I think the desire to not centralize identity has more to do with it than anything. We present different facets to different communities. The pseudo-indelible nature of internet commentary means saying something to anyone potentially means saying it to everyone, in any context.

That's why people have multiple fediverse accounts, to limit context or purpose of communication channels. Not because they don't value genuine communication within those channels.

I used to get into arguments with people in the Fedi who couldn't seem to make up their minds whether they wanted to be visible or invisible. To me it seemed like it made no sense, like if you really want to be invisible just don't post it because you can't really take things back.

At some point I realized those people were just like that.

I worked at a startup circa 2012 or so which was unusually unclear in its mission but the paychecks and the parties were good and the idea seemed to be helping people partition out different parts of the identities in terms of interests so you could get Paul-the-mild-mannered-applications-developer, Paul-as-a-marketer/huckster, and Paul-as-a-fox, and Paul-with-an-embarassing-interest, etc.

We had the hardest time explaining to the press (TechCrunch would say they didn't get it!) and everyone else, I could probably pitch it as well as anybody and I didn't do very well.

Docker for humans!

Right, like the pods in the Matrix! Cool.

I think I somewhat agree with the author but I find the idea of a single account completely unappealing. My view on the benefits of federation is that you don't have a single entity gating your access. Having multiple accounts is a benefit.

Two years ago I trained an AI on American history documents that could do this while speaking as one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. People just bitched at me because they didn't want to hear about AI.

Post your work so we can see what you made.

Forgetting what has happened earlier in a book you put down is very normal. Have you met your fellow humans?

"The databases powering your company? Built by developers working double shifts. Those JavaScript frameworks everyone depends on? Often shepherded by a single person, unpaid, drowning in demands."

Getting hard to ignore how often AI uses this pattern of pithy question/answer.

mention the (alleged) AT protocol but not the actual fediverse. weak.

Yeah if you're paying someone's yearly salary for a tiny patch of cosmetic pixels in a game I basically don't GAF what happens to your money.

We deserve this timeline.

"Here's the thing - this technique completely breaks traditional code review. You can't spot what you can't see. GitHub's diff view? Shows nothing suspicious. Your IDE's syntax highlighting? All clear. Manual code inspection? Everything looks normal.

The invisible code technique isn't just clever - it's a fundamental break in our security model. We've built entire systems around the assumption that humans can review code. GlassWorm just proved that assumption wrong."

This is pure Claude talk.

Yeah the whole article is awful to read. Everything the LLM added is completely useless fluff, sometimes misleading, and always painful to get through.

Alright, no fluff. Only real talk. It's not just a great argument--it's the truth. You're absolutely right.

Claude, remember to always replace em-dashes with a single dash

it sure is and it's complete bullshit too!

that screenshot looks suspicious as hell, and my editor (Emacs) has a whitespace mode that shows unprintable characters sooooo

if GitHub's diff view displays unprintable characters like this that seems like a problem with GitHub lol

"it isn't just X it's Y" fuck me, man. get this slop off the front page. if there's something useful in it, someone can write a blog post about it. by hand.

My Editor VSCode has the Hex editor installed, always... invisible unicode? Not to Hex. What? are you doing without Hex mode? What?

Does your Hex editor extension get automatically updated?

Google is in decline, they just don't know it yet.

There is no wise backward-looking nature-state we can return to that wouldn't involve a sharp decrease in the population, which is sustained by chemical-fueled agriculture. We're pretty much stuck with artificiality and technological relationships with our world unless we want to stop feeding a couple billion people.

But if you try to look deeper into such advice, it falls apart. What does it actually mean? Let's stop being individualistic consumers and return to tightly knit families? Let's have direct relationship with soil and animals and make our own organic high quality food?

Then you realize most of our ancestors fled from both of these situations at the first opportunity.

The issue is the human population explosion and its consequences on the environment and use of resources.

Everything else is either trying to blame "the system" for ideological reasons ("capitalism is bad", "Westerners are bad"), or trying to cope by squeezing quality of life ("don't travel", "don't eat meat", etc).

Soylent green is people?!

Step 1: be descended from long-lived people because it's mostly genetics

The End