Created this for a reply on LinkedIn, but it applies pretty generally, so posting it here, too:
I don't know who needs to hear this, but reminder that µ is not a fancy u, but a fancy m
This one will hurt: I love 1Password as a product. But I'm the son of a concentration camp survivor. I will not give money to companies that align themselves with nationalism, and certainly not ethnic cleansing. Completely disappointing, @1password. https://www.flyingpenguin.com/dhh-nazism-funded-by-1password-vp-who-wrote-honest-security/
People: Sara, why did you retire from Software Eng in your 40s?
Me: Gestures at this absolutely perfect encapsulation...
"I’m European. The whole continent is assumed to have a Google and a Meta account.
This is frightening. We are putting all our eggs in the same basket. And our milk, our water, our house, our furniture and our loved ones. In an electrical-auto-closing basket remotely controlled by a foreign entity that openly spies on us and wants to extract as much money as they can. For some reason, it is considered weird not to like the basket."
I mean, find me a single American tech organisation that *isn’t* full of right wing libertarians.
That’s the secret lurking in open source - it’s actually a weird combo of gun-toting anti-government survivalists and radical progressives* who have managed for years to share some similar goals because politics wasn’t mentioned. But then software ate the world; software *is* politics, and vice versa.
* (I’m in the second camp, I’m sure the first camp would use different words for me.)
boost this poost if you support a unionized wikipedia
Resonance
Bonus speedpaint: https://www.peppercarrot.com/en/miniFantasyTheater/068.html#bonus
RE: https://beige.party/@gildilinie/117182364841041560
This is really key for a lot of ‘AI’ success stories. The baseline is always not trying a thing. It’s never trying a different technique and allocating the same amount of compute power specialised for the task to it.
Vulnerability discovery is like this. We currently limit static analysers for C/C++ to a single compilation unit because the memory and CPU requirements for that work on a laptop or cheap cloud VM, whereas doing cross-compilation-unit analysis can require hundreds of GiBs of RAM and many hours of CPU time. Yet, when people are talking about the LLMs doing vulnerability discovery, they’re comparing against the run-on-a-cheap-laptop version, not the costs-as-much-to-run-as-LLM-inference model.
If you were willing to throw a huge amount of compute at static analysis, then generate coverage points for the paths in the predicted bug and use guided fuzzing techniques to create a reduced test case, I suspect you’d get higher success rates than LLM-based approaches. But VCs are willing to throw tens of thousands of dollars of compute per bug at the LLM approach because it makes the companies that they’ve invested in look good.
New article: this time, we use Heidegger to explain why the "it's just a tool" line that often comes up in tech is so very silly:
https://deadsimpletech.com/blog/no-such-thing-as-just-a-tool
"With blockchain we shot ourselves in the foot. With AI we're aiming higher."
#FediHelp Does anyone have experience with Copenhagen public transport? I have questions ... (among other things I have trouble installing the app -- for Rejsebillet the SMS never came and for Rejsekort the app complains that I am offline when I am not, but I am not on Danish soil yet either so I am wondering if that is the problem)
This is both brilliant and absolutely cursed: https://fzakaria.com/2026/08/23/your-executable-is-a-sqlite-database
Can't decide if my excitement about Canvas in #emacs is irrational or entirely rational. https://monadicsheep.org/blog/an-introduction-to-canvas-in-emacs.html
“A Technology of Unlearning”
https://2ndbreakfast.audreywatters.com/a-technology-of-unlearning/
> Rather, this “unlearning” of “AI” involves cognitive surrender and cognitive atrophy. It involves dependence and perhaps even (if you accept this medical and moral framework) addiction. It involves the monopolistic control and, so damningly, the erasure of knowledges.
new blog post!
https://lina.sh/blog/hijacking-e164-arpa
i hijacked some telephone infrastructure of a few islands over the span of multiple months; and accidentally logged information of a few hundreds of thousands of phone calls going to military bases in the process..
it's a really really silly story :P
I don't understand why Tiramisu isn't considered the ideal breakfast.
It has caffeine, sugar, and fat to give you energy for the day and a touch of booze to numb how stupid reality really is right now.
most people who are into writing systems are not into computers and vice-versa. so Unicode drama was a very particular kind of hobby drama. most of you have no idea how funny the current situation is.
see, it gets pretty tricky to define what's a "character" across every writing system in the world. for 20 years, Unicode had very strict rules about what gets into the standard: no "rich text" or "graphical variations", only "plain text abstract characters" are defined. you might think that "A" is a big pointy wedge with an horizontal stroke but from the point of view of Unicode, "A" is a number (65) and a name ("LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A") and some properties ("Letter", "Uppercase", "Narrow", "Left-to-right"). the facts that "A" is usually this triangley thing, but in some styles A looks more like a round oval with a tail, and in blacktext A looks more like an U shape—all that mean nothing to Unicode. all of those are merely graphical variations ("glyphs") of 65, LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A.
this gets of course fuzzy at the edges. The character 骨, "bone", can be written with the top component facing left, or facing right. This is unarguably a "graphic variation"—it's still the same "abstract character"—so Unicode leaves that for the font to decide. Unfortunately it has become custom in the modern era (but not in historical texts) that mainland China draws it to the left, whereas Japan and Taiwan and the others do it to the right. This means that when people changed their systems from legacy encodings to Unicode, suddenly their characters would be drawn in the hated Chinese way / the hated Japanese way, and since Unicode is a "foreign imposition" they would blame foreigner ignorance of their cultural nuances. In fact the Unicode hànzì team was made of specialists from East Asia and the reasoning for this bug was perfectly logical for nerds: if your system is set to Japanese it should be using Japanese fonts with the glyph to the right, it's not our fault if Microsoft/Linux/etc. is getting the wrong fonts. but in your legacy system it would "just work" and look right; upgrade to Unicode, problems happen. the dorks at Unicode would have endless discussions over this and reject the idea of adding "Chinese 骨" and "Japanese 骨" as different characters because that's technically Wrong, these are the same abstract character.
multiply that by a thousand. imagine 20 years of strict gatekeeping like this, with people constantly proposing new characters from this and that source and the guardians of Unicode rejecting them because they can be understood as merely graphical variations of existing characters, or as too obscure to be worthy encoding, etc. (it took so long to get hentaigana into Unicode, like ~8 years between proposal and finally having the characters encoded! you can't represent any premodern manuscripts without it!)
--
then Japanese people start making cellphones with Internet, before everybody else.
and they put "picture" (e) "characters" (moji) because they're cute. each company makes their own emoji set, incompatible on purpose so you have to buy into their special, incompatible little internets.
see, the only situation where Unicode would make exceptions to their strict gatekeeping was "round-trip compatibility". a character like ª is just an especially typeset 'a' and thus should not count as an abstract character. but some previous text encodings like ISO-8859-1 already had an 'ª' separated from 'a'. so if you converted a text file from ISO-8559-1 and Unicode had no 'ª', it would become 'a', and now you can't distinguish it from regular 'a', so there's no way to convert it back to ISO-8859-1. you cannot "round-trip" between encodings. so in this case and in only ☝️ this case, the Consortium would allow breaking the usual gatekeeping rules, carefully and case-by-case.
then a guy from Google asked to add all the Japanese emoji from every vendor. after all, without that you couldn't represent Japanese meeru messages in Unicode and convert them back. the Consortium obviously refused all those silly pictures as out of scope. so Google teamed up with Apple and kinda highkey threw their weight, financially and otherwise, transparently because they wanted this feature in the nascent smartphone consumer culture, and powerful interests completely overrode the cabal of writing hobbyists who had hitherto kept Unicode so pure. after years of elaborate technical criteria refusing tons of characters that people proposed for serious use, Unicode 6 (2010) included the first set of emoji.
fast forward to now, and all of those Unix greybeards and linguistics associates just nod sadly in a corner from the purely ceremonial Consortium chairs at whatever Big Tech mandarins came up with this year, like, "yeah sure that's what we need, U+1FAE9 FACE WITH BAGS UNDER EYES , whatever. U+1FAC8 HAIRY CREATURE , why not at this point."
I’m wondering if anyone would be interested in some kind of network for those in or engaging with academic CS or math who are skeptical/suspicious/or otherwise opposed to LLMs/“AI”? Personally, I feel a great deal of loneliness on this matter at the moment, and would appreciate the camaraderie if nothing else! I’m thinking this could be a Signal group chat if nothing else. If you’re interested, let me know with a response to this post. Would also appreciate boosts for visibility!