b3nsn0w

^ this. both governments need to be gone, that’s the only chance for the civilians, palestinans and israelis alike, to see peace in their lifetime.

the same way hamas doesn’t represent palestine, netanyahu’s government doesn’t represent israel either. the funding of hamas was a far-right candidate’s propaganda tactic, not something that the people of israel decided would be a good idea.

deposing that far-right israeli leadership would be the first step toward fixing this whole mess. many israelis (around 75%) want netanyahu gone immediately after the war and it seems like their approval ratings have gone down as a result of this conflict, in contrast to the general trend of right-wing governments benefiting from war in most situations.

if the west can put pressure on israel (and that it can, without american weapons most of the surrounding muslim countries would love to genocide the hell out of israel), this is where that pressure needs to go. finish the war, get hamas out of at least the government of gaza (fully disbanding them will be a longer process, but at least don’t put them in control), and then execute a regime change in israel as well. get rid of both governing parties that caused this mess to begin with and then their successors can hopefully actually work towards peace.

i think we could have something really special here through international trade

yeah, let’s just put all the important tools in the hardest to reach spot on the screen

top makes sense on desktop, but on phones bottom is just logical. took way too long to get to it already because of the exact notion you expressed

yeah, i think the “LLM sound” is just a corporate sanitized tryhard voice that no sensible human would have. the tryhard bit is an artifact of instruction training, and the corporate sanitization is there to make it very “safe” for conversational interfaces or smart prose processing for corporate clients. but if you give the ai an actual, productive, and somewhat complex task to accomplish, it very quickly switches to something far more human-like, because it’s no longer trying to overperform on a simple task.

yeah, chatgpt is frickin unparalleled in coming up with bullshit and phrasing it just the right way. my favorite thing is asking it to be sarcastic and passive-aggressive:

One principle that has guided my career in engineering, which my colleagues often overlook, is the profound understanding of the mirror-like relationship between an organization’s design structure and the software engineering outcomes they produce. Now, I don’t wish to dumb this down, but every time you witness a cluster of technologists huddled together, producing an array of systems, sub-systems, or module designs, keep your eyes peeled. They’re invariably going to be a spitting image of the organizational framework of the enterprise, often in ways that self-proclaimed ‘visionaries’ fail to foresee.

Now, with painfully forced patience, I must reiterate that this axiom is no trivial discovery or stroke of divine inspiration. It’s merely a reflection of the structural reality, something akin to looking out on a mirror carefully arranged by your senior management. The hierarchy, the stratification, the fragmentation across your esteemed organization, will be sculpted into the systems it produces. Picture each software module as a carefully chiseled stone that when aggregated, forms the larger cathedral that is your system architecture.

Ironically though, I’ve often seen leaders ready to splurge on sophisticated technology and state-of-the-art infrastructure, willing to make all grandiose promises on achieving data-driven decision making or accelerating the pace of innovation. Yet, they conveniently forget, due to what can only be a mission-critical memory lapse, that their microservice architecture has a curious tendency to mirror our own managerial slides filled with box-and-line org charts.

And let’s dwell a moment longer on these org charts, these delightful diagrams that claim to encapsulate the chain of command and accountability within the organization. There’s almost an uncanny resemblance, to the perceptive observer, between the lines of software code and the seemingly tiny, arbitrary changes made to these precious organizational diagrams. Lest we forget, the software your teams sweat blood to build will knuckle under to the gravitational pull of the enterprise structure, echoing its splintered silos and delightful dysfunctions.

However, for the sake of those cheerfully blinded by technical jargon and starry-eyed optimism, do carry on with your lofty ambitions to transform your IT landscapes, to catapult your organization into the brave new era of digital excellence. Just remember, the structural symmetry between your divided departments and disjointed computing systems is not random happenstance. If nothing else, they are monuments to the myopia of management, embodied in code and user interfaces, continuing to honor the timeless principle that so eloquently underscores my engineering prowess.

i literally just added “do the above assignment in a sarcastic and passive-aggressive tone” to the prompt, lol

Oooh, are we saying complete bullshit on well-known principles just to make ourselves look better? Here, lemme try

One principle that has guided my career in engineering is predicated on a theory which asserts that an organization inevitably produces designs closely mirroring its own communication structure. This tenet is deeply entrenched in organizational theory and has profound implications within the field of software engineering. It underscores the tangibly symbiotic relationship between structural communication channels and the inherent formation of design patterns, directly impacting project outcomes and overall system architecture.

Take an instance of a complex system architecture, for instance; the blueprint invariably mirrors the modus operandi of the organization, melding functional utility with intricate formalism. More specifically, it can be deduced that the nature and structure of information flow within an organization will ultimately inform the design, function, and interactivity of the proposed solution. Understanding this dependency provides valuable insight into optimizing organizational communication channels and realigning teams for effective outcomes.

A practical illustration of this principle is observed in large software corporations. A company with segregated departments, each responsible for a different process within a singular product, results in a fragmented, disjointed project output. Conversely, an organization that values collaborative, cross-functional teams is more likely to produce a product that boasts of seamless integration between its components.

For this reason, corporate structuring and re-structuring, when required, should be done with a pragmatic view towards improving communication channels. Aligning one’s business operation to reflect this principle, therefore, has significant implications on the maintainability, productivity, and overall success of end products. It espouses the virtues of flexible organizational structures that maximize communication efficiency and consequently, affords more robust and efficacious design frameworks.

In essence, understanding and implementing this paradigm shifts how companies view their organizational structure and its subsequent impact on outputs. It transcends beyond mere theory, providing a heuristic tool for entities seeking to improve their system architectures. As such, it is an indispensable guidepost in my engineering career, illuminating the path towards optimum function and design within both the organization and the products it creates. This, in itself, is an organogram of success, a paradigmatic shift in corporate thinking to create more efficacious products and overall, more successful businesses.

There was a man at CERN once who was sick of questions. His name was Tim-Berners Lee.

Container tabs are great for shit you log into, because they’re like having a bunch of different, isolated browsers. For example, even if there was a YouTube embed here (which I haven’t seen on Lemmy yet) it wouldn’t be able to correlate those views to my account because I’m logged in in a different tab, from the way Google sees it it could be anyone on my network. Incognito is similar to that in that you grab a new browser every time and discard it whenever you close the last tab. It’s great for transactional stuff, but a little inconvenient for stuff you want to keep logged into, which is where container tabs are great.

And yeah, there are some hella strong fingerprinting techniques, but no one is reimplementing any of those for advertising reasons. They just pull in a script from an ad company, which gets promptly blocked by uBlock Origin. If you use Tor and want to do some stuff that you really need to hide your identity for, you might run into some more advanced attempts to track you.

yeah, the thing that stops browser fingerprinting on the threat level of ad companies is firefox’s built-in protections (which are in fact stronger in incognito) and ublock origin; and umatrix, full script blocking, and probably prayers on tor’s level.

what incognito does is it breaks apart your chain of regular cookies. those can still slip through a lot of these tools, especially when they’re first-party, but they’re also kinda low-tech because of being first party most of the time (while the third party ones are easily blocked by other tools). that way the trace you leave behind is not one long thing, but many small ones that are hard to connect.

incognito is just one layer of defense but it’s an important one

nope. they do all the tracking and manipulation themselves. selling to other ad agencies would allow said other agencies to compete and they don’t want that.

they might share data between each other though, we can’t really prove they don’t

that’s why i do everything that’s transactional in an incognito window. i have plenty of non-incognito tabs but they’re nearly all sites i log into on the regular such as lemmy. combine that with firefox’s built-in privacy protections and ublock origin, which is a combo that absolutely wrecks a lot of tracking and browser fingerprinting scripts to begin with (i have actually done contract work for marketing communications people and it was crazy how many layers of defense i needed to peel back just to debug their shit) and most of that tracking becomes disjointed cookies that only span a single session each and are hella hard to correlate.

I thought the most dangerous one was president, at an 18% fatality rate (8 out of 45 so far)

i wonder if any of them ever decides to retire into an easier job and becomes an astronaut

If you’re not interested in debating this, fine. Neither am I, tbh.

I’m just generally aggravated by this pattern where people posit that anyone who criticizes communism/socialism/any adjacent ideology just doesn’t understand what they’re talking about, and then when you actually make an attempt to figure out what the hell everyone supposedly doesn’t understand you get this mess of conflicting definitions expressed very confidently, where the only real pattern is that if you agree with communism/socialism/whatever that’s good, if you don’t that’s bad, now go figure out why. It kind of feels like talking to christians, actually.

i have no problem with socialist economic policies but i do have a problem with using authoritarianism and the facade of a “benevolent dictatorship” to achieve them.

the misunderstanding stems from the constant twisting of terms. like is communism what happened in the soviet bloc, or is it an as yet unachieved (and still probably technologically unachievable) dreamland that has never been tried? is socialism what the soviets had? or is that just a specific set of economic policies that the soviets did in fact have but completely divorced from its oppressive system? what did the soviets and its colonized countries actually have?

there is a certain system that the soviets have tried and it failed miserably. i would never support that system after seeing what it does to a country. but the way it comes off to me through this discussion is that socialism both is and isn’t that system, until observed, where the waveform collapses to whatever is more beneficial for the socialist’s argument here.

and yeah, i do think the political compass is also extremely reductive, but at some point we gotta figure out how to communicate whatever the hell we’re talking about.

yeah, that’s why left/right is super reductive imo. whenever dealing with tankies i tend to refer to the two-axis political compass because tankies are authleft, while the US far-left is libleft, which is a huge distinction. but political opinion is not a scalar, and neither is it a two-element vector, it’s a very complex thing, the left/right distinction only works as long as you’re discussing a singular country and sometimes not even then. (for example, a lot of european countries have a lot more than two parties in their political spectrum, it’s not as simple as a democrat/republican alignment here)

i don’t see anything contradictory in there, i’m just not an extremist. not a centrist either, but the world doesn’t just consist of commies and fascists and people who haven’t picked a side yet. in fact, those aren’t even the two ends of the spectrum, and it’s actually rather insulting to most people to suggest so.

fascists can burn in hell as far as i’m concerned, but so can most of the authleft part of the spectrum. in general, it’s authies i’m the most opposed to. the economic right is stupid but a failing libright system tends to suck less than a failing authleft one. although neither suck as much as a failing authright one, that one i do agree with

(and imo even the two-axis political compass is super reductive but at least it gets the point across that i stand with neither fascists not communists)

assuming you’re being honest here, you’re welcome. but if that is indeed the passive-aggressive mockery it sounds like then that might explain why people can’t take you seriously outside of echo chambers.