Photographing bikes or electric scooters does nothing without enforcement through the city. It allows tracking down the person who placed it wrong, but in the absence of fines through the city, the rental companies surely won't start fining their customers and drive them away.
The Lime app (bikes and scooters) refuses to close down a trip if you enter an area where parking is forbidden or if the picture shows that the vehicle is blocking the sidewalk or pedestrian paths.
It will also 100% forward you a fine if they get one and their records show you were the last user who misplaced it.
I doubt that. Across the street of our small organic shop around the corner is a bike parking spot. Still, I recently fall over a bike parked directly in front of the door of said shop. Bike people are lazy more often then not.
If someone parks a car in an illegal area, it can and should be towed. Same for bikes. Part of the needed "biking infrastructure" is proper policing and enforcement.
Copy pasting ai code from the browser is not perfectly acceptable. The only reason to do it is because you haven’t tried agents. It shows a lack of imagination and a willingness to settle for inferiority.
“Terrible inefficient workflows”, like having to prompt Claude to change one or two words in a file rather than just manually editing it, because it gets confused when the file changes out from under it and will later overwrite the changes?
He didn't have to stop Google from doing evil, but he could've refused to have his fortune coming from there.
> Go on, next you'll tell me about how your hands are clean.
They are as clean as they can be, which is a lot more that can be said from anyone who works at any FAANG (or Wall Street, or Big Oil...)
No one has been forced to work for Big Tech. No one ever said "I only took those $300k/year salary with those huge RSUs from Facebook because I couldn't find any other way to provide for my family" or "It was either working for OpenAI or washing dishes at an Olive Garden".
"Only slightly dirty" and "much dirtier than mine" are fine judgements to console yourself of your involvement, but if you intend to indict a man, you'll need much stricter standards than this.
To be completely clear: I agree with your moral assessment. I too would not work for Facebook due to my moral qualms with the company. However, it is a terribly dangerous game to begin judging a man's choices when you know nothing about him.
Before long you'll convince yourself that you're the only decent man around and the rest are less-than-human.
> but if you intend to indict a man, you'll need much stricter standards than this.
I don't want to indict anyone. I am not a judge or prosecutor. I am saying that my own moral shortcomings do not justify his.
> Before long you'll convince yourself that you're the only decent man around and the rest are less-than-human.
There is this kinda old book that has some stories in it. I never got to read the whole thing back-to-back, but the Cliff's Notes of it is pretty much that we all are imperfect beings, that we are not able to fix everything on our own and that the best we can do is to recognize and forgive the mistakes we all made.
> it is a terribly dangerous game to begin judging a man's choices when you know nothing about him.
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
I don't need to know anything about a person working for Facebook to know that the product of their labor is bad for society. Saying "this thing you are doing is evil" is NOT the same as saying "you are an evil person". People will end up creating all sorts of rationalizations for their actions, especially when their identities are attached to it. If we don't call out on evil, then it becomes accepted.
Oh, please. This reeks of a anglocentric worldview. Most places are like that. The exception to this rule is the US and franchise/chain restaurants that they have around the world.
> written by some "expert" from the perspective that neurotypical perception is correct, and my brain is a genetic mistake.
Well, it is a mistake. It is a deviation from the normal path. But so what? "Correct" and "mistake" are not antonyms. Without any mistakes, there would no be life in the world as we know. This is not a moral codemnation of any individual.
> I and my experience of life is not inferior, and may be superior, to the NT experience of life.
I am not quite able to put in words right now, but the sentiment expressed here seems like a perfect illustration of what happens when we let society become hyper-atomized and the fetishization of the individual.
If we are talking about genes, the goal is to keep the ability to duplicate itself. If there is anything about this duplication process that has lead to the individual's brain development with difficulties to adapt to life with their tribe, socialization and chances of finding a mate are also hindered.
So if all the tribe goes to one water source because that's what they always do. And someone decides they want to try other water sources because they don't want to use the traditional source just because it's always been done that way.
What happens when the traditional source gets contaminated?
The outsider then has an advantage.
Yes tribal dynamics require people to act like sheep, but that can lead to getting stuck in local maxima, and not having any diversity.
" the goal is to keep the ability to duplicate itself"
You are talking about putting all your eggs in the tribal cohesion basket.
That doesn't deal very well with black swan events. Not putting all your eggs in one basket maintains the ability of the tribe to "duplicate itself".
So given that I have provided an mechanism for improved survival of the group, that doesn't require the group to be completely homogeneous, please explain how I strawmanned your argument.
Or maybe point out what point you were trying to make, as it evidently isn't very clear
> You are talking about putting all your eggs in the tribal cohesion basket.
Sorry, that's waaaay off the mark.
I am taking about OP's remark where he wants experts to not "talk about his brain (development) having a genetic mistake", and I am saying that any individual with a brain that has developed in a way that diverges from the norm (and consequently makes it more difficult to socialize, empathize and find a mate), then we can definitely say that this brain has a "genetic mistake".
So explain
"If we are talking about genes, the goal is to keep the ability to duplicate itself"
That is your basis for 'mistake', and the general position that you are objectively right.
I am saying divergence from the norm can also be a benefit towards the goal of keeping the ability to duplicate. Therefore you can't say that the genetic imperative to duplicate proves you are objectively right. Therefore you can't really support the view that it is a "genetic mistake", unless you want to make the claim that everything thatmakes us different from our proto 1 celled ancestors is a "genetic mistake".
You are once again taking the worst possible interpretation: every mutation is a "mistake" in the process of cellular duplication, that's all I said. Whether this "mistake" will have good or bad consequences will depend on how this is manifested in the individual and how it will fit with the environment.
No. I don't think so. Your original comment is basically 2 parts.
"If we are talking about genes, the goal is to keep the ability to duplicate itself."
We have already discussed the above. You then proceed on that basis.
"If there is anything about this duplication process that has lead to the individual's brain development with difficulties to adapt to life with their tribe, socialization and chances of finding a mate are also hindered"
You are basically restating evolution through the process of natural selection, with the implication that Neurodivergency is bad, because you are less genetically fit.
I have, I hope demonstrated that that isn't necessarily the case. Neurodivergency can make the tribe more genetically fit, therefore the inference we are meant to draw from your post is incorrect.
Unless we are expected to ignore the context, and you are just talking about evolution abstractly. But I would hope everyone here knows the basics of evolution, so why did you repeat them for no particular reason?
Edit. Ps. My first response was more than fair, and you accused me of constructing a strawman, so please don't accuse me of using an unfair interpretation.
> I hope demonstrated that that isn't necessarily the case. Neurodivergency can make the tribe more genetically fit.
You are conflating fitness of the individual with population robustness against systemic shocks.
> But I would hope everyone here knows the basics of evolution, so why did you repeat them for no particular reason?
Because (1) not everyone understands the basics of evolution, (2) to make my argument I wanted to establish where I am coming from and (3) this is a public forum and I am not addressing you in the particular, you might feel like I am "stating the obvious" but to other people this is a pretty standard and effective way to ensure the communication is clear.
> the implication that Neurodivergency is bad, because you are less genetically fit.
I am not implying anything and I tried to be clear that there is no "good" or "bad" when you have "experts describing what is normal/typical".
>You are conflating fitness of the individual with population robustness against systemic shocks
Yes and as per my first example, the ones who don't drink the contaminated water survive. The population robustness is people doing things differently and not dying. Fitness of the individual is population robustness where that individual does something different.
>(1) not everyone understands the basics of evolution, (2) to make my argument I wanted to establish where I am coming from
Right. So did you get past (1) or not? Your argument seems to be that neurodivergents are less likely to pass on their genes. I'm saying that isn't necessarily so.
> the population robustness is people doing things differently and not dying.
No, you created a completely contrived example in an absurdly complex and dynamic system and assumed your outcome is the likely one.
You are fantasizing a completely stereotypical behavior (neurotypical people act like sheep) to say "they would all drink poisoned water and die", when the story could just as well be that after a first wave of people dying because a poisoned well, the second group of people would notice the danger and go after the others who are drinking something else.
The advantage of diversity in the population would be determined if individuals in an heterogeneous group by the same threat or pathogen survived at different rates.
> I'm saying that isn't necessarily so.
Not necessarily so doesn't stop it from likely being so, and I would stand by the idea that neurodivergent people are likely to have far fewer children than neurotypical ones.
You do realise that modern germ theory was discovered in the 19th century due to cholera in a well. The 19th century! So no it isn't obvious. London's sewers were originally built to get rid of the smell, ie 'miasma'.
The outcome doesn't have to be likely. Just likely enough.
Yes perhaps I was over egging the pudding with the sheep comment. The point that we both agree on is that neurodivergents think differently.
> modern germ theory was discovered in the 19th century due to cholera in a well.
So what? If you see people getting sick after drinking from a well, you don't need to know the science to know that water is not safe. Birds do not need to know the laws of physics in order to fly around, etc.
If anything, you should look at your contrived example to understand that most people will not wait for a scientific explanation to establish social norms. A lot of Organized Religion "doctrines" are just learned behaviors that gained some metaphysical explanation in order to be passed down the generations. To this day we have people who do not eat pork out of the belief that they are not "clean", and while this is would be a perfectly valid assumption millennia ago, no amount of "Science" and laboratory analysis will convince an observant Muslim, Jew or Seventh-Day Adventist to go eat some bacon.
> The point that we both agree on is that neurodivergents think differently.
This is tautological and never has been the point of disagreement. If you don't mind, I'd rather just let this go now...
That's not how genetics of sexual reproduction works. I think it's only fair to say that we can't truly do a qualitative measure of the impact of any condition on fitness.
1) Being a hinderance does not necessarily mean evolutionary dead-ends, and some traits can still be prevalent in populations because the diversity is what protects us from systemic environment shocks.
2) Perception and adherence of hierarchies and status symbols are things present in nature for millions of years. "Capitalist society" has nothing to do with it.
I'm self-hosting Gitea and Woodpecker CI for least 6 years, alongside my own docker and pypi registries. Adding x86 and ARM runners, it costs me circa $30/month to run the whole thing, and I am reasonably sure that I could make the whole thing scale at a lower cost per user than what Github charges.
I am seriously, 100%, contemplating the idea of offering consulting for migrating companies and projects out of Github. Given that I am fully employed, I'd only be able to do this on the weekends. Could I get a show of hands to get an idea of potential customers?
I work at a startup with ~20-30 devs. We're talking about a project like this. I'm not sure weekends would work for an actual company, though maybe it depends. I think there would be an appetite for this. From my POV - the main areas of interest are how you can roll this out to a team gracefully without breaking everyone's workflows for multiple days. Good luck
The most natural way to roll this out would be to have a "blue/green" system, where both systems are running and the weekends would be the time to take the steps towards the migration. First set up the servers, integrate Auth/SSO (depending on the current company set up), etc. That could be done probably in a single weekend.
Once this is done, the team would have two possible git remotes to work with. Given that gitea also allows mirroring with Github, the team would be able to even switch to Gitea as the "main" git remote and for PR reviews even if the CI part is still on Github.
The harder part would be migrating the CI jobs. But this also can be done in parallel and no one needs to cut out their Github actions immediately. Start with the simplest of the stages, e.g, the automated test suite, and once you get the whole pipeline from Woodpecker on an staging environment, you'd could take another weekend to test the whole workflow. Once the first project is successfully migrated, it becomes a matter of repeating the process.
Woodpecker is still a bit finicky and debugging it can be a bit annoying, but given that it's all based on docker it is a lot easier to debug a pipeline locally.
This is exactly the migration problem we're trying to make boring with Fjord. It shouldn't require a flag day, bring up Forgejo alongside GitHub, mirror while the team moves over, then migrate CI incrementally.
For a 20–30 dev team I'd be happy to help work through what that rollout would actually look like
reply