yeah, like most of these patents, it seemed to be more about the chilling effects than the actual enforcement.
There were a few variations in games over the years.
Senal
joined 2 years ago
Still salty about that "Sanity System" bullshit patent by ...surprise surprise...nintendo.
Oh shit, you mean it's just like depression ? You can just decide to not be bothered by it ?
Why is nobody talking about this? it sounds like a revolution for mental health, this could wipe out the need for therapy entirely.
edit: OK so that was possibly a bit unfair, i recognise that aspects of mindset and choice are part of it, but your answer was so much like telling clinically depressed people "Have you tried just not being sad?" that it rubbed me the wrong way.
TL;DR;
IMO, communicative tailoring is better than full masking, it required a lot of practice (for me) but was entirely worth it.
Disclaimer, all of this is incredibly subjective and YMMV.
My thoughts used to be "They have absolutely no clue how much filtering is happening" followed by a serious consideration on whether or not i'm putting in as much effort as i care to, to communicate with this person.
I'll up the translation if i feel the juice is worth the squeeze, but nowadays it's rarely an issue.
I'd like to be clear that i consider "masking" and "translation" to be distinct practices.
In this context, masking is an effort to tailor your communication to others with no real regard (or understanding) of the cost to benefit ratio or the long term impact of such a practice on your mental health, it's a full time acting gig to pretend to be something other than your full self.
What i call translation(or tailoring) is more like taking your existing personality and tailoring it to emphasise aspects that you feel would work better for communication with said person. There's little loss of personality fidelity and it feels a lot less like acting.
I understand it can sound the same, but it's an important distinction for me personally , because the latter is significantly less effort and still maintains my personality , which allows me to filter out who i do and don't want to communicate with.
For me it did take a significantly longer time to build up the social skill to be able to understand enough about people to tailor to them (for me, straight masking requires less upfront skill), but the result was worth it to me.
As a bonus, that additional required social skill makes all other related tasks easier as well.
Not to say that full masking isn't a useful tool sometimes, but it's like any other tools, in that it should be used in appropriate situations with an eye to the potential outcomes of doing so and will require practice and judgement to get the outcomes you want.
You could full mask through mandatory bullshit business meetings that serve no purpose other than to make someone underqualified for their job feel like they are important, for instance.
The real secret bonus to this tailoring is that I've found a broader range of people who fit the criteria of "my people" and also a generally expanded social experience, even with people i don't actually like very much.
All of that is nice, and tbh should be standard for everyone anyway (in a controlled, non-public setting), but it doesn't address the actual issue of sloperational overload.
Firstly, an unattended gated CI build step for the public is a terrible idea from a resource point of view, you'd have all of the same people submitting their unchecked hallucinated code to be run by your CI build, eating resources.
If someone in the project has to manually check the code before allowing it in to the CI build then you have the same problem as now.
Low effort sloperators will just ask the hallucination machine to generate test code to do what you specified, a likely outcome is it generates something that fails in the pipeline step.
it’s probably going to be pretty obvious if they keep pushing a PR many times until it passes.
This is important, because it's an easy enough step to configure your local agent/harness/whatever it's called now to use the CI build as an input to measure success, so now you have automated generation loops eating CI resource.
All this does is move the bottleneck from people resource to compute resource and the outcomes could be even worse.
The concept itself is fine, but the resource issue would stop it from being viable pretty quickly.
It might work if there was some way to prove a successful CI run using the submitters resources...somehow.
Move the compute penalty to the submission side.
Firstly you'd need a way of guaranteeing the CI run was functionally identical to the one run by the project and then you'd need a way to guarantee the results weren't fudged, probably more things as well.
I've not heard of such a thing, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The best solution i can think of right now is social, like a trusted contributors list, people who have proven they can work within the bounds of the project rules and guidelines, possibly a recommendation system.
It's not a great solution though and still eats resources in managing such a system.
Well, shit....that would explain it, my bad.
as i said, nuance.
The second part is describing a social contract of sorts, conditional assistance , which would put it squarely on the side of "expecting it to be reciprocal", situationally at least.
I don't disagree with this, but it's a really big difference from your original reply.
I think there's more nuance to that than warrants a full good vs bad.
Unless you mean "aren't a good person" as potentially including neutral.
I don't disagree with the post you are responding to, almost all of that is reasonable.
Your overall argument would be more convincing if it wasn't you doing the exact same thing you are complaining about.
As for specifics , the "Just a tool" argument is meh, not all tools are equal in potential benefit and harm.
Asbestos (while it is a material) was a "tool" used to insulate from heat.
Was it good at that, sure, it probably saved many lives, was it also harmful as fuck in the medium to long term, yes it was.
It can be a useful tool and also be a detriment, those things aren't mutually exclusive.
The danger of a tool can also be mitigated with adequate safeguards that come from experience gained over time.
The argument then becomes risk vs reward, which is an entirely different conversation.
It was not set up to succeed, either.
do you have a link to the breakdown by division ?
I can see general statements but nothing with breakdowns.
TL;DR;
Enshittification