• 5 Posts
  • 450 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 5th, 2023

help-circle
  • So a hit piece is only effective when read by humans. This is a first of its kind example, and likely was at least prompted by a human, if not written by an actual human. Additionally while social media is full of bots, it’s humans who are actually affected by such a response.

    If I say you’re “stupid”, it matters. You can ignore me sure, but at face value it matters. As far as I know I’ve never commented on a post of yours, so you could write me off as a worthless troll, but in theory it matters. But a bot calling you “stupid”? That really doesn’t matter. If you know you’re talking to a bot, as they exist today, then that really doesn’t matter.

    Society may change on this issue, but as it stands now a bot publishing a hit piece… That’s worthless.





  • As you’ve mentioned in other threads, bash is a hard requirement for the OS, so if it’s already installed, and the default on most Linux distros, bash is probably the best option.

    The dash shell isn’t designed to be user interactive. It’s a lightweight scripting shell/language.

    The ksh shell is an older standard shell. Years ago I worked for a company that ran corporate Unix systems and on those systems only ksh and tcsh were available. Ksh was the default, and as someone only familiar with bash it was a bit different but mostly the same. So there is at least one point for maybe choosing ksh.

    However my personal shell preference is zsh. When I write scripts I do so using bash. The two shells are 99% similar on a day to day basis, but I prefer zsh for a user interface. So I use one for day to day and the other for scripting.

    Other threads have also mentioned fish, which is also a great choice if you don’t know where to start.

    Are zsh or fish “heavier” or “bloated”, maybe. But remember to consider your attack surface. If your house is on fire it doesn’t matter of you fix the leaky faucet in bathroom or the kitchen.













  • It’s possibly from people trying to help, but don’t understand AI hallucinations.

    For example a Wikipedia article might say, “John Smith spent a year Oxford University before moving to London.[Citation Needed]” So the article already contains information, but lacks proper citation.

    Someone comes along and says, "Ah ha! AI can solve this and asks AI, ‘Did John Smith spend a year at Oxford before moving to London, please provide citations.’ and the AI returns, “Yes of course he did according to the book ‘John Smith: Biography of a Man’ ISBN 123456789”

    So someone adds that as a citation and now Wikipedia has been improved.

    Or… has it? The ISBN 123456789 is invalid. No book could possibly have that number. If the ISBN is invalid, then the book is also likely invalid, and the citation is also invalid.

    So the satisfaction was someone who couldn’t previously help Wikipedia, now thinking they can help Wikipedia. At face value that’s a good thing, someone who wants to help Wikipedia. The problem is that they think they’re helping, but they’re actually harming.