This doesn’t paper over deprecating the Rust plugin and stealing contributions. I used to be a huge JetBrains fan and now I pull this out every time. Anything but.

I’ve never seen avocados in a box. Is that a common thing outside of the US?

The lede is in paragraph four. What the fuck. Why did I have to read three meaningless paragraphs to get to the headline.

How Women Rise touches on this to an extent. With just a little bit of editorializing,

• What do you want to do? Have interesting experiences and spend time with your close ones? Work is a necessary means to that end in probably any system to provide the resources you need. Your perspective stops being “fuck I gotta go make widgets for a bit” and becomes “making widgets helps me achieve my goal of doing cool shit.” This also changes the discourse to “how do we the widget process better for people just trying to do cool shit” and “Is making these widgets the best way for me to do cool shit?” You’re not telling the widget maker you’re perfect for this role, you’re excited about this role because of its ability to help you achieve your goals. Note that goals are not just capitalism. Several of my goals revolve around me being a better person and a better partner.
• Networking specifically is only gross if you view as taking advantage of other people. If you shift your perspective to “we all gotta work together so let’s figure out better ways to do that” networking becomes a conversation about how I can achieve my goals while helping you achieve yours and is only gross if I’m not going to help you achieve yours. Sometimes helping you achieve your goals is just being around until you need something from me, even if I’m getting things from you the whole time. As a mentor, most of what I get out of networking is practicing teaching. I give a lot more than I get from a certain perspective. Some day I might need help and the people I’ve mentored will hopefully be willing to pitch in.

There’s no world where the things you have to do to survive make you happy all of the time. Ask any neurodivergent person with executive dysfunction about necessary chores. There’s also no world where you’re happy all the time even with a perspective shift. There is a world where we recognize that we all have to do things to get along. If we’re honest about that from the start, the hiring conversations get better.

I can count the number of projects where I wanted immediate feedback from random people on no hands. I do not think there are enough hands in my state to count the number of projects I’ve crawled docs and commentary from search engines. My use case for a community is an asynchronous repository of knowledge and issue tracker. Discord does none of those things.

Read the actual paper. Psypost is a shit source. The headline is clickbait and the direction the article goes isn’t the direction the study went. As usual, Psypost is really interested in saying things they want to say not thing the study was covering.

Buried the fucking lede with misleading garbage. They came up with new, larger cap sets than were previously known. That’s cool, but it doesn’t actually prove anything related to open cap set conjectures. I’d contend this is similar to the early solutions of the four-color map theorem albeit built with a computer coming up with the models to brute force. Pretty fucking neat; not solving an unsolvable problem by any stretch of the imagination. I would expect that kind of hyperbole from the lay press not the fucking MIT Review.

Edit because this shit is really cool: I intentionally linked this to the four color map theorem because that was the first brute force proof (at least via computer). Lots of people got pissed at the authors and said it was invalid because they reduced their special cases to a finite set and had a computer chug through them. imo proof by computer is valid and one of the ways stuff like this can aid math. There are so many problems in combinatorics alone that could benefit from this treatment of just getting new, unknown special cases to get to a general case or handling previously too large finite sets of special cases.

His medical work is not commendable. Right now it’s almost impossible to do anything on the world stage without the foundation’s approval. This recent article has links to some issues. This older article highlights a bunch of problems that were highlighted during the ‘Rona vaccine process. Either you do what the foundation wants or you don’t do medicine. Even when you do what the foundation wants, you move capital and ownership up to the top (Gates was a huge proponent of the COVID vaccine IP). The foundation has done good things. The opportunity cost of the foundation is staggering.

This is a very succinct summary of DRM. You can’t implement any kind of DRM or anti-piracy measure without directly harming your desired audience.

The author has a degree from Princeton. By this logic, her degree is unethical and her viewpoints are the unethical rants of those rich benefactors.

There’s a reason sweeping generalizations don’t work. Discussing the ethics of provenance is a great topic. Discussing what should be in museums is a great topic. Saying every museum dedicated to educating future generations about the dangers of genocide is unethical just seems like a stretch to me.

This is from April. Did something change with it?

Lander’s take at the end highlights a key gap in their security knowledge: while I might not necessarily read every line in package, I am able to audit every line. Since I am able to audit, I can use tools to do some parsing of every line to identify potential problems (CVE analysis is a thing) and gain some modicum of confidence. I cannot audit a binary without serious effort in via decompilation and similar resource-intensive processes.

Security is not about preventing everything by knowing everything. It’s about picking the path that gives both reasonable confidence that things will not go wrong and strong confidence that we can improve when things go wrong (because they will go wrong). Lander assumes security is about the former while ignoring the latter.