I didn't know that about the overnight; that's neat. I'm often in my garage before work, and I always assumed the 5am reset time was just because only weirdos are noticing a clock whir its arms around then.

I live just beyond the fringe zone for reception of WWVB on my Casio Waveceptor. Depending on solar conditions, and how I leave the watch overnight (south-east facing window with space to a metal window frame for a coupling effect), I can get it to sync once in a while.

I use it for two things: as a lubricant for machining aluminum and as a way to remove built up, old ass grease.

But I'd still never pay for it.

First, make me care and tell me the answer. In 30 seconds.

Then expand on it in increasingly advanced levels of detail.

If your knowledge is high, I won't care about the video production. If you're not getting to the point quickly, you're manipulating the audience into getting views; education and sharing knowledge isn't the main driver of your video.

But what I want is idealistic.

I now try to follow something like bottom line up front (BLUF) when I'm trying to quickly communicate something and respect someone's time: the most important, actionable detail first with details expanding as you read more.

I first heard that it has a standard in an email from someone ex-military; they started the email with "BLUF: blah blah blah". Turns out the military had (has?) it as a standard for emails. Go figure.

Before then, I remember someone asking Adam Ragusea (Youtube cooking channel) why he gives away the point of the video at the very beginning. Ragusea explained that he was previously a journalism professor, and he refused to bury the lede.

I don't watch cooking content anymore, but I've remained impressed that he was able to have a Youtube career while avoiding that manipulate-the-audience behavior to drive stats.

So basically TL;DR :)

Would a general person in your situation know that it's doing criminal things? If not, then you're not on the hook - the person who wrote the secret code is.

You can't sit back and go "lalalala" to some tool (AI, photo software, whatever) doing illegal things when you know about it. But you also aren't on the hook for someone else's secret actions that are unreasonable for you to know about.

IANAL.

IAAL (not legal advice) and your conclusion is generally correct. "Willful disregard" frequently nullifies potential defenses to liability.

I wish people didn't have to be like us to have privacy.

> If you design it so you don't have access to the data, how do you make money?

The same way companies used to make money, before they started bulk harvesting of data and forcing ads into products that we're _already_ _paying_ _for_?

I wish people would have integrity instead of squeezing out every little bit of profit from us they can.

People arguably cannot have integrity unless all other companies they compete with also have integrity. The answer is legislation. We have no reason to allow our government to use “private” companies to do what they cannot then turn over the results to government agencies. Especially when willfully incompetence.

The same can be said of using “allies” to mutually snoop on citizens then turning over data.

> has nothing to do with open source

I partially disagree. It does have to do with open source: Github (et al) are about creating a community around an open source project. It's hard to get adoption without a community; it gives you valid bug reports, use cases you didn't think of, and patches.

You can, if you want, turn off PRs, issues, and literally any feedback from the outside world. But most people don't want that.

> and is not sustainable

I 100% agree. People (including people at for profit companies) are taking advantage of the communities that open source maintainers are trying to build and manipulating guilt and a sense of duty to get their way.

The most insidious burnout I see is in disorganized volunteer communities. A volunteer is praised for jumping in with both feet, pushes themselves really hard, is rewarded vocally and often and with more authority, and is often the one applying the most pressure to themselves. There's no supervisor to tell them to pace themselves. And when their view switches from idealistic to realistic and then falls into pessimistic, they view the environment through a toxic lens.

Then they vanish.

> You can, if you want, turn off PRs, issues, and literally any feedback from the outside world. But most people don't want that.

Literally you cannot, you can turn off "Issues", but you cannot turn of pull requests, Microsoft/GitHub forces you to leave that open for others to submit PRs to your repositories no matter what you want.

> You can, if you want, turn off PRs, issues, and literally any feedback from the outside world. But most people don't want that.

Just a note, you actually can't turn off PR's on Github repos. At least not permanently.

Yea, and before we got issue trackers quite commonly issues and code chunks were shared via email lists that quite commonly had online archives. Think things kind of like the LKML.

I think you're interpreting the commenter's/article's point in a way that they didn't intend. At all.

Assume the LLM has the answer a student wants. Instead of just blurting it out to the student, the LLM can:

* Ask the student questions that encourages the student to think about the overall topic.

* Ask the student what they think the right answer is, and then drill down on the student's incorrect assumptions so that they arrive at the right answer.

* Ask the student to come up with two opposing positions and explain why each would _and_ wouldn't work.

Etc.

None of this has to get anywhere near politics or whatever else conjured your dystopia. If the student asked about politics in the first place, this type of pushback doesn't have to be any different than current LLM behavior.

In fact, I'd love this type of LLM -- I want to actually learn. Maybe I can order one to actually try..

In fact, I agree with the article! For instance, many indeed offload thinking to LLMs, potentially "leading to the kind of cognitive decline or atrophy more commonly associated with aging brains". It also makes sense that students who use LLMs are not "learning to parse truth from fiction ... not learning to understand what makes a good argument ... not learning about different perspectives in the world".

Somehow "pushing back against preconceived notions" is synonymous to "correcting societal norms by means of government-approved LLMs" for me. This brings politics, dystopian worlds and so on. I don't want LLMs to "push back against preconceived notions" and otherwise tell me what to think. This is indeed just one sentence in the article, though.

I have so many text files (technically wikis and GDocs text docs, but I'm not doing more than lines of text). I was talking to a coworker today about our graveyard of pen and paper notebooks, todo apps, reminder thingies, post-its..

I need two things: ubiquity, so that I can add ideas, todos, etc. wherever I am; and exaggerated simplicity so that I don't end up turning the note solution into its own project that's abandoned or exchanged in a year.

Force yourself to use the same paper journal you carry around. Keep writing whatever comes in your mind, literally everything. Re-read the last day at day's end. Mitigation tecnique to empty your brain, leaving trails.

My eternal issue with paper is that it's not always physically on me. A phone, however, is.

GDocs/a wiki have actually worked well, though I don't do the re-reading. Just crapping it out into a known place works pretty well.