Common CSV parsers don’t require it and I’ve seen plenty of examples of unquoted CSV cells (which, given there’s no actual standard for the format, isn’t too surprising). Hell I’ve created my fair share while throwing together ad hoc datasets. The idea that some of these dumps might be made by folks who are too careless to properly quote and escape their CSV data isn’t hard to believe at all.

I do both, because people can do more than one thing. This is called a false dichotomy, and in this case with an unsubtle whiff of moralizing.

deleted by creator

A Short Hike, definitely. I just wish it was longer.

If you have an Android phone I can’t recommend Genius Scan enough. Fast, accurate, lots of features. I use it with syncthing by exporting the files to a folder that’s configured to sync the paperless input folder.

Just want to say thank you! Paperless is one of the first things I recommend to anyone considering self hosting their infra. Amazing piece of work!

deleted by creator

There are more beginners then there are experts, so in the absence of research a beginner UI is a safer bet.

If you’re in the business of creating high quality UX, and you’re building a UI without even the most basic research–understanding your target user–you’ve already failed.

And yes, if you definite “beginner” to be someone with expert training and experience, then yes an expert UI would be better for that “beginner”. What a strange way to define “beginner” though.

If I’m building a product that’s targeting software developers, a “beginner” has a very different definition than if I’m targeting grade school children, and the UX considerations will be vastly different.

This is, like, first principles of product development stuff, here.

Unless you’ve actually done the user research, you have no idea if a “beginner friendly UX is a safer bet” . It’s just a guess. Sometimes it’s a good guess. Sometimes it’s not. The correct answer is always “it depends”.

Hell, whether or not a form full of fields is or isn’t “beginner” friendly is even debatable given the world “beginner” is context-specific. Without knowing who that user is, their background, their training, and the work context, you have no way of knowing for sure. You just have a bunch of assumptions you’re making.

As for the rest, human data entry that cannot be automated is incredibly common, regardless of your personal feelings about it. If you’ve walked into a government office, healthcare setting, legal setting, etc, and had someone ask you a bunch of questions, you might be surprised to hear that the odds are very good that human was punching your answers into a computer.

Without knowing what the user is actually doing, that’s impossible to know. If the user has to input all those fields on a regular basis, then that one screen is the superior UX.

That third screenshot, assuming good keyboard navigation, would likely be a godsend for anyone actually using it every day for regular data entry (well, okay, not without fixes–e.g. the SSN and telephone number split apart as separate text boxes is terrible).

This same mindset is what led Tesla to replace all their driver friendly indicators and controls with a giant shiny touchscreen that is an unmitigated disaster for actual usability.

Hah I… think we’re on the same side?

The original comment was justifying unregulated and unmitigated research into AI on the premise that it’s so dangerous that we can’t allow adversaries to have the tech unless we have it too.

My claim is AI is not so existentially risky that holding back its development in our part of the world will somehow put us at risk if an adversarial nation charges ahead.

So no, it’s not harmless, but it’s also not “shit this is basically like nukes” harmful either. It’s just the usual, shitty SV kind of harmful: it will eliminate jobs, increase wealth inequality, destroy the livelihoods of artists, and make the internet a generally worse place to be. And it’s more important for us to mitigate those harms, now, than to worry about some future nation state threat that I don’t believe actually exists.

(It’ll also have lots of positive impact as well, but that’s not what we’re talking about here)

deleted by creator

Training new models is already the domain of large actors only, simply due to the GPU requirements, which serve as a massive moat. That ship has sailed. There isn’t a single open source model, today, that wasn’t trained by a corporate entity first, and then only fined tuned by the community later.

You don’t need AI for any of that. Determined state actors have been fabricating information and propagandizing the public, mechanical Turk style, for a long long time now. When you can recruit thousands of people as cheap labour to make shit up online, you don’t need an LLM.

So no, I don’t believe AI represents a new or unique risk at the hands of state actors, and therefore no, I’m not so worried about these technologies landing in the hands of adversaries that I think we should abandon our values or beliefs Just In Case. We’ve had enough of that already, thank you very much.

And that’s ignoring the fact that an adversarial state actor having access to advanced LLMs isn’t somehow negated or offset by us having them, too. There’s no MAD for generative AI.

Really? I’m supposed to believe AI is somehow more existentially risky than, say, chemical or biological weapons, or human cloning and genetic engineering (all of which are banned or heavily regulated in developed nations)? Please.

I understand the AI hype artists have done a masterful job convincing everyone that their tech is so insanely powerful (and thus incredibly valuable to prospective investors) that it’ll wipe out humanity, but let’s try to be realistic.

But you know, let’s take your premise as a given. Even despite that risk, I refuse to let an unknowable hypothetical be used to hold our better natures hostage. The examples are countless of governments and corporations using vague threats as a way to get us to accept bad deals at the barrel of a virtual gun. Sorry, I will not play along.

You know what?

I’m fine with that hypothetical risk.

“The bad guys will do it anyway so we need to do it, too” is the worst kind of fatalism. That kind of logic can be used to justify any number of heinous acts, and I refuse to live in a world where the worst of us are allowed to drag down the rest of us.

deleted by creator

“Huh weird, I tried to use <insert service here> and it’s not working. Welp, guess I better fix it…”

For the record, I deleted the comment you replied to because I realized I was wrong in that both Tesla and the quoted manual, above, urge the removal of tree sap and so forth immediately, something I hadn’t caught in my first reading.

Having recognized that I realized I hadn’t considered the more fundamental point that I called out in my other comment (that the fact that the Cybertruck finish requires the same treatment as a regular car is in fact an indictment of the quality of the Cybertruck’s exterior, not a justification for it), hence the new reply.