Wanting a better world, and holding up a light to the current one to show the differences between what could be and what is, is not at all what “cynical” means. “Cynical” is the opposite of what you mean. “Pessimistic” or “negative” is definitely more apt, yes.

No, I said cynical and I meant cynical.

I don’t care that he criticizes the tech industry, I care that he feels the innate need to portray everyone in it as moustache twirling villains, rather than normal people caught up in the same capitalist systems and pressures as everyone else.

Even here, he spends all the article focusing on rumours about Chinese researchers making novel ways to outperform OpenAI and the like, and just makes a dismissive joke about the accusations that they effectively trained their model using OpenAI’s model. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the morality of ignoring copyright to copy a copier, it’s an incredibly important point because that is not a replicable strategy for actually creating new models. But rather than address that in any way, he dismisses it in a paragraph to spend another couple thousand words trying to dunk on the western tech industry in the snarkiest tone possible.

Lol, Ed Zirtron is very paralleled.

He’s pessimistic and cynical to the point of being conspiratorial and delusional.

He’s someone to listen to when you want to hear someone go on an unhinged rant about the tech industry, not someone you listen to when you want to actually understand how it works.

I mean look at this trash article, he spends 5000 words saying effectively nothing. Things he could have explained by just linking to pre-existing, better written articles, instead, he rehashes everything in a snarky tone while skipping over some of the most important points (like training through distillation).

I don’t agree with punishing people for sins of their grandfather, but he Sig Heiled twice at a political rally. Any family and personal connections to Nazism has become inarguably relevant.

Lmao, rich coming from you after I already explained why the architecture is inherently, and fundamentally about controlling all interactions, not about seamless UX which can be achieved with other architectures.

Whoosh.

Keep promoting one corporation having control over all application interactions. Such a glorious future we can all look forward to under the watchful gaze of the CCP / corporate America.

LMFAO, such engagement, such explanation.

You’re really living up to the .ml domain.

And I’ve explained to you repeatedly that nobody cares about what you personally want. What’s being discussed is what’s a better UX, which is obviously having a single unified UI backed by APIs. I’ve also explained to you deficiencies in the current UI platforms, but you evidently are unable to grasp these problems.

Bruh, you’ve explained jack shit beyond saying ‘but it’s obviously nicer when apps integrate with each other’, and you haven’t once approached explaining why a super app is the architecture necessary to achieve that when we used to have it all the time before walled gardens.

I’ve explained repeatedly why you

a) don’t need a super app to do that, you can build applications with interfaces that unify other applications in whatever way you want, as long as those applications have published APIs, and

b) why we already have unified UI platforms (operating systems & web browsers)

All you have done is blindly defend super apps, while ignoring the point that they are fundamentally closed platforms designed to extract money from consumers.

I am engaging with what you’re saying, and I’m explaining why what you’re saying is wrong.

I’m literally a professional software developer who writes applications. I know the difference between a traditional set of OS apis like you see with Linux, the platformized nonsense iOS apis, the concept of applications using other applications to create a new unified experience using their own published APIs, and apps that publish APIs to try and be platforms.

I have literally used and build software under all of those models and have very clearly engaged with this conversation, so maybe you should be doing some self reflection instead.

So you’re saying that we already have super apps, they’re called the internet, and that the entire concept of an OS level super app is unnecessary and a clear attempt at a company to exert control and extract more money from consumers?

Like I said, we already have that unified interface, it’s called an OS and a web browser. A super app is just a closed off version of that.

Again, you’re defending close platforms run by giant corporations to extra money from you.

Elon isn’t interested in super apps because he cares about the common person, he cares about them because he can build a platform to extract your money with.

By what historical measure are you basing that?

Do you care to rank our prime ministers in order and see where he falls on that list?

Because heres a hint: if you’re a leftist, then every single one of our prime ministers, ever, has not been good enough.

In which case, you might want to reflect on whether there’s any overlap between the circles of good enough and electable.

Yes it absolutely is different.

Android, Windows, MacOS, Linux, et al provide you APIs for interacting with the operating system, for instance if I want to send a request over the network, I tell the operating system to send this request through the network card.

But they do not dictate what I draw for my app on the screen, how I send messages between apps, or really anything at the application later. The OS APIs are there as an interface between the hardware and the application layer and that’s it.

Like I said, iOS tries to dips it’s finger far into the application layer and make itself a platform to have more control, not let apps compete with Apple’s apps, and so that they can charge you at every application interaction.

It is a story as old as tech. We build a wonderful open internet based on open standards, so social media companies come in and built a closed network on top of that so that they can control everything. Operating systems have historically been designed by big nerds as relatively open platforms, so what happens? Apple comes along and tries to turn iOS into a closed platform and everyone else comes along and tries to build a closed OS platform (a ‘super app’), on top of the existing open platforms.

Super apps and their design is 100% about enriching the controlling company and nothing else.

Yeah, and that’s not the model of a super app. A super app provides APIs that it forces it’s sub apps to use, as opposed to building an app that unifies a given app’s published APIs.

It’s literally just a “platform” under a different name, meaning that it’s a tech company trying to build a closed layer that they control that everything is forced through so that they can eventuallg put up a tollbooth and commit highway robbery.

It’s what Apple tried to turn iOS into before the EU slapped the fuck out of them.

Yeah man, that’s called an application.

MSN Messenger had an application, ICQ had an application, both had APIs though, so you then had third party apps that integrated and unified them.

You’re literally just describing apps that have open APIs and can integrate with each other.

That used to be the norm here too. The problem is entirely one of capitalism encouraging anti-competitive walled gardens.

Smith is straight up looking like a treasonous traitor right now.

As a country, we should be allowed to play a ‘discard your hand and draw a new one’ card.

Pretty gross and classless.

I personally have policy issues with the Liberals, and a couple specific areas where I think they let us down, but this is just pure electioneering politicking that completely ignores the human beings involved. Opening up with “Justin Trudeau is a bastard man who made things worse”, instead of “we may not have agreed on everything, but I do want to thank Mr Trudeau for his years of public service in office”, is just flat out small and gross in my mind.

It’s something PP would do, it’s something Trump would do, it’s not something Jack Layton would do, and it’s quite frankly, not something Trudeau would do. If nothing else, the responses to his resignation have made it clear that he was the only party leader who actually had basic leadership qualities.