I wonder if this encouraged people to be more open with their ideas also.
If I could say things knowing that if I made a mistake, someone might friendly correct me with "Ah, you're the liar today, S3 doesn't support that format", I'd be happier to make them.
That's super cool. As long as you do the things you specify at the bottom of that doc (provide attribution if copied so people can know if it's OK to use) then a lot of the concerns of people on these threads are going to be resolved.
Pretty much! There's only three major fears remaining
* Co-pilot fails to detect it, and you have a potential lawsuit/ethical concern when someone finds out. Although the devil on my shoulder says that if Co-pilot didn't detect it, what's to say another tool will?
* Co-pilot reuses code in a way that still violates copyright, but is difficult to detect. I.e. If you checked via a syntax tree, you'd notice that the code was the same, but if you looked at it as raw text, you wouldn't.
* Purely ethical - is it right to take licensed code and condense it into a product, without having to take into account the wishes of the original creators? It might be treated as normal that other coders will read it, and pick up on it, but when these licenses were written no one saw products like this coming about. They never assumed that a single person could read all their code, memorise it, and quote it near-verbatim on command.
> Purely ethical - is it right to take licensed code and condense it into a product, without having to take into account the wishes of the original creators? It might be treated as normal that other coders will read it, and pick up on it, but when these licenses were written no one saw products like this coming about. They never assumed that a single person could read all their code, memorise it, and quote it near-verbatim on command.
It's gonna be really interesting to see how this plays out.
A machine learning isn't really the same as a person learning - people generally can code at a high level without having first read TBs of code, nor can you reasonably expect a person to have memorised GPL code to reproduce it on demand.
What you can expect a person to do is understand the principles behind that GPL code, and write something along the same lines. GitHub Co-Pilot is not a general ai, and it's not touted as one, so we shouldn't be considering whether it really knows code principles, only that it can reliably output code that fits a similar function to what came before, which could reasonably include entire blocks of GPL code.
Well if it is actually straight up outputting blocks of existing code then get it in the bin as a failed attempt to sprinkle AI on development and use this instead
Massive fan of Convivial Society, although I think some pieces necessarily won't give the full background of Illich's belief that technological progress is not necessarily a good thing, and should be examined.
I feel that archery is much the same way to me as baseball is discussed here - I enjoy shooting a recurve bow without sights or counterweights or additions. I could improve my shooting drastically in all common metrics if I wanted to swap to a modern bow, I'd be more accurate, using more force, at a greater distance.
But as none of those metrics measure how satisfied I feel after shooting, it doesn't matter to me and I won't swap.
Even in a context were sheer efficiency is key someone, for example a warrior, may prefer a 'classic' (rugged, always-ready (nothing to tune), easy to fix, compact, light...) bow to a 'better' contemporary (complicated) one.
>Google Analytics is free, although it is not. Google Analytics makes money off the personal data they collect from their customers.
This isn't strictly true though. Google Analytics has a free and a paid tier with GA360, which is for larger businesses.
More to the point, half of these aren't suitable for marketing decisions when you have multiple paid entrypoints to your site. The major, but simple, ones for marketing;
* Channel Groups - being able to merge multiple UTM tags or referrers into a single channel for comparison
* User Retention - even privacy first, it's important that you can track user activity onsite via a logged-in user ID.
* Bot Removal & IP removal - Excluding an office from the GA stats is important to track actual users compared to your colleagues checking in on details.
* Channel comparison for conversion rate - i.e. Google Ads vs FB Ads.
Fathom seems like the top one from this, but it still doesn't have any of these features. It has self removal via the console, but that's not quite the same. The dashboard Pirsch shows doesn't show any of these features, and most of them seem to have filters, but no general comparison windows. Same for Umami.
People who advocate for alternatives to GA I suspect miss this very crucial aspect of the service. When you have a long running site, especially one that has user accounts or conducts ecommerce, it can be dominated by automated traffic. The longer the site has existed and the more popular it is, the more this is the case.
I'm not even referring to legitimate search engine crawlers but the automated exploit bots, the spam bots, the people running site suckers, and who even knows how many other things people get up to for malicious purposes.
Any GA alternatives that rely on server logs is instantly never going to be a viable alternative. Alternatives that don't rely on logs still cannot do a sufficient job of weeding out the automated traffic. I have never, not even once, heard of a solution that can tackle this overwhelmingly critical problem.
This is a big problem and exactly why I had to abandon log-based analytics for my personal blog. Some bots are easy to spot but others seem to be running real browsers, or as good as, which makes it impossible to weed out bad actors from logs alone.
I ended up coding a simple hit tracker (that was all I wanted) with a javascript beacon which worked well for a couple of years. But recently my blog was hit by an ongoing attack[0] that even executed the beacon code - I have no idea why. I am not convinced that any of these services would discount this type of traffic, I ended up having to use Cloudflare and even then needed some custom firewall rules.
I can't recommend Cloudflare enough. It has become a critical service to me. It recently helped me out a ton when bot traffic increased dramatically out of nowhere. I was getting hit 5 million times a week by one type of bot alone and Cloudflare's automated bad bot detection completely mitigated it with a single click. It has also been my experience that automated traffic has become so much more sophisticated in recent years.
Cloudflare is a great service but I hate that I have to use it due to factors beyond my control.
I was disappointed that Cloudflare didn't automatically detect the traffic as malicious but feeding the bots a captcha almost completely mopped up the problem.
I totally get your point! The thing is, in my opinion loads of people use GA simply because they do not know of any other alternatives, and among them there might be folks who do not need GA in first place because they simply want to get some insights about the traffic happening on their website, because it would be interesting for them to know.
For those folks, I would recommend to use a GA alternative (for example one from the list).
But you are right, at the top enterprise level, for folks focusing on marketing measures and decisions, most of the GA alternatives might not be suitable simply because they are missing some features.
I agree - I definitely think that how we treat deer in the UK as a food source and as a wild population is a sensible way of 'farming' animals.
My only concern is with domesticated stock. Cows couldn't possibly survive in nature, and would suffer greatly, for example. If we're concerned with raising animals for food that also live enriched lives, do we also have an obligation to breed them in ways that enrich them?
The article presents the case that writing code with a specific style - OOP compared to Data Oriented - is responsible for slowing down performance. That code architecture is primarily the cause, regardless of the actual implementation, because some architectures will never work well with the compiler.
I get that like the major parts of picking algorithms that are N over N^2 is always going to be more important, but it doesn't seem like the article is disagreeing with you at all, just another area where people need to consider their decisions.
But only a strict subset of problems are heavily data oriented. For your 3 button GUI app whether you use a tightly packed AoS, even SoA doesn’t matter over a slow linked list of pointers for that 3 element list implementation doesn’t matter.
(Agreeing) The 3 button GUI app is much more likely to be/feel slow because the UI framework used makes it difficult to get the widgets on the screen quickly than because of data processing.
Maybe it insists on a deep heirarchy of widget inheritence as many do. Maybe the framework wants to load and configure all the possible widgets, even though the application only uses a few. Maybe theres a bunch of images loaded from disk even though they're not used. Maybe it's just the fantastic default compositing system that puts everything a frame behind adding up with everything else.
There certainly are applications where data structures matter, and time spent processing data is significant to user experience, but that's not why the whole computing experience feels slower (although maybe prettier) than 25 years ago, despite capability being so much more for most things (as pointed out in the article, ram is better than years ago, and we certainly have more of it, but ram access takes a lot more cpu cycles now)
I am torn on the issue. On one hand, there is definitely useless technical debt, over-abstraction, no longer useful features slowing down our programs. But at the other hand, we are actually handling every language on Earth properly (or at least we very well should already), instead of just saying that yeah ascii is good enough, somewhat care about accessibility though far from enough, etc.
Also, actual native GUI apps are quite fast imo. Only electron apps are slow, but I really do think that it is mostly due to the web having a wrong abstraction for GUIs, not due to other reasons (of course there are shitty web apps, as well as shitty programs everywhere else)
That argument assumes women aren't interested in those roles, and that their disinterest is the only or primary thing that causes an imbalance.
You have to know that isn't true, which makes this a great example of why people are frustrated about discussing anything 'political' in the workplace.
Why on earth would you say "you have to know this isn't true"?
If you see similar patterns across many different cultures, including ones considered to be more gender-egalitarian, I would have honestly thought the conclusion would be, in fact, varying interests.
Or do you think there are no biological differences (on average) between men and women, in which case, I can provide you with large, multi-national studies that come to a different conclusion.
I can see how there could be debate about how much the difference is, and what the causes of it are, but "you have to know that isn't true" seems like saying "Come on, everyone knows the world is flat, stop arguing in bad faith".
If I were an editor, and someone passed me their amatuerish version of Lolita to edit through, I'd be well within my rights to say that I didn't want to be involved in it.
More broadly, the editing company I worked for could say - even if you don't intend on releasing this and even if our individual editors don't mind reviewing it - we don't want to have to edit it, and we don't want to be associated with it.
This is no different, but at scale. AI Dungeon, due to their agreement with OpenAI, don't want to have to work with this content. They've found a pretty awful way of implementing it to save the relationship with OpenAI, and hopefully they'll find a better one in the future.
The big difference is that Lolita is a book, so it aims to be published, while most if not all AI Dungeon content stays private and unpublished, so I don't think it's the same.
"Your honour, I think you'll find that someone broke into my house and planted drugs"
This type of logic has been used plenty in court, it being in your possession, digital or not, is sufficient.
The claim here is that due to the vulnerabilities Cellebrite has, the offending item may never have been on your device. This is more similar to saying that the images the police took in your house of drugs were kept on an unsecured server, there are recorded vulnerabilities for it, and therefore the images could have been digitally edited to show drugs where none were present.
If I could say things knowing that if I made a mistake, someone might friendly correct me with "Ah, you're the liar today, S3 doesn't support that format", I'd be happier to make them.