop the flood.)

I didn't even know VSCode contained any C++. GitHub says 96% typescript, which for this purpose is just another one of the languages that hide the badness of bad programs while also hindering their improvement by not offering the gold standard "stop what you are doing and fix this" signal that is the core dump.

Matter of fact, VSCode still sucks even now.

(I do think interpreted and "memory-safe" languages have a place in network-facing code, where a memory mismanagement crash is actually worse than general shittiness because it also often means the internet can execute arbitrary code on your machine. For localhost@localdomain computing, though, give me SIGSEGV over the constant slow demoralisation and gaslighting from software that is deniably bad any day.)

So why does nobody else care for American Football? Are the other nations so inferior that they don't even see its greatness?

(Is American exceptionalism going the way of Japan now, from "we are so great everyone wants to be us" to "we are so great nobody gets us"?)

The most recent example I can think of is Zed, a "work with LLM agents" IDE written in Rust that has been getting a lot of traction (and seems to be the only way around to do this with a GUI if you don't want to touch Electron). I gave it about two days' college try since I'm on the market for a new IDE (after CodeLite got enshittified with a recent update). Specific examples of suck about it:

  • Quiet or inexplicable failures. If it doesn't like the way the LLM it connects to formats something, it either leaves you with an unactionable error message ("missing field 'path' in tool call") or outright does nothing (such as when it doesn't like the structured text format it gets back from the LLM it connects to for its "smart autocomplete" feature - a state that is indistinguishable to the user from "I failed to connect", "the suggested completion is empty" and "the model is still working"). To debug any of these things, you have to get the raw JSON data it received out of an undocumented sqlite file, and guess what the expected schema is, because that is also undocumented. (It's hard to figure out even from looking at the source, because the JSON data seems to be fed into the handling Rust class by some weird metaprogramming magic rather than an explicitly defined format.)

  • Sometimes parts of it, like the LSP integration, just stop working until you restart it. Again, no visual indication of failure state, the feature just doesn't fire anymore.

  • It tries to do something clever with pending edits, but there is no coherent underlying model. A lot of LLMs clearly assume that they can keep drafting and re-drafting an "edit file" tool call, like submit one that says "add a line saying X between the line that says A and the line that says B" and then follow up with "add a line saying X and a line saying Y between A and B". The latter fails because for the purpose of that tool the state is now A\nX\nB, but if the model tries to read the file again to get a consistent picture it still only reads A\nB.

  • Clearly there is lots of internal code duplication, resulting in non-orthogonal config duplication. There are separate configurations for the "agentic" LLM connection and the "autocomplete" LLM connection, supporting a slightly different subset of protocols, with slightly different design choices e.g. about whether you give the top-level URL of the API endpoint or the most specific one.

  • There is no build system integration whatsoever (even though this is the sine qua non that distinguishes an IDE from a fancy text editor), but the lede is buried about this. I get the sense that they want to have this eventually, but are just not too excited to work on it, while not wanting to pay the marketing cost of outright saying "we are not ready for prime time yet".

  • There is debugger integration, which is supposed to be able to do fancy modern things like letting you see variable values by hovering the variable in the source as you debug. This works about 10% of the time, again with no indication when it fails.

All of this hints at a level of engineering that, if it were C/C++, I'm sure would result in a program that is unusable due to segfaulting all the time, with a reputation to match. In Rust, it instead just keeps running, slowly piling the frustration on you, while the developers psychotically add one shiny new feature after the other and leave the occasional bug reports about the above to rot without a response (because who cares about one user's unverifiable report that some asynchronous thing didn't appear? It's not like they can bring receipts in the form of a stack trace, because there was no crash).

Earlier, the Ladybird web browser was also rewritten in Rust mostly by LLM.

Oh. RIP. "You were supposed to be the chosen one", or something.

Maybe it's my eternal grumpy old "real programmers should write in..." fart eyes biasing me, but every single major project written in Rust that I have tried so far turned out to suffer from the same problem as major projects written in Python and JavaScript did before: it doesn't crash, but it sucks in more subtle ways that make me think that (1) if the language didn't prevent that, it would probably crash every 5 minutes and (2) if it did that, its developers and defenders would at least realise how bad their program is. It's strange because when the "it's memory safe and allows you to focus on the important things!!!" language was Python/JS, the obvious theory to explain this was that the language enables incompetent programmers who are not actually up to the task of engineering big pieces of software; but Rust is not even particularly easy to write, and arguably harder than C++ (unless you fully commit to the early-2000s high corporate obnoxious_template_factory<namespace::bullshit_factory<allocator_factory<...>,...>> style). Still, the filter fails. Maybe the missing puzzle piece is just the AI: it has no trouble emitting walls of lifetime sludge that passes the compiler, but is no better at big-picture decisions than the Python script kiddie, all the while its script-kiddie-in-mindset handler looks at it and figures that because it is Rust and it runs, the program generated is definitionally beyond reproach.

I think it's a similar question to "why do people who clearly know the difference still don fake Prada/Gucci/Rolex apparel". To a lot of people, not being able to "write good" is a lifelong source of feelings of inferiority. AI posting both offers the promise that they can finally get some of the respect that the verbally gifted command (whether justifiedly or not) for themselves, and a bit of a sense that they are getting their cheeky revenge on the system that was keeping them down.

2 is basically saying "if you do this you will lose the culture war". Isn't the whole point of the "don't fight the culture war" rule that you are not allowed to act like you are primarily motivated by winning it? So maybe this is a strange place to be posting if you are swayed by that point.

I don't know if surrogacy would be particularly more popular on the Left in Germany; in fact if I had to make a blind guess I would imagine the FDP to be the party whose electorate is most okay with it, since it really registers as more of a "affluent people defying nature and propriety" vibe than anything with obvious left/right implications. If the CDU makes it a right-wing thing, they are just rationalising their impulses using whatever their chosen branding is.

I'm about as opposed to the Israelis' actions in Palestine as it gets, but I believe that hosting the UN ought to entail some sort of responsibility that surpasses object-level moral concerns. Really, the UN is somewhat like the Motte in that its purpose is to provide a neutral ground for parties to talk to each other who would never do so otherwise, except with the UN there are rather more things at stake.

If the people of NYC can't keep their moral principles in their pants for this higher purpose, maybe they should in fact not be allowed to host the UN, and the headquarters should move to a place with a higher decoupling waterline. It's their loss, or that of the US as a whole if they are incapable of finding any other site to guarantee safe passage for the de facto representatives of every significant piece of clay. (I'm sure China would be happy to set up a special economic zone with hookers and blow somewhere if nobody else is willing to step up.)

So you figure every disgust reaction that exists in humans [in significant numbers] is natural for all of them? In that case, it seems like you are positing that the state of nature is to be disgusted of quite a lot of things, perhaps enough that human functioning is very nearly impossible without training yourself out of some of them. If nature requires that you train away some of your disgust reactions and society determines which ones, is it really fair to say that the ones you happen to keep are all natural and not socially conditioned? I don't know if that helps the case for "gays bad because it is natural to find them disgusting", either.

Not to mention I don't think you can socially condition people into finding things gross

I can't, society at large surely can. Apart from the examples that already came up, there are the food cases of raw fish, animal meat, insects, milk and a variety of fermented products, of which I'd wager the majority of humans on the planet experiences disgust reactions to at least one of. How does your model of disgust reactions as something natural explain that?

Well, a wordcel beloved of many here once quipped that the sovereign determines the null hypothesis, and the current sovereign surely is not on the side of aversion to homosexuality being natural or inevitable.

More prosaically, if what you are seeking to prove is that homosexuality is unnatural, then the outcome that gut responses are not against it due to nature is a null result.

Yet on the other hand people especially on the US right still regularly invoke the memory of the 1979 Iranian hostage taking of US diplomats. How important an event seems to remember greatly depends on how well it meshes with the narrative you are weaving.

(Also, isn't the consensus nowadays that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a US intelligence fabrication, almost up there with Sender Gleiwitz?)

I feel like this came up in the previous discussion too, but there is the almost uncontrollable null hypothesis that it's still all subtle social conditioning (since it seems that disgust responses towards interracial relations were once similarly common but now I wouldn't be surprised if even a bona fide KKK member would struggle to muster visceral disgust at a WM*F couple making out). Of course if true this is a boon to the progressive case for deep social engineering.

I imagine that in the eyes of many in those organisations, this is just some form of "only the first violation is bad" ethics. (Absent a functioning state to prosecute for murder) it is okay to murder a murderer, and likewise (absent state punishment of stochastic murderers) it is okay to stochastically murder a stochastic murderer.

I guess I'm mostly talking about European airlines here. I guess the US generally has more of a "money is cheap" (when compared to the loyalty of a high-status customer?) attitude.

Eh. The fundamental argument that if you respond to "Country X occupies the land and immiserates the people" by taking in all the people and giving them a better life, you make country X's job very easy and hasten the opportunity for them to do it to you next, is sound enough, both for X=Israel and X=Russia. The fundamental difference here is that the Eurocrat lobby assert their mandate over anyone who would stand against them, within or without their dominion, by claiming moral superiority as the defenders of universal individual human rights, and to my best knowledge Egypt does no such thing. By doing this, but then still turning around and making their military convenience trump those same notions they just declared universal (e.g. when browbeating the internal opposition that takes issue with their importing of Muslim refugees), they are guilty of hypocrisy. In my eyes, official hypocrisy, being a meta-level crime against the very concept of principles, is a worse crime than any object-level violation of principles can be.

(Those who build moral frameworks to protect hypocrisy, like the concept of "whataboutism", get close to being yet another level of abstraction up, thus deserving their own deeper circle of hell.)

The vast majority of my customer service interactions has been with various transportation companies (airlines most frequently), who very much do appear to optimise for dodging refunds that their customers are in fact legally entitled to. There is a reason "pay us a third of the refund and we will take on the effort and risk of enforcing your statutory compensation claim against the airline" is a real business category that exists out there.

The problem with customer service (and a lot of other similar domains, actually) is that as the problem to be dealt with rather than the employer, the human bottleneck actually often worked in your favour. Having human employees working the phone line and wanting them to not quit or flame out and shoot up the office is the fundamental limit that makes it hard for Corporate to institute their ideal customer service policy, which is "trap any complainants in a Kafkaesque gaslighting nightmare until they give up". Mr. Claude has no limitations there, because he does not feel the "I am screwing over a fellow human being and making a mockery of the very concept of 'support'" qualia nor the "it sucks to be screamed at all day by people who hate me" ones.

I don't know. Many societies (e.g. Germany) have decided to not acknowledge a right to contractually sign away your bodily integrity (e.g. you can't sell your arm, while you are alive; the person taking it will be criminally liable for the mutilation regardless of your consent). I don't think there are obvious reasons why this is bad, beyond an easy-to-draw Schelling fence around "consenting adults shall not be restricted in their dealings with each other" which never actually existed anywhere. Once you have this, though, making reproductive autonomy another thing that a woman may not contractually sell is not a far leap.

...but doesn't that mean you don't in fact make the distinction? You seem to be saying that the cases of undesirable outcomes I mentioned (guns, procedural acquittals) are in fact all instances of slippery slopes, and there is just nobody making the claim that expecting the slope to be slippery is fallacious.

(When I say "slippery slopes", I really do mean what I understand that lemma to mean, not shorthand for "instances of the slippery slope fallacy". My view is that neither of the three cases in discussion (abortion, guns, procedural acquittals) should count as an example of having slipped down a slope, because there was no widespread slipping - guns caused a rounding-error number of mass shootings and still approximately nobody likes mass shootings, and legal abortion plus surrogacy are now producing a rounding-error number of surrogates being pressured to abort, which also approximately nobody likes)