This ai generated writing is so grating. I would think someone who spend eight years as an SRE (indicating they’re probably pretty savvy and technically competent), would avoid this crap.
Phrases like, “The moment that broke me wasn’t the empty dashboard. It wasn’t the crickets after launch” or “Here’s what I missed: Those competitors weren’t obstacles. They were validation” (random bolding that ChatGPT does omitted) are just so banally awful it makes me weep.
LinkedIn, although I'm not sure LinkedIn was the originator, itself. Self-absorbed overly-dramatic writing like this has plagued LinkedIn forever. There's even a subreddit that makes fun of its authors: /r/LinkedInLunatics.
Now you're just seeing it on this blog post.
And here on HackerNews, in my post.
Why, you may ask?
Because my intent is to leave you breathless in anticipation for "engagement." With short sentences. That don't let you rest and take in what you read.
I bet we could draw a throughline of the overly-dramatic writing style to TED Talks and all the way back to Steve Jobs' presentation style. The pregnant pauses. The short sentences. The holding back on making point for effect. All traced back to early-2000s product launches.
eBPF is so low level it feels like a mistake to let vibe coded slop exist there. I’ll have to pass until someone reputable reviews it, which I assume will be never.
Of course it is, and the union people must be delighted and that's fine with me. But come on. This is hardly the great poster child of First Amendment privileges. This is a departmental squabble that has been allowed to balloon way out of proportion. I can't imagine a more irrelevant affirmation of constitutional rights.
Should we only correct violations that would qualify as a "great poster child," then? Let them all fly if they're not sufficiently big and flashy for you? Perhaps we should ignore theft that doesn't meet your personal financial bar, too?
Borders of countries are fundamentally human constructs. There is no morality associated with crossing them legally or illegally. This is the difference between a law declaring something illegal because they think it is better for society (a parking ticket, say) and a law created that require moral turpitude (murder, say).
I don't have hard data yet but I'm pretty sure some cities have suburbs outside them, connected via road, that rich people use as tax havens so they can live near a city without being subject to the laws and taxation of the city
Right but if you go into a country then you're in the country, not in the outskirts. You still pay taxes (generally...), and, in many countries, don't get any social services.
If anything, many formally-colonial countries are leeching off their illegal immigrants, not the other way around.
I take issue with the Author section. You’re the only one listed. Shouldn’t you give ChatGPT credit, or even further afield, all the developers who wrote the code and answers that ChatGPT trained on to produce this, as far as I can tell, meaningless tool?
ChatGPT isn't an author, so it shouldn't be listed. Instead, every single piece of human creation that's been sloshed and slurried to produce this drab drivel should be put as authors. That would be fair.
If FSF trained a net on all the code that has Copyright assigned to FSF, could it be used to ethically vibe code free software retaining the same Copyright and license? Perhaps even pointing to a file on fsf.org with all the author's names?
Phrases like, “The moment that broke me wasn’t the empty dashboard. It wasn’t the crickets after launch” or “Here’s what I missed: Those competitors weren’t obstacles. They were validation” (random bolding that ChatGPT does omitted) are just so banally awful it makes me weep.
reply