"box with a hole in it" resulted in a number of boxes and most of these did obviously have holes in them. some did not appear to, but being that they were largely enclosures for some sort of device (as opposed to storage or transport) I'll assume there was some hidden fastener clearance holes or something.
I really only wanted one hole in my box though, so I adjusted the query to "box with a single hole in it". the results looked indentical. except for one that stood out. I would link to the particular model, but there was no way to do that. this model appears to be a rectangular bathroom basin, on its side. I'd describe it as perhaps a ~currently fashionable porcelain design, but it could be a concrete 'getting shit done' sink, or a model from The Sims (the first one). so box-like perhaps, but not many people would describe it as a box. I guess my search continues (elsewhere)...
(actually interesting bit about natural language: I know that a box with two (or more) holes in it has a single hole in it, but most English natural language parsers (humans) will notice that specifying 'single' would be redundant if I wanted any number more than zero, so it's extremely unlikely that I was looking for a multi-hole box.)
where did you steal the models from, by the way? just curious. the original context in which they were found would actually be helpful if someone was for some reason trying to actually use this as a tool. [ed: saw the OP's comment down the page -- you can include a comment with the submission IIRC]
also if you don't have the 3D model spinning incessantly, having the page open won't be obnoxious and it won't (have to) waste power
the recent google report claimed that less than 0.1% of users have javascript disabled ... like for every website, or just some, or?
your PNG/GIF thing is nonsense (false equivalence, at least) and seems like deliberate attempt to insult
> I'm marginally sympathetic
you say that as if they've done some harm to you or anyone else. outside of these three words, you actually seem to see anyone doing this as completely invalid and that the correct course of action is to act like they don't exist.
It would be literally impossible to know whether a user disabled JavaScript on another site, so I'm going to say that they meant that for their own sites.
> you say that as if they've done some harm to you or anyone else.
I was literally responding to someone referring to themselves as "collateral damage" and saying I'm playing into "Big Adtech's playbook". I explained why they're wrong.
> the correct course of action is to act like they don't exist.
Unless someone is making a site that explicitly targets users unwilling or unable to execute JavaScript, like an alternative browser that disables it by default or such, mathematically, yes, that's the correct course of action.
If you're reading past the first sentence this time -- it is obvious, yes. So why use such language to describe the software? Your deliberate choice to use misleading language is not only obviously incorrect, but harmful.
There has never been a qualification required to be allowed to build software for yourself. This is unlike building a house, which most jurisdictions recognise as something that should not be undertaken by someone without the ability to demonstrate a basic understanding of the process.
So, sure, once there's some bare minimum qualification that one must attain to be an "owner-builder" of software, do that. Until then, vibe-coding perfectly describes what vibe-coders do -- except for the vibes, which aren't (obviously).
Have done it, never enough of an audience to be totally humiliated.
It's never going to be more efficient.
But as for your cringe issue that the audience noticed, one could see that to be a benefit -- prefer to have someone say e.g. "you typed `Normalise` (with an 's') again, C++ is written in U.S. English, don't you know / learn to spell, you slime" upfront than waiting for compiler to tell you that `Normalise` doesn't exist, maybe?
Not saying this is you, but another way to look at it is that engaging in that process is training you (again, not you, the user) -- the way you get results is by asking the chat bot, so that's what you try first. You don't need sunk cost or gambling mechanics, it's just simple conditioning.
I don't really know Ruby, so maybe I'm missing something major, but your commit messages seem extremely verbose yet messy (I can't make heads or tails of them) and I'm seeing language like "deprecated" and a stream of "releases" within a period of hours and it just looks a bit like nonsense.
Don't take "nonsense" negatively, please -- I mean it looks like you were having fun, which is certainly to be encouraged.
This sounds more negative than I want it to, but it seems like this is missing the forest for the trees. There's absolutely a real problem here and I am fully supportive of projects seeking to address this.
Governments around the world throw public money at private enterprise to solve all of their IT problems. This sounds good, I guess, to the Americans in the room. Until recently the US actually had a great number of "open source" projects -- NASA, NOAA, come to mind (the weather satellites are still going). Open projects, owned by the people -- this is the obviously correct way to do things. You can engage the business sector when it makes sense to do so, but a country shouldn't be run by -- be dependent on -- a Microsoft, or a PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Then they delete the production database and write the people a post mortem about how they'll improve for next time. Then they profit from war crimes that your government even quietly admits are a bad thing occasionally. Then they <if you aren't aware of the UK post office scandal, you should be>.
"Open source" isn't a solution. Free software would be a better look. But the entire world is completely dependent on IT systems and goverments don't employ enough software developers. Not "developers" to "refresh" the UI again, not Autodesk certified Call of Duty Black Ops 9 Micopilot Copilot 666 developers -- normal boring software developers -- public servants.
Make it dull. It's your people you're fucking with. Flashy app bad, boring UI good -- it's a tax return.
The thing that should be happening is serious public sector software development. By the people, for the people. Keep it in-house. I shouldn't have to say to keep it open. It belongs to the people.
"Free software" is a fine descriptor. It's needlessly confusing to repeat that "beer as in slurred speech" thing, though. Free software can be free "as in beer"[0], but the way it gets said makes it sound like it zero cost software is an anti-goal, rather than pointing out that it's not the true goal. Then the "free as in speech" thing is kind of pointless because you can just say "free as in freedom".
Free software is about fundamental computer freedom -- freedom to own your computer, inspect and modify, etc. -- we already have this word.
[0] where who why free beer ever? 0% relatable, 0/10 would still like a free beer though
Newcomers keep tripping on Free Software vs Freeware, therefore "Free Software" doesn't describe well. We could call it Freedom Software. (There now exist 15 competing jargon files.)
I believe their point was to illustrate the disconnect between the problem and the solution.
They agree with the problem, and experienced "whiplash" when the solution was described.
> For Government, kids on social media are not a big problem, that will only bite them in the decades to come.
In Australia the kids on social media are a problem for the government, today.
A 16 year old is less than two years away from voting.
Successive governments have laughed at the idea of lowering the voting age to 16 or 17.
The government has very little influence on social media -- this is different to older forms of media / communication.
I really only wanted one hole in my box though, so I adjusted the query to "box with a single hole in it". the results looked indentical. except for one that stood out. I would link to the particular model, but there was no way to do that. this model appears to be a rectangular bathroom basin, on its side. I'd describe it as perhaps a ~currently fashionable porcelain design, but it could be a concrete 'getting shit done' sink, or a model from The Sims (the first one). so box-like perhaps, but not many people would describe it as a box. I guess my search continues (elsewhere)...
(actually interesting bit about natural language: I know that a box with two (or more) holes in it has a single hole in it, but most English natural language parsers (humans) will notice that specifying 'single' would be redundant if I wanted any number more than zero, so it's extremely unlikely that I was looking for a multi-hole box.)
where did you steal the models from, by the way? just curious. the original context in which they were found would actually be helpful if someone was for some reason trying to actually use this as a tool. [ed: saw the OP's comment down the page -- you can include a comment with the submission IIRC]
also if you don't have the 3D model spinning incessantly, having the page open won't be obnoxious and it won't (have to) waste power
reply