I wouldn't want to do that job. Shit, I don't want to read gpt-crap now. I don't want to read the shit the editors here come up with now, either.

You're going to find fewer and fewer people able to do that job. GPT is one reason.

That means even fewer humans learn how to do it.

It doesn't exactly help that more and more schools no longer teach this sort of thing. They used to, so you had a good pool of capable people. Now, even here, it's become quite common that people go off the handle for things entirely in their own heads, since nothing of what they complain of is in the original comment they're reacting to. Reading comprehension is way down.

That in turn means that it no longer matters whether GPT manages to produce wonderfully clear, structured drivel. The readers are no longer able to notice the difference. (Or are no longer willing to read all that drivel, since produces by machine, with "nobody home".) And GPT will do its level best to help, and succeed, with making it worse.

Even if it was by accident, it's a salient point: Excelling as a project community is not the same as being saccharinely "nice" to each other. The latter is what CoCs seek to codify.

Personally I think people should keep their sexual preferences where they belong, in the bedroom. I don't mind if someone happens to be gay and that happens to be noticeable, like hearing of a newly acquired boyfriend or a breakup, but I don't need juicy bedroom details. Just like with straight people. Taking your "gender" that you "identify as", consisting of a sexual preference and a set of made-up pronouns, described in a starbucks-like word-salad, and wearing it on your sleeve, by preference loudly, on the shop floor?

Weren't you supposed to get work done?

No, they're not there to get work done. They're there to be, as you say, crybullies. That's the point.

The thing that my experience says is the leading factor, is culture differences. There are cultures I would prefer not to work with, for various practical reasons. There are good reasons to say "no discrimination" but it's become a bit of an article of faith, and through that denies tolerant people to call intolerant people to heel. So we regress.

And not even be aware that they're being blunt. And can get hurt over reasons everyone else wasn't even aware could cause hurt. Dealing with both is a two-way street, and a learning exercise for everyone. CoCs are hopelessly one-way in comparison.

It does no good trying to codify everyone else's behaviour so you'll never be hurt. The concept makes no sense. So either the CoC-lovers are hopelessly naive, or they are sneaking in their ulterior motives. In contravention of Hanlon's razor, I think we've seen enough evidence that malice is the appropriate attribution here.

Seems both are comparably successful in reaching those stated goals. Say, by the by, you look like an astute fellow. And do I have the investment offer for astute fellows! Concrete and steel, you really can't go wrong with that. A nice view over water, and a road going over it thrown into the bargain. Just think of the possibilities! Tolls! Sight-seeing! The lot! Whaddaya say, my astute fellow, are you up for some solid investing?

That's true, but you can't force people to be nice to each other by trying to "program" them using a CoC. That's before noticing that "excellency" is different from "being nice".

It's like, oh, trying to improve literature by codifying what great literature looks like, starting with the rules of spelling and grammar and narrative structure and so on, and rigidly enforcing the code. Not that spelling and grammar aren't important, but strict adherence doesn't get you great literature. It's a great way to miss the point entirely.

I'd already given up on FreeBSD for technical reasons, so I won't claim I gave up on FreeBSD because of its embracing a CoC, regretting it, and yet refusing to learn it is a bad idea.

That does seem to be the essence, yes.

In turn CoCs are a vehicle for pushing a political agenda. Meaning anyone letting themselves get bamboozled into adopting a CoC is bamboozled into at least acquiescing that political agenda. Having an entire programming language exist (and cuckoo's egg itself into other projects) just to push a CoC? That's quite impressive. Lots of work by useful idiots, harnessed.

Not fast enough for my taste. Their "our language is soooooo much better than yours, so you should use our language instead!"-attitude is annoying, especially when their technical claims don't hold up to scrutiny yet they keep on touting them anyway, and various projects falling for it, moreso. And of course a rust invasion also comes with that CoC attached.

This is another bad idea that you can't really get rid of until it burns itself out. So let it burn, as annoying as it is. And then we'll have all the fun of cleaning up after it, for many years to come. Many work. Very opportunity. So excite. Wow.

Best we can do is show the bystanders what it's really made of. See that, and see the folly.

This is the same sort of fuzziness as "the internet is broken, it must be the server".

IOW, the expected expressive acuity of people who use microsoft for their "email".

And not unexpected from these "editors" to copy that sort of waffle verbatim.

ChatGPT gonna take over the Indian scam call centres' jobs then?

Three times the same thing, but no meat.

What exactly is "China's influence" here, how does that show and why do they think it bad?

What exactly are these "collection practices" and how is banning the "apps" going to help?

chrome already reloads with gay abandon, losing state all the way.

This doesn't sound like much of an improvement, just shuffling the idiot memory hog tendencies under the carpet a bit.

And there's still no way to turn off middle-click-jump-around-jump-around-goddamn-turn-it-off-idiot-google that I can find.

Their business model is selling you out, while providing you unverified, even unsigned, "results" through their ethereum-access-APIs. As does the competition.

Or at least so tells me Moxie Marlinspike. I have not verified his claims.

Riddle me this: Why? No, not why the summary isn't a summary, we know that. Why is amazon doing this? That ought to've been in the summary.

Next week the CPU support will be dropped as "too old". Welcome to the new linux.

This is a nice short example of how not to summarise. To wit:

First you introduce something in the headline. Then you introduce that same thing, again.

At that point at the latest you're supposed to explain what the immediate upshot is. "What's this non-custodial wallet thing?" Needs an immediate answer. Instead, gobbledygook.

By then the poor reader has been had by the repetition and the disappointment of not receiving what a summary is supposed to offer, and can safely skip the rest. No further content available unless you brought a shitshovel.

Another failure for this "editor". It's telling that they've deliberately been shooting for failure from the get-go. Still at it, check.

Means, "doesn't work with your old stuff".

This is a problem throughout the industry. And in cases where they do bend over backwards to stay bug-for-bug compatible (*cough* you-know-who *cough* up until a while ago) that eventually becomes untenable.

Both problems are arguments for better design. This probably isn't something that capitalism can fix. But it does need fixing, for a variety of reasons.

This seems to be the gold standard for "journalism" these days, at least according to the current crop of editor. Nearly everything posted on slashdot got picked because it starts with a sob story of some sort, a single anecdote that is there to legitimise whatever comes after. If you're really lucky you might get two, but wildly disparate ones.

So you're two pages and two anecdotes in, and you know you're in for a treat: Two points to the article! Whoo!

I'd surmise they wanted to do something, or even just been seen to do something, and didn't have the wherewithal to do it correctly and couldn't be arsed to ask someone who did have the required clue.

This is fairly common in "ground breaking green" projects.

Hanlon's razor says they may well would have given a shit if capable.

They're not, no. But that doesn't mean the wish to be seen doing something to signal their virtue with wasn't the reason to do the thing. They then proceeded to show their incompetence because the project lacked the substance of being useful, only carried the semblance of being seen to do something presumably useful.

Going around telling the world how many trees you're planting to help save the planet fits the "come see my virtue!" narrative close enough that the accusation cannot be presumed empty.

They may not even have articulated it clearly to themselves. The result, though, speaks volumes. If they had intended to do more than get themselves a pet forest, they, as responsible adults, would have asked themselves hard questions about the future, about care and feeding, and how to make sure the planted trees survive and thrive. Starting with "when shall we plant?" and "how deep do we need to plant so the trees survive?"

I'd almost ask to ask you lot to raise hands: Who doesn't know that you can't just plant whatever you like whenever you feel like it, there's a seasonal timing to it? Along with a good deal else.

You must be newer even than GP here.

Moi? Not at all, as is traditional. And anyway shit that starts with sob stories is unreadable.

Well, doing something to be seen to do something and not thinking very much about what really is needed to make the something work and be useful, is pretty much the essence of that. So if that's the result, then at least the suspicion is reasonable.

You did succeed quite a bit, too, didn't you?

The only useful bit in this drawn-out story fluff is that apparently real people with real jobs got "verified" as something they're not. Whether this is even a "scheme" or just instagram ineptitude isn't even clear from the summary. Who made instagram the arbiters of truth, anyway?

So did the current slashdot editors get hired on the strength of instagram verifications as "editor" but are they in reality something else, like rocket surgeon or plastic engineer, or what?