deleted by creator

When you accidentally reinvent corporate taxes.

Zen is also really nice (based on Firefox like Librewolf).

You name a fair point here. I think the part where they’re using an LLM for natural language processing makes a lot of sense. Being able to describe something you don’t know the name of is a genuinely helpful feature. But you’re right that a better implementation would drop the wasteful image generation in place of searching up real images from their product library (which they’re still doing anyway because at some point they have to find a real product to sell you). It feels like that step was maybe added to make it “more AI”, probably at a manager’s insistence.

deleted by creator

I guess I should specify that I’m selfhosting Notesnook, so the data never leaves my personal device ecosystem, and the central sync server is a big plus for me. No account required either (apart from the ones I create on the server I control).

If - hypothetically - you were trying to convince me that this is better than Notesnook, what would your pitch be?

OK, yeah, this is awesome. I will definitely be making use of these tricks in future.

You’re not only the one who kame according to those numbers.

Good call, honestly.

They were the start of it, but they didn’t account for all of it. And, to be clear, it’s very much an over-correction. As usual they’re going to swing too hard in the opposite direction figuring that everyone else is doing it too, so if they have to hire people back, well they’ll be doing it in a flooded labour market so they can probably just re-hire the same people for less money.

You’re correct and I have no idea why idiots are downvoting you for saying this. Obviously, yes, to some degree companies are testing the waters on using “AI labour” in place of people - Klarna, etc - but for the most part AI is a useful excuse for these companies to dump a bunch of headcount that they warehoused for years just to keep everyone else from getting there first. In large part this is also because investors have finally started to wise up to layoffs not actually being an automatic good for a company. Used to be the word layoffs instantly jacked your share price, but now it’s more of a wait and see attitude, if not outright concern, so they have to wrap up the layoffs in a big AI coat to make them look good.

Edit: To clarify this a little, it’s not just overhiring. It’s that these companies were in a massively over-hired position - many still are to varying degrees - and they’re being pushed to show “growth”. There aren’t really a lot of ways left to do that (capitalism is basically eating itself), but reducing headcount gives you at least a temporary bump in profit, since your overheads go down right away, while any loss of revenue takes a while to hit. The combination of bloated headcounts and a need to show higher profits is the toxic swamp water here, while AI is the packet of kool-aid powder they’re adding to make it look good.

2nd Edit, to previous poster: You should read the article though, it has far less to do with “AI layoffs” than it does with Jensen Huang desperately trying to put out fires, which is very telling.

Transformer model AI has atrocious unit economics. The only way it really works is in some kind of post-scarcity environment where we simply don’t care how much it costs to run.

Crypto only solves problems it creates, or creates new problems out of the ones it solves. It’s a horrendously complicated way of wasting compute power to ultimately achieve nothing.

“How is it possible that AI became productive and useful only six months ago, and they were somehow laying people off two years ago because of AI?” he added. “It doesn’t make any sense.”

This is very telling. Jensen is pulling this “6 months” figure completely out of his ass here, but the reason why he wants that number to be true is because it moves the goalposts. If AI hasn’t actually, really, been here for even a single fiscal year then it explains away everything. Suddenly the fact that it’s made zero impact on productivity, that no one is making any profit on it, all of that becomes justified. “It’s still early.” You’ll recall that this was the narrative around crypto too. Every time anyone criticized anything about it a herd of sheep would bleat “It’s still early” even over a decade into the technology existing.

Investors are starting to ask serious questions about when these tools are actually going to start delivering greater productivity to their companies. Managers are starting to get the screws put to them about why their budgets are ballooning to cover subscription and token costs with nothing to show for it. Jensen can’t have that, because AI is the whole reason why his company is on top of the world, so he’s trying to reset the clock.

For the record, there’s absolutely no evidence to suggest that AI has ever become productive and useful, but that wouldn’t fit Jensen’s narrative either. So instead he has to invent a world where AI is totally productive, 100% useful, just trust me! When did that happen? Oh, just now. That’s, um… Yeah, that’s why you didn’t notice. It just happened, right before you walked in.

“Imagine a terrible burger…”

Interesting. If I’m following this correctly, the architecture is very similar to how services like Tailscale and Zerotier work; every client contacts a central server to say where it can be reached, and then the central server shares that information with authorized parties, but the actual communication is all peer to peer.

Assuming I’ve grasped this correctly, this sounds like a very smart use of a proven architecture. I guess my main question would be, how does the central server determine when to share contact info between two clients? Is everyone essentially aware of everyone else (on the backend at least) and then some client side component restricts who can actually communicate, or is there some pre-shared secret that would authorize the server to connect your client to someone else’s?

Edit to add: The other thing I was going to note is that obviously removing the central server means there’s no way to retrieve your messages if you lose or wipe your phone, but I see you’ve already included robust backup options. Thumbs up for that.

Edit 2: Just to clarify my question, I see that theres a system for scanning or importing QR codes in order to add someone as a contact (I do want to suggest that you should also be able to use a code; not everyone always wants to be sending an image in place of, effectively, a phone number), but my question is more about how this is architectured on the backend. Does the key encoded in the QR code authorize the TURN server to connect you with the other user?

“…and live with its consequences.”

That’s why they’re booing, you moron.

It’s cool, I bought one for you.

Not remotely. It’s just the part that seemed most prudent to focus on.

My comments about speaking to a therapist were entirely sincere. The fact that I didn’t just choose to respond further when you bristled at them is because they were sincere. I’m not here to belittle you or try to get in a fight with you. And you’re right, I can’t psychoanalyze a stranger over the internet, which is why I’m not trying to. Just asking you to speak to someone professional who can. As the saying goes, “I don’t have to be a helicopter pilot to see one in a tree and figure out that someone fucked up.” You’re displaying very obvious signs that you need some kind of help, but saying any more than that would definitely be stepping out of my lane.

I boiled down the rest of your response to one point because that one point crystalises my disagreement… Or, to be more specific, I think it crystallizes where you misread my previous remarks.

Let’s clarify the context here. This what I previously responded to:

“The part of me that is pessimistic (that part seems to be growing these days…) thinks they would just hang up on you and if you call them back enough times they’ll call the police on you to report you for harassment.”

When I pointed out that this was unhealthy behaviour, you didn’t actually engage on that point at all. Instead you built a strawman. Your reply;

“The truth is, we obviously don’t know for sure what will happen, but it’s also not likely to be surprising if it doesn’t go our way. It’s the most likely outcome and pretending otherwise is disingenuous. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fight, though.”

…is framed as if I had made some broad statement about the likelihood of success of the entire endeavour. I didn’t. I responded specifically to your suggestion that an MP would quite literally call the cops on you just for demanding to speak to them.

So if we’re going to bandy about accusations of arguing in bad faith, I could just as easily choose to point to this as an example of doing the same.

What I did instead, rather than throwing around accusations, was choose to focus the discussion back down to the most pertinent point. I chose that question because it serves three purposes simultaneously;

• If you were arguing in bad faith, it would illustrate the failings in your argument.
• If you were unintentionally misreading my point, it would clarify the difference between our arguments.
• The question itself was genuine; you might have answered “Yes”, in which case I would operating from a false assumption, and you would have corrected me in that.

But you chose instead to take it as an attack. That’s… Telling, to say the least.

Anyway, I’ll sign off of the conversation here. It’s clear from your responses thus far that either by intention, or because you cannot help yourself, anything I say is just going to continue to get twisted up into either another attack on you, or another reason to feel down.

I hope the rest of your week gets better. I do mean that sincerely.

So, you’re saying that an MP has filed a police report against you for harassment?