I think we're going to reinvent Google's "circles" mechanism from G+. We all (well, the terminally online, at least) are going to be part of several more or less overlapping villages, and the people in those villages are going to trust each other to not be bad faith actors. Everything else... everything that tries to scale... everything public... wasteland.
Something something Dunbar's number, Tragedy of the commons.
Interesting. Each time I think about how we could reboot the (social) web I have this on mind. I don't want exposure to everything, so kind of whitelisting the contacts/peoples/blogs is the first thought.
I guess it could work to carve your own cozy echo chamber that once in a while lets something new in.
The conflict I cannot penetrate is that some things (could) need a larger exposure surface. I.e. OS projects, maintainers that will naturally generate a large following. There are also individuals that want to maximize exposure, mostly for the sake of it. The latter could be neglected but the former not. That leaves an natural backdoor to turn any networking into the same cesspools we have right now.
I am not sure, maybe we have to subdue to the fact that a massive focus on a single thing will turn out into something bad. Considering the importance of Linus Torvalds to the software world, it can even work. He isn't really digitally socialized in a "modern" sense and he still is networked enough to manage an high impact project. Sure he is networked via the linux ecosystem, but that walls him away from direct interactions with the general public.
It seems like many people have the same or similar ideas. I was thinking of using a tool similar to bookmark-managers as the foundation of a new web. Where you subscribe to RSS-feeds of specific (or clusters of) people to specific topics as the "follow" primitive and you publish your own feed(s), which bookmark-managers btw. already allow. The missing pieces are commenting on the feeds of friends and a layer of federated ML for ranking, which the user controls by simple sliders that set the mark for dimensions like retrieval-vs-discovery, hightrust-vs-highnovelty, recency-vs-trendingimpetus and so on.
The few niche social media websites I have seen able to prevent rapid deterioration in quality without dying in active user count typically have a high barrier of entry. Reminds me evilzone one of the few decent hacking websites on the clearnet that actually had a decent community. They had some challenge you had to complete I can't even remember what it was, but it prevented new users from joining unless they could solve it. Was very simple iirc but it stopped large amount of the skids/hf peeps.
Or if code quality stops mattering, in a kind of "ok, the old codebase is irretrievably sphagettified. Lets just have the chatbot extract all the requirements from it, and build a clean room version" kind of way. It's also not impossible we go that route.
I'm pretty sure the -as-a-service stage is only temporary.
The local models are only going to get better, and the improvement curve has to top out eventually. Maybe the cloud models will still give you a few extra percentage points of performance, especially if they're based on data sets that aren't available to the public, but it won't make much difference on most tasks and the local models will have a lot of advantages too.
As the article mentions using standardized clear bins, which really do help:
In the UK I settled on Really Useful Boxes. Not their new cheaper range, the chunky straight-sided ones.
Transparent, they don't go brittle in a few years (I guess they will eventually), the front-opening ones are handy if you're racking them, and you've got some guarantee you can go back and buy more in a couple of years.
I wouldn't be surprised if I've spent £1k on RUBs over the years, but they really were worth it. The only problem I've found is that they don't have overhanging lips, so you can't build floating bin shelving (eg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYX50-Vw9AQ) for them.
Just behind me where I am sitting at the moment I have 21 RUBs containing my collection of about 42000 pinned out flies (mostly). The RUBs are stacked in and on top of bookshelves. I seem to remember that you could buy a rack to hold them but it looked too flimsy for what I wanted. The flies are pinned out onto plastic foam sheets in small clear plastic presentation boxes, 48 of which fit in each 12 litre RUB. I still have to properly identify about half of the flies. Photos of the presentation boxes and CSV files of the identifications are backed up to https://github.com/tristrambrelstaff/flies. RUBs have played a significant part in enabling me to manage all this.
Yeah, we have a similar setup for haberdashery - white Ikea Billys, a few extra shelves, and a lot of 9l RUBs. They're a couple of inches deeper than the shelf, but that's not really a problem. Larger projects and long-term storage go in 35l's or 64l's. The 84l's tend to be too big for us - we've got one, and I hate lugging it around.
That's a hell of a collection. Is there any risk of them degrading over time, as they're organic?
I discovered recently that IKEA actually do a deeper Billy that you can order online. I've seen them as deep as the Kalax. I used to work there and never knew. Might be helpful for the overhang
if they're the ones I'm thinking of (wide, but not very tall, good for large flat things - basically map drawers but not quite that big) just be forewarned that the drawers don't fully extend. (There are mods to fix that which involve doing some drilling and grinding on the drawer slides...)
Thanks for the Really Useful Boxes referral. I've been using made in the UK Wham Plastics organizers and IKEA boxes, but front-loading is what I really need.
Second that. Our garage is full of their 50L boxes with the XL lid, perfectly fitting those industrial shelves. Very versatile and long lasting. Even after nearly ten years, they look pretty much the same, and we live in harsh climate near the coast.
My oldest ones (about a decade, same as you) are a touch more yellow than the ones I bought last year. I still think that, kept away from UV, they'll probably outlast me.
i have lots of boxes like these filled with various hobby stuff. I keep two boxes on my desk though, one labeled 'A' and one labeled 'B'. Any time I use something like a tool or microprocessor or cable it goes in the A box, when the A box gets too full i pour some of it into the B box. When the B box gets too full i put the contents away where they belong. It's basically like a 2 stage MRU cache of my hobbies, all the stuff i'm currently messing with is right there in the A box or, if it's been a while, in the B box. If i'm doing something new i have to get up and go get what i need from the shelf or other boxes.
Really Useful Boxes are excellent. The best feature for me is that the lids are raised, so you have some room that's slightly higher than the rim of the crate. Sure, buy a bigger crate, but it's nice to pack things just about level and not worry about one annoying part poking up.
I've switched to UTZ Rako/Euroboxes for longer term storage. I even bought a beat-up dolly so I could easily transport 60L boxes around. They stack, they're divisible (e.g. 2x30L on top of a 60L) and the smaller ones fit neatly into a KALLAX cubby. You can buy them used for cheap, if you're willing to spend an afternoon scrubbing factory dirt off them. But they're not significantly pricier than Really Useful.
There are other suppliers like Auer, who make all kinds of interesting variations like toolboxes and latching/lockable boxes, but can get really expensive. You can get insert containers for them, but same problem: no transparent lids, only generic gray unless you want to buy 100.
I've been lusting after some of the Sortimo boxes that Adam Savage recommends, but I can't justify 50-100 quid per compartment box.
As for the original article... I like the idea of dots, but I would try a gridded label with sharpie marks. Having worked in a lot of workshops and labs though, boxes are not efficient. You want a good rack/drawers for things you use all the time (tape). I do like one box per project for convenience, which is often more useful than a box with generic grouped parts. If you really need to, you can do things like cut SMD tapes for each project. This way is much easier to drop back into something you only have time for on the weekend, and it's also what we would do in hardware shops (single sorted organizer with the BOM items for a project).
I do agree about the hardware side being surprising. When I was working on electronics for work, having a 4 channel scope was indispensable. But most of the time, debugging on chip/breakpoints are enough. I switched to a 4 channel mixed signal Picoscope.
(Someone else mentioned kitchen containers. I spent some time in a professional kitchen which hooked me on Cambro-style containers, or whatever Nisbet's sell in the UK. Also standardized alu sheet pans and matching silicone mats for baking.)
Just today I had an agent add a fourth "special case" to a codebase, and I went back and DRY'd three of them.
Now I used the agent to do a lot of the grunt work in that refactor, but it was still a design decision initiated by me. The chatbot, left unattended, would not have seen that needed to be done. (And when, during my refactor, it tried to fold in the fourth case I had to stop it.)
(And for a lot of code, that's ok - my static site generator is an unholy mess at this point, and I don't much care. But for paid work...)
There's an old SF short where one of the people who won't gets forced to. Battery of psychological tests followed by "you're one of the rulers now, and you're going to hate every minute of it, but we enslave you so the rest of us have a peaceful, prosperous planet."
Are you assuming a brute force "burn tokens until it passes the tests" model, or is there a really sweet approach on the horizon that is impractical at current token costs?
I'm asking 'cos while I'm philosophically opposed to the first option, but I'd love to hear about anything that resembles the second.
One idea I've heard is prototype-first design reviews. If the cost of code genuinely trends to zero, there's no reason why most technical disagreements about product functionality couldn't come with prototypes to illustrate each side of the debate. Today, that's not always practical between token costs and usage limits.
Then hopefully the reviewers will notice that the first prototype's flaws are correctable. Sometimes they won't, and they'll end up making a bad decision, just as they sometimes make bad decisions today with no prototypes to look at. But having prototypes allows for a lot of debates that are today vague and meandering to be reduced to "which of these assertions at the end of this integration test do you think is the correct behavior?".
Something something Dunbar's number, Tragedy of the commons.
reply