> I feel like it has picked up on certain keywords and then just rolled with its own stereotypes of what those keywords represent, rather than actually taking a good look at what I think. A roast works because the roaster has clearly spent time and effort and care understanding the person roasted. This is way too shallow for that.

Yeah. It picks one random thing from one comment and turns into a lifestyle.

I remember reading that one of the issue regarding the EU and it’s institutions' exposure to lobbyists was that a big part of the population is uninterested in the EU and EU elections.

Which may or may not be true, maybe only partially true at that, and is perhaps simplistic, but does kind of make sense. EU elections do have a particularly low turnout, and if people themselves don’t care enough, then who will?

> to claim users actually prefer bad product designs

One could argue many users seem to prefer badly designed free products over well designed paid products.

> such as the belief that bare-metal means “server room here in the office”

I remember the day I discovered some companies, and not just tech ones (Walmart, UPS, Toyota,…) actually own, operate, and use their own datacenters.

And there companies out there specialized in planning and building datacenters for them.

I mean, it’s kind of obvious. But it made me realize at how small a scale I both thought and operated.

Walmart does not want to use AWS because they are in direct competition.

I worked for a company that was attempting to sell software to walmart.

Yes, but if that was the only rationale, couldn’t they have opted for GCP or Azure?

Check out how Wikipedia and the rest of the wikimedia universe is run.

Re: NASA chasing around for Saturn V blueprints and the blueprints for the equipment needed to make the actual rocket parts.

Also the DoE having to figure out how to make Fogbank again (a classified material used in weapons which they lost the manufacturing documentation for)

> The best and cheapest weapons are the ones never used, but making no weapons at all is the most expensive choice in the end.

As a big part of Europe is learning at great cost.

Andy Weir’s Project Hail Mary had an interesting take on that.

I was bothered by the nearly a-scientific-ness of PHM. The story was nicely done in general, but it feels like he pretends to be hard science fiction when he's really Star Trek-level.

It has proven very useful to a great number of people who, although they are a minority, have vastly benefited from TTS and other accessibility features.

I think it's easy to pick apart arguments out of context, but since the parent is comparing it to AI, I assume what they meant is that it hasn't turned out to be nearly as revolutionary for general-purpose computing as we thought.

Talking computers became an ubiquitous sci-fi trope. And in reality... even now, when we have nearly-flawless natural language processing, most people prefer to text LLMs than to talk to them.

Heck, we usually prefer texting to calling when interacting with other people.

I don’t think anyone watched that demo back in 1984 and thought “oh this tech means we can talk to computers!” - it was clearly a demonstration of… well text to speech. It demonstrated successfully exactly what it could do, and didn’t imply what they’re implying it implied.

According to Wikipedia, the Russian constitution mentions the following:

1. Everyone shall have the right to the inviolability of private life, personal and family secrets, the protection of honour and good name.

2. Everyone shall have the right to privacy of correspondence, of telephone conversations, postal, telegraph and other messages. Limitations of this right shall be allowed only by court decision.

And yet, they have the SORM and SORM-2 laws.