Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending 11th May 2025
Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.
Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.
If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.
The post Xitter web has spawned soo many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.
(Credit and/or blame to David Gerard for starting this.)
dovel
Als Antwort auf BlueMonday1984 • • •I have to share this one.
... mehr anzeigenYeah, flex your Vim skills because being fast at editing text is totally the bottleneck of programming and not the quality and speed of our own thoughts.
I have to share this one.
Yeah, flex your Vim skills because being fast at editing text is totally the bottleneck of programming and not the quality and speed of our own thoughts.
Wow man, you watched 3blue1brown videos at the gym...
SIDE NOTE: I plea the resident compiler engineer to quickly assess the quality of this man's books since I am complete moron when it comes to programming language theory.
There's Beauty in AI
Thorsten Ball (Register Spill)nightsky
Als Antwort auf dovel • • •The myth of the "10x programmer" has broken the brains of many people in software. They appear to think that it's all about how much code you can crank out, as fast as possible. Taking some time to think? Hah, that's just a sign of weakness, not necessary for the ultra-brained.
I don't hear artists or writers and such bragging about how many works they can pump out per week. I don't hear them gluing their hands to the pen of a graphing plotter to increase the speed of drawing. How did we end up like this in programming?
Charlie Stross
Als Antwort auf nightsky • • •rook
Als Antwort auf BlueMonday1984 • • •Here’s a fun one… Microsoft added copilot features to sharepoint. The copilot system has its own set of access controls. The access controls let it see things that normal users might not be able to see. Normal users can then just ask copilot to tell them the contents of the files and pages that they can’t see themselves. Luckily, no business would ever put sensitive information in their sharepoint system, so this isn’t a realistic threat, haha.
Obviously Microsoft have significant resources to research and fix the security problems that LLM integration will bring with it. So much money. So many experts. Plenty of time to think about the issues since the first recall debacle.
And this is what they’ve accomplished.
pentestpartners.com/security-b…
Exploiting Copilot AI for SharePoint | Pen Test Partners
Jack Barradell-Johns (Pen Test Partners)fullsquare
Als Antwort auf BlueMonday1984 • • •Derek Lowe comes in with another sneer at techbro-optimism of collection of AI startup talking points wearing skins of people saying that definitely all medicine is solved, just throw more compute at it science.org/content/blog-post/… (it's two weeks old, but it's not like any of you read him regularly). more relevantly he also links all his previous writing on this topic, starting with 2007 piece about techbros wondering why didn't anyone brought SV Disruption™ to pharma: science.org/content/blog-post/…
interesting to see that he reaches some of pretty much compsci-flavoured conclusions despite not having compsci background. still not exactly there yet as he leaves some possibility of AGI
Soyweiser
Als Antwort auf fullsquare • • •Of course not he is a capitalist pigdog! A traitor to the cause! Bla bla. ;)
I posted his work here before, despite thinking he isnt totally correct about his stance on capitalism stuff. He seems to be a good source on the whole medical chemistry science field. And quite skeptical and hype resistance. (Prob also why he I could make de self deprecating joke above). He wrote also negatively about the hackers who do homemade meds thing.
fullsquare
Als Antwort auf Soyweiser • • •i've heard about them before and got reminded of their existence against my will recently. (do you know that somebody made a recommendation engine for peertube? can you guess which CCC talk from last winter was on top of pile in their example?)
you know, i think they have a bit of that techbro urge to turn every human activity into series of marketable ESP32 IOT-enabled widgets, except that they don't do that to woo VCs, they say they do that for betterment of humanity, but i think they're doing it for clout. because lemmy has only communist programmers and no one else, not much later i stumbled upon an essay on how trying to make programming languages easier in some ways is doomed to fail, because the task of programming itself is complex and much more than just writing code, and if you try, you get monstrosities like COBOL. i'm not in IT but it seems to me that this take is more common among fans of C and has little overlap with type of techbros from above.
so in some w
... mehr anzeigeni've heard about them before and got reminded of their existence against my will recently. (do you know that somebody made a recommendation engine for peertube? can you guess which CCC talk from last winter was on top of pile in their example?)
you know, i think they have a bit of that techbro urge to turn every human activity into series of marketable ESP32 IOT-enabled widgets, except that they don't do that to woo VCs, they say they do that for betterment of humanity, but i think they're doing it for clout. because lemmy has only communist programmers and no one else, not much later i stumbled upon an essay on how trying to make programming languages easier in some ways is doomed to fail, because the task of programming itself is complex and much more than just writing code, and if you try, you get monstrosities like COBOL. i'm not in IT but it seems to me that this take is more common among fans of C and has little overlap with type of techbros from above.
so in some way, they are trying to cobolify backyard chemistry. the thing that is stupid about it is that it has been done before, and it's a very useful tool, and also it does something completely opposite than what they wanted to do. it's called solid phase peptide synthesis, and it replaces synthetic process that previously has been used in liquid phase (that is, like you do usually in normal solutions in normal flasks). (there's also a way to make synthetic DNA/RNA in similar way. both have a limitation that only a certain number of aminoacids/bases is actually practical). the thing about SPPS is that it can be automated, and you can just type in sequence of a peptide you want to get, and machine handles part of the rest.
what you gotta give it to them is that automated synthesis allows for a rapid output of many compounds. but it's also hideously expensive, uses equally expensive reagents, and requires constant attention and maintenance from two, ideally more, highly trained professionals in order to keep it running, and even then syntheses still can fail. in order to figure out what got wrong you need to use analytical equipment that costs about as much as that first machine, and then you have to unfuck up that failed synthesis in the first place, which is something that non-chemist won't be able to do. and even when everything goes right, product is still dirty and has to be purified using some other equipment. and even when it works, scaleup requires completely different approach (the older one) because it just doesn't scale well above early phase research amounts.
what i meant to say is that while automation of this kind is good because it allows humans to skip mind-numbingly repetitive steps (and allows to focus on "the everything else" aspect of research, like experiment planning, or parts of synthesis that machine can't do - which tend to be harder and so more rewarding problems) this all absolutely does not lead to deskilling of synthesis like this bozo in camo vest wanted to, i'd say it's exactly the opposite. there's also the entire aspect of how they don't do analysis or purification of anything, and this alone i guess will kill people at some point
Soyweiser
Als Antwort auf fullsquare • • •
... mehr anzeigenThis is prob right, but the 'in some ways' part does a lot of work here. Think the issue is that some complexity can be removed without problem, and some absolutely cannot. And the problem of figuring out which is which is hard. (Which if you squint, seems to be similar to the chemistry stuff you describe here). With software it (as far as I can tell) is also quickly that bigger projects need bigger teams, and that adds a lot of communication problems, and as a non-stacking process you can't just add more programmers to make stuff go faster (compared to for example building a building, which can be sped up a lot more with just more workers) as these communication problems remain. From what I heard is that this, and the problem of maintaining software on a large scale is what Java was trying to fix. Which is why all programmers love
This is prob right, but the 'in some ways' part does a lot of work here. Think the issue is that some complexity can be removed without problem, and some absolutely cannot. And the problem of figuring out which is which is hard. (Which if you squint, seems to be similar to the chemistry stuff you describe here). With software it (as far as I can tell) is also quickly that bigger projects need bigger teams, and that adds a lot of communication problems, and as a non-stacking process you can't just add more programmers to make stuff go faster (compared to for example building a building, which can be sped up a lot more with just more workers) as these communication problems remain. From what I heard is that this, and the problem of maintaining software on a large scale is what Java was trying to fix. Which is why all programmers love Java. It is a language for enterprise scale projects. (On that note, which is also why a lot of reason people hate Java for the wrong reasons, a lot of the hated stuff makes sense if you recall it is made for enterprise scale projects/teams etc. It is an attempt to make those projects easier (lets leave it in the middle if that attempt worked or not (Do think it is amusing that Minecraft of all things was coded in Java by a single person (initially))).
Interesting our community seems to attract a few outspoken chemistry people. Not something I know much about, know somebody who does something with crystal chemistry machines, and when he technically talks about it I'm happy I understand about 30% :).
Pedro Pascal's Wager
Als Antwort auf Soyweiser • • •"With software it (as far as I can tell) is also quickly that bigger projects need bigger teams, and that adds a lot of communication problems, and as a non-stacking process you can’t just add more programmers to make stuff go faster"
I bought two copies of that Fred Brooks book so I could read it twice as fast
Charlie Stross
Als Antwort auf Pedro Pascal's Wager • • •