It seems he is really desperate for media to avoid Epstein discussion.

This reads like a junior developer rant.

His dependency count is in hundreds. 90% of his code is glue code between those dependencies. Yet he thinks he is the one that created something.

@mixologist, author here. That was kinda my point... if I have to keep on gluing components, I might as well start from the top :)

Why do you think that they can't be turned off remotely? They all have over the air updates. Just push the update the bricks the bus.

Look at what I replied to. The claim was "You can't have [buses] roaming around with no way to turn them off remotely". As if there's some general rule or agreement that it MUST be possible to turn buses off remotely. What I stated was that of course there's no such mandate.

And when I said "Not a single bus on the road in my city can be turned off remotely", that's the truth. They can't. They're all diesel, so there's not even a remote possibility of a hidden esim-powered switch.

Why did the post I replied to claim that it must be possible for buses? And why did you assume that I meant something else, and that all buses are electric?

Edit: Typo

Remote control is just one over the air update away.

My experience is the opposite.

Teams that are knowledgeable jury rig their own custom solutions without all the enterprise cruft. They make solutions that fix their problem and they do it faster than the teams who use bloated enterprise solutions.

I am tired of seeing over engineered enterprise solutions that that are implemented and never used because they can’t be integrated into the dev workflow easily. Simple bash script that does the task it was designed to do beats any enterprise crap.

The wisdom of pipes! I'd share these workflows the exact same way we share others [ie: BASH, Ansible]: Git. Needs nothing more than a directory, though an SSH daemon is quite nice.

Those of us who can survive without desperate monetization plays are worth quite a lot, actually. They say 'jury rig', we say 'engineer'.

The main problem with enterprise crap is portability. It only runs under very specific circumstances.

Bash and Perl scripts run, truly, everywhere - so you get real collaboration. I can share it with anyone on my team and they can use it.

Well written bash will run anywhere. Amateur bash will only run on the version of Mac OS it was written on, and even then only after the correct collection of random homebrew packages installed has been installed.

I agree, which is why I think most bash scripts should actually be Perl scripts. There, I said it.

user growth has slowed. the technology that should help users is only being pushed from the top, while users refuse to use it. openai pivoted to porn.

does it really feel like they have a chance to recover all the expenses in the future?

crypto grifters pivoted to ai and, same as last time, normal people don’t want to have anything to do with them.

considering the amount of money burned on this garbage, i think we can at least declare a looser.

You do realize that a lot of people in EU are working 4 days a week? Are you aware that McDonalds employee can live by having only one job?

EU decided to distribute the productivity benefits instead of hoarding it into stock market gains like US does.

Btw, you do realize that US commodified investing in Us stocks? Whole world can easily invest in US stock market. Basically, instead of taking care of their own citizens, US economy is paying out gains to foreigners.

Be mindful of the context these posts are created in. Don't take the current echo chamber to heart.

For decades now, we are trying to lower the barrier to entry in software development. We created Python, web frameworks and mobile development so easily accessible that you can become software developer by completing a short online boot camp. There is a lot of software developers posting here now who, 20 years ago, would not even consider this job because it would be way over their abilities.

This forum is equivalent if you had a forum about civil transportation that gathers airline pilots and uber drivers. Technically, they both do the same work. Just like in that forum, uber drivers would outnumber airline pilots and skew the topics related to their experience, here we get pushed topics about new frameworks, and AI assisted tools.

When I started working professionally 20 years ago, you could only get job in big companies working on big projects. No one else could afford a cost of custom software. Today, we reduced development costs and we have a huge pool of potential customers who can now afford services of software developers. Web shops, gambling sites, porn sites... This is the majority of software development work today. Boring repetitive tasks of gluing some imported modules together.

Serious development work didn't disappear. It is just not talked about here. There is still a need people who know what they are doing.

My advise is that if you want a satisfying development career, steer clear of latest hypes and don't go blindly following techbro lemmings. And most importantly, don't take career advice from anyone who finds his job so unsatisfying and tedious that he is trying to make AI do it for him. That's a major red flag.

This actually took longer than I thought. It is really weird that for all my adult content I have to go to a dedicated adult store, yet for games I can find them on Steam and gog where kids shop for games.

You don’t get porn movies on Netflix or Disney stream. You don’t get adult toys in your local grocery store. Why do we sell porn on Steam?

Why haven’t game stores just spin off separate store front for porn content? It is basically free, since they already have the infrasructure.

While being removed from general stores, porn has become very visible on big gaming platforms which majority of customers don’t associate with porn. Backlash is inevitable.

I think we can expect a bigger push against porn in general as pendulum swings back on the other side.

Bookstores sell kids books and adult material just fine. The adult stuff might be behind the counter or in a certain area, same as stores like Steam where you have to actively seek it out.

Also grocery stores sell alcohol, and I'm personally more fine with children getting access to porn than to liquor.

Depends what country you're in. In most of Canada grocery stores do not sell liquor.

But at any rate, they're going to ask for ID when you buy it. Children can't access it.

It’s a lot easier to ID-gate food based on whether it contains some amount of a substance (alcohol) than it is to ID-gate media.

For extremely explicit stuff, sure, the adults-only line might be clear for a lot of folks. But other stuff is not as clear cut: if media describes sex at all, is it adult? Even Supreme Court justices have trouble defining in this area.

…and all of that is ignoring the elephants in the room: whether or not explicit media even should be restricted for non-adults, the fact that there are highly variable and localized levels of people’s preparedness for adult media (even more variable and subjective than developmental cutoffs for alcohol sale), and the abundant historical evidence that attempts to draw an acceptability/adults-only line in subjective areas like this are inevitably extended to provide cover for political agendas (e.g. homophobia).

I would not agree on this one. Both is detrimental on children’s health.

One is more likely to directly cause a child's death than the other.

I‘m not arguing against that, but I'd like to point out that „death“ as a baseline is a pretty krass statement. Just my two cents.

I don't think it's a bad idea to say the thing that can (and does) kill children is the worse thing.

Video rental stores, when those were still a thing, were the same way. They'd have a room in the back with a curtain to section it off.

First, it's highly concerning that some companies have gained immense power through monopolization, a point also made by former FTC Chair Lina Khan. Separately, in physical stores, there's an incentive to comply with laws because police would intervene if pornography were sold alongside regular goods. However, online, there's hardly any punishment for distributing pornography. This has led to a proliferation of people trying to sell porn on mainstream platforms to maximize profits and gain attention. Online, pornography is consumed far too casually. While it doesn't need to be completely eliminated, I believe there needs to be a clearer separation. Also, it seems many of those currently criticizing Visa/Mastercard are Trump supporters, and I'm curious about the FTC's stance on mergers and acquisitions between large corporations.

I don't think any of that really has anything to do with my comment. I was commenting on the cultural normality of a business dealing in both adult and family friendly content simultaneously.

Dedicated porn sites are also being forced by the card companies to pull down porn. Also Steam/itch aren't where this started, they're in the third wave of companies getting held hostage over this. Digital tip jars and direct-payment creator services were hit weeks ago.

But the problem isn't porn. That's the low hanging fruit for a massive power grab The problem is that card companies can/will/did blackmail multiple companies into changing, and in some small cases shut-down their entire businesses.

In a post-cash world, this is completely unacceptable, and a blatant power grab. If the payment processors are allowed to set this precedent, then there will be nothing to stop these for-profit companies from blocking anybody, anywhere from buying anything - for any or no reason.

People are blaming a specific protest group. Personally I believe they are being scapegoated. And honestly if a tiny group from a tiny economy are so easily able to control international macroeconomics, then the root cause is still that the card services are vulnerable to such an attack.

The only appropriate response is swift and severe regulation of these critically necessary card and banking services, up to and including the dissolution of both Visa and MasterCard - and in the US strict caps on card fees, as well as an amendment to the Constitution ensure that our right to own property permanently includes the right to buy property.

Are the payment providers going to weaponize their de facto control over all purchases to target guns next? Churches? Birth control? Inner-City hospitals? Which apps or social music companies do you think they'll allow to live, or die? Will they blackmail the Internet service providers? Political parties? Entire countries? Which side of which wars do you think Visa will force us to support? Is a company called "MasterCard" for or against letting people with your skin color buy food? You don't know. Nobody knows. Nobody should have to know.

It doesn't matter where you land politically, the point is that these companies cannot be allowed to wield this kind of control. Our society really does depend on it. ...Because we can't go back to cash anymore, and they very much know it.

> But the problem isn't porn. That's the low hanging fruit for a massive power grab

I mostly agree with this. There are legitimate issues with even the biggest and most respected porn sites being very lax with taking down underage and nonconsensual content. The card companies AFAICT aren't being pressured to reform because of this kind of content, but more the LGBT content which is harming nobody.

Maybe this will end the crypto winter.

I do like bringing up the potential for dissolution. I would add just the general ways in which they profit off distorting the economy for massive private gains, often to the ruin of many individuals.

Credit has become ubiquitous, in a manner that belies its supposed purpose, at least as was originally practiced before consumers were offered and employed credit for absolutely everything.

Then again, governments and "regulated" entities are also capable of blackmail. I'm not sure these private companies would ever have an incentive to care about what you spend their money on unless governments gave them a reason to - which is why this is happening. At the end of the day you run into the same perpetual problem - you want x, some mob wants y. Good luck.

It's not the same as an online store. There is a way for people to know kids are in a place they shouldn't be or to deny them access to adult content in real life. In Steam, there isn't

Adult content on steam is marked as such very clearly.

Under Community Content Preferences, you'll see an option for Mature Content and Adult-Only Sexual Content.

You'll also be preventing from accessing mature content depending on the filters in your account settings, and in the Family Management section of steam, for Family Shared Libraries.

It's not clear to me what kind of age controls Steam has, but I suspect that they require certain forms of payment before accessing the "super adult" portion.

(For instance you cannot see the "super adult" store pages at all if you are not logged in.)

If kids are on steam they're also on... ya know... the internet.

It's not complicated to realise that this achieves none of the stated objectives

Yes that's my point. The Internet does not have the kind of separation or age-checking that real life has, and maybe that hasn't been good for kids or adults

Steam isn't internet, you have to buy things there, which is a strong authentication than requires all your personal data (KYC).

I've been using Steam as an adult for the last two decades. I have hundreds of games in my library. I've never seen one porn title recommended to me or while browsing the site.

Steam also has extensive parental controls: https://help.steampowered.com/en/faqs/view/054C-3167-DD7F-49...

They popped up for me a few times without any prompting. It was weird.

The lack of an opt-out filter was an issue that Collective Shout supposedly campaigned for that went through Steam Labs and was them implemented for everyone circa 2020.

I feel like I saw this for the first time a year or two ago, and I had to toggle it on since it was off by default

I had to specifically block those from being shown, they were all over for me. I don't have any issue with them, but my kids use my steam deck, and game on my pc, and I didn't want them seeing those.

> You don’t get porn movies on Netflix or Disney stream. You don’t get adult toys in your local grocery store.

I'd be more interested in questioning these than why porn is available on Steam. I mean, Disney is essentially an anti-porn product, so I get that, but Netflix is a perfectly reasonable platform for porn. I don't see any reason adult toys can't be sold in Walmart or whatever.

> Backlash is inevitable.

I don't know. This doesn't seem like a grassroots movement.

Walmart does sell them. Next to pharmacy.

And that’s a good thing. There are too many stories of unsafe insertion of household objects ending up in the ER.

Same. Some Targets.

> You don’t get adult toys in your local grocery store

In the US at least the classier vibrators have been starting to be sold first at shops like Sharper Image, and now, indeed, grocery stores. The packaging of course would not raise any questions from kids, and they are sold in the same aisles as condoms and lubricant. "Sexual health" is the umbrella term which feels like it is in play.

There is also a thriving wink-and-nod category of “personal massager” tools which are sold in many department stores in the US. They’re usually not in supermarkets, but I get the impression that’s mostly due to supermarkets not having many electronics/appliances in general, not because supermarkets are more family-friendly than, say, Target.

Your own examples show the slippery slope this is. Walmart, Netflix, and Disney all DO carry content that some people want banned†. No matter what you're talking about, someone is going to take offense and want the content removed entirely.

Collective Shout, the group behind this latest censorship push, also wanted Detroit Become Human to be banned because the story depicted someone abusing a child. If we're banning that, why not ban memoirs of child abuse survivors or "James and the Giant Peach"?

You suggest it would be easy for Steam and Itch to run alternative storefronts. Given that they removed content that was offensive to their payment processors, they'd need to engage with high-risk payment processors to power these new store fronts. To say nothing of the technical work involved, those high-risk payment processors certainly charge more for their services. That'd raise the already high 30% that Valve takes on most transaction.

Additionally, if a games journalism website also has relationships with payment processors, are they allowed to review adult games even if those reviews don't include pictures? Or are they going to be equally punished for giving adult content a positive rating?

This all limits the options available of responsible adult consumers and costs creators of LEGAL content revenue.

===

†Here's a longer look at your examples:

Define adult toys. I assume you mean dildos. Walmart doesn't sell those in physical stores, but they do sell them online. Additionally they, like most other stores, do sell lube, condoms, and vibrating rings in their brick and mortar store. Every clothing store that sells underwear sells something many would describe as lingerie. Target has an entire lineup of "after dark" board games stocked right next to Candyland.

"After Netflix published a marketing poster showing the [11 year old girls] twerking in revealing cheerleading outfits without any context, an online petition calling for the cancellation of the US release received more than 140 thousand signatures."

'According to a source close to the production, Pixar’s next feature film, “Lightyear” does feature a significant female character, Hawthorne, who is in a meaningful relationship with another woman. While the fact of that relationship was never in question at the studio, a kiss between the characters had been cut from the film. Following the uproar surrounding the Pixar employees’ statement and Disney CEO Bob Chapek‘s handling of the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, however, the kiss was reinstated into the movie last week.'

I'm not sure is "very visible", there is some streisand-effect going on with this issue. I've been a subscriber to steam since...the beginning. Signed up for Steam to play half life 2 at its launch. And I didn't know there were porn games on steam until this issue with mastercard/visa came up in the last week.

CVS and Walgreens in the USA sell adult toys.

Bookstores have adult book with images and kids books.

Walmart also sells some adult toys, lubricant, and condoms. They also sell magazines with nudity.

ESPN did The Body Issue magazine in stores for a decade [1]

If a kid has access to steam, do they not have access to the internet? If you are parental blocking the internet, then why not steam?

[1]: https://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/27400369/the-bo...

Wouldn't some parents use Steam's offline mode for this exact reason ?

(But of course this means no access to the "problematic materials" either.)

Grocery stores absolutely sell sex toys now. Wal-Mart carries them as well.

I'm no prude, but it's really weird to me.

I was in Belgrade aiport duty-free a few days ago and there was a Lelo stand in amongst the usual cosmetics. "Fly in Pleasure", definitely got a laugh out of me.

Personally I think this is a good thing.

I'm curious how do you define "prude". My definition of it would be to be highly sensitive to sexual things, which is basically why you'd be weirded at seeing them in a daily place, for better or worse.

On their presence in the first place, I'd say if a shop is going to sell condoms and lubricant, also holding basic sex tools isn't a big stretch.

Why? Those same stores have sold lube, condoms, and Trojan's vibrators since the 90's. Walmart has sold lingerie since they existed.

They've also sold personal massagers that were used as (and sometimes quietly designed as) sex toys for many years, too.

Why? Why is it weird that large box stores like Walmart and target that literally sell everything, also sells vibrators?

Seems like you are a bit of prude :) No shame there, you are fully entitled to your opinion in democracy

>You don’t get porn movies on Netflix or Disney stream. You don’t get adult toys in your local grocery store. Why do we sell porn on Steam?

Why not? One shouldn't confuse games with real life.

Back in my day, we went to the blockbuster, and you had to muster up the courage to walk back into the adults only section!

You can walk into any bookstore and buy a bible, which has plenty of disgusting content in it.

Absird comparison the bible is clearly not pornographic

Ahem:

https://ffrf.org/other-2/x-rated/

>Why haven’t game stores just spin off separate store front for porn content? It is basically free, since they already have the infrasructure.

Because the payment processing is unreliable and prohibitively expensive. For all the whining about "moral pearl clutching", the reality is that adult oriented businesses deal with massively higher rates of fraud and charge-backs. Visa and Mastercard couldn't care less about the ethical issues, it's simply a risk calculation for their business.

Even if that’s true (and it gets repeated as a very general statement without general data to back it up, so I’m not sure), then why couldn’t payment processors either a) charge retailers in high-risk segments a higher transaction fee, b) charge merchants penalty fees if the number of chargebacks from their transactions exceeds some threshold, or c) compete with each other to serve higher-risk markets?

The answer is, I think, monopoly environments: they contain poor incentive structures for competitive differentiation, and encourage extreme risk aversion by the monopolists. Add to that the “it’s not really about chargebacks, it’s a culture war” agenda (which isn’t just lobbying pressure on payment processors; plenty of the calls are coming from inside the house there), and the outcome of de facto censorship is likely.

>Even if that’s true (and it gets repeated as a very general statement without general data to back it up, so I’m not sure), then why couldn’t payment processors either a) charge retailers in high-risk segments a higher transaction fee, b) charge merchants penalty fees if the number of chargebacks from their transactions exceeds some threshold, or c) compete with each other to serve higher-risk markets?

They do all of the above. There are obviously an endless number of niche payment providers who serve the segments. And they are... expensive and unreliable. Not suitable to a huge business like Valve that derives the majority of their revenue from mainstream products.

> the reality is that adult oriented businesses deal with massively higher rates of fraud and charge-backs

This gets repeated, but it's not the real reason. If it were, Visa/MasterCard would be fine with a store like Steam offering those games as e.g. crypto-only purchases.

Found an explanation: the reputational risk they're talking about is 2022 pornhub case. Most likely some saudi dude didn't like it and threatened to pull. That's why they don't talk about it: because it's literal sharia exported around the world.

Wouldn't surprise me, gotta follow the money.

That's the clause in the agreement they use to justify the increase in rates, but it's unclear it's actually "risky" when it's a large company like Valve.

>That's the clause in the agreement they use to justify the increase in rates, but it's unclear it's actually "risky" when it's a large company like Valve.

The risk is not from Valve; disputes pass through to the processor. This is the same problem dating sites, gambling, etc. all deal with. Any sufficiently large adult oriented business becomes a de-facto payment processor, where their entire core business function is in managing this risk, not whatever they actually do for the end user. It's either that, or charge the exorbitant fees that come with using a niche provider who takes on that risk.

Steam has been selling these games for years without ever saying there was a problem with this. So has itch.

So why did this happen now as opposed to 5-10 years ago? What changed?

Actually they don’t, visa heavily restricts those business and the amount of chargebacks they are allowed to have, other industries have much higher rates of chargeback.

Let me get this right… The same people who said that woman’s health should be left to individual states are now saying that AI shouldn’t be left to individual states.

Weird priorities.

Paraphrasing - Their one principle is that laws should protect them and bind everyone else, and not bind them, and not protect anyone else.

Everyone else is excuses as paper thin as a kid trying to get a cookie

Follow the money. Once you realize nothing makes sense, everything suddenly makes sense.

Don't worry, they also don't think that women's health should be left to the states. Given the opportunity to ban abortion federally they'll take it.

That's because what they actually want is for their policies to be applied everywhere. Sometimes there's a reason they can't just apply the policy everywhere at the highest level. In these cases, what they do is they make sure there's no policy at the highest level, so that as many instances of the lower levels as possible can apply the policies they want.

The reason they said abortion law should be a state issue is they knew they couldn't get a federal abortion ban. By making it a state issue they ensure they get to at least ban abortion in half the country rather than none of the country.

By now they probably can get a federal abortion ban, though, so I expect them to do that sooner or later. Don't expect consistency from their public statements - "abortion should be up to the states" will simply be memory-holed.

In practice, "states’ rights" is sometimes used strategically, not ideologically. AI though is viewed as as a technological and economic issue, requiring national coordination to maintain US competitiveness and adding a patchwork of States laws impedes that goal

That’s the reason it is different for the GOP

My cynical take is this is regulatory capture on part of the most lucrative tech sector in the next few years, in return for campaign contributions.

Someone might still commit to campaign contributions if it aligns with their philosophy or goals. But I don’t think that’s what is going on here

IMO, you're almost there.

"States' rights" has only ever been used as a smokescreen. The original "states' rights" argument was a cover for slavery. More recently, it's been a cover for other far-right reactionary positions specifically during center-left administrations that would otherwise seek to impose regulations preventing them from oppressing people at the state level.

AI is not being "protected" this way because it's Just Too Important To Leave To The States; it's being protected because Musk and other mega-wealthy Silicon Valley types have pushed to exempt it from all regulation. (Notice that this bill does nothing to regulate AI at the federal level, nor is there any particular proposal to do so from the people pushing for this clause!)

You are probably right.

Let’s look at it differently though: even if the federal preemption push is cynical, is there still a valid, public-interest reason to avoid fragmented AI regulation?

That’s the only place your argument could be stress-tested: not in exposing the hypocrisy.

But there isn’t an introduction of like AI ethics rules or policy or directing a federal agency to establish any so that’s a valid criticism. What if we take the viewpoint that they are trying to get there?

> What if we take the viewpoint that they are trying to get there?

Because if they were trying to harmonize AI regulations then they would do it federally instead of just banning states from doing anything. (Federal regulations generally trump state regulations, at least wherever the state regulation is weaker or absent.)

I think my point is they are trying to stop the patchwork then step 2 is put the right federal agency in charge to set the standards rather than states.

I didn't think this administration deserves the benefit of the doubt. They're most often doing the most transparently corrupt thing that they think they'll get away with, and let the lawyers sort out the details

I'm going to try to reach out to that Congressman's office to understand the vision for adding that rider to the budget bill for AI. Will report back if they respond

> is there still a valid, public-interest reason to avoid fragmented AI regulation?

I don't see why there would be any more pressing reasons than for other fields, say climate or energy regulation (looking at you, Texas) or of course the classic: personal choices of sexuality and reproduction. Yet no one is trying to ban state laws there, on the contrary.

That’s because it’s about preempting progressive governance in places like California, New York, or Illinois

And that's a valid reason?

Sure for the GOP it is just like Democrats do the same to Conservatives. GOP is in power and they are setting the policy now.

OK, that may be a "valid" reason in the realm of power politics and partisan warfare, but it's definitely not "public-interest".

It depends who you talk to. When Democrats enact policy they certainly think it’s in the public interest and conversely so do Republicans. It goes both ways

> The original "states' rights" argument was a cover for slavery.

Notably, it was a hypocritical dishonest mess from the very beginning. For example, slavers used federal power to force other states to allow violent crimes inside their territory, and later the Confederacy's Constitution forever banned member states' rights to not have slavery.

I think you're inventing a hypocrisy that doesn't really exist.

Abortion protection should exist at a federal level because it's healthcare. If a pregnant woman is traveling and has an emergency that requires an abortion she should be able to receive one regardless of what state she's in.

Vaccine mandates are a federal issue because the virus doesn't give a shit about state lines and right of movement is a thing neither states nor the federal government can restrict.

AI is a state issue because it can be contained within a particular state. It works like pornography bans. If you are in a state that bans pornography you can't distribute it nor consume it regardless of whether it originated on a computer outside the state.

Marijuana should be a state issue for the same reason. Whether you're allowed to import it from outside the country or if you move your marijuana from a legal state to an illegal state is a federal issue. Whether states that ban it should have to respect medical cards is a federal issue.

Education is a federal issue because the state has an interest in children getting a quality public education even if they move.

Nobody is all federal or all states rights. To do so would literally be unamerican.

> AI is a state issue because it can be contained within a particular state. It works like pornography bans. If you are in a state that bans pornography you can't distribute it nor consume it regardless of whether it originated on a computer outside the state.

I think the first amendment preserves the right to read and write, including arbitrary computer programs, dare I even say pornographic ones. I agree the rest of your post though.