There's nothing interesting about that. Just depressing.

I think it would make perfect sense to print another photo in 10 years and stop giving us a hard time with this ridiculous argument.

Thanks for the laugh. No, seriously (not in a derogatory manner. I really laughed it when I read your comment).

I'm an amateur photographer. I print way more photos than you assume.

Here's a selection: https://bayindirh.vsco.site/

It absolutely does and a very good effort of compatibility with GitHub actions. It’s not perfect but migrating is far less of a pain than I experienced moving to others

Why do you think this analogy is even remotely correct? It’s well-known that LLMs produce non-deterministic results. It’s also well-known that they hallucinate. To make it even clearer, all the top LLM players make sure to remind everyone of that behavior. If calculators had similar effects and warnings, it would have been a valid analogy. Instead, you're comparing apples and oranges.

I think it's a valid analogy in some contexts. Like when talking to a person that is not aware of non-determinism and hallucinations. Which happens on this website very frequently.

Many people here tell you to use AI like you use a calculator. With minimal or no oversight, with full access to production systems, etc.

To let a non deterministic tool communicate on your behalf, or give it access to critical systems is evidence enough that a good number of people are not aware of these facts.

> FWIW nobody's performance here will improve from having this metric

It's even more frightening if so. Meaning you really thought it's something users wanted.

No, it's fine. I really hope that more people will switch to something else, like Neovim, Emacs, or any other open-source editor where such unacceptable situations are practically impossible. I hope more people will start to value their privacy and right to choose, and find the courage to say gtfo and switch to something else. Because this is unforgivable.

Their point, however, is perfectly clear - it’s practically obvious. No one forced them at gunpoint (unlike those scientists, figuratively speaking). Why are you pretending not to understand?

> No one forced them at gunpoint

Of course not. Modern weapons are far more sophisticated. Society does not need to point guns at people to drive behavior anymore, it is sufficient to deploy simple economics. People feel the sting of the economic lash just the same as the literal instrument.

Yeah sure :) People working in one of the most privileged professions on Earth are bound hand and foot with golden shackles and are forced - literally forced - to continue spreading evil throughout the world in order to keep their salaries of several hundred thousand dollars. The horror!

Yes? Refuse, and you lose all of those privileges. The golden shackles go away and are replaced with the rusty shackles of poverty. Feeling the pressure yet?

The richer you are, the more you've got to lose. Easy to be a radical when you've got nothing. Nowhere you can go but up. If you're privileged, there's a long way to fall.

That's pathetic. It's not all or nothing situation, not even close.

People will do anything to avoid learning the basics. Nothing new.

Do you have a link for me? I'd like to learn them, but find it really hard to find them.

For example, I had never heard about etc/services until 2 minutes ago

Check out this book:

Unix and Linux System Administration Handbook by Evi Nemeth et al.

I'm pretty sure Arch wiki is worth reading, too.

What do you mean? You’ll still have to use TCP or UDP over IPv6, and both of those protocols use ports. Nothing is stopping you from creating a transport protocol that doesn’t use ports if you want to, but that has nothing to do with the network layer.

I mean that to connect to a service you wouldn't need to know the port, the IPv6 address would be enough.

This is why I consider ports a layer violation of sorts. You never talk to a machine with TCP/UDP, you talk to a service on a machine. And so as it is the full address to the service isn't just the layer 3 address.

As I mentioned this would be especially interesting when hosting multiple services, same or different, on the same machine since there would be no port conflict.

Yeah, but I mean you just have to have something on the transport layer, you can't just encapsulate application layer into network skipping network, that's not how the network stack works.

Perhaps it's because I'm tired but I can't make sense of your objection.

As I said you could implement it by having TCP/UDP as is, just with a fixed port number. This wouldn't be unlike the myriad of other conventions that litter IPv6, such as using /64 for a host or ULA's having a certain prefix.

No it's me - I'm tired too, and I misread you)

Got it, makes sense. It just seems more like an architectural decision to me than something related to the network stack - that's why I got confused. You can come up with your own convention and use it within a local network. One of the downsides of this approach - it will clutter up the routing table, but that’s probably not a big deal.

I usually prefer to use some kind of demultiplexer, like a reverse proxy, to handle the conversions.

> a spaced repetition thing

anki?...

I do exactly this for the half dozen or so ports that I do care to remember.