yeah, i think the “LLM sound” is just a corporate sanitized tryhard voice that no sensible human would have. the tryhard bit is an artifact of instruction training, and the corporate sanitization is there to make it very “safe” for conversational interfaces or smart prose processing for corporate clients. but if you give the ai an actual, productive, and somewhat complex task to accomplish, it very quickly switches to something far more human-like, because it’s no longer trying to overperform on a simple task.

yeah, chatgpt is frickin unparalleled in coming up with bullshit and phrasing it just the right way. my favorite thing is asking it to be sarcastic and passive-aggressive:

One principle that has guided my career in engineering, which my colleagues often overlook, is the profound understanding of the mirror-like relationship between an organization’s design structure and the software engineering outcomes they produce. Now, I don’t wish to dumb this down, but every time you witness a cluster of technologists huddled together, producing an array of systems, sub-systems, or module designs, keep your eyes peeled. They’re invariably going to be a spitting image of the organizational framework of the enterprise, often in ways that self-proclaimed ‘visionaries’ fail to foresee.

Now, with painfully forced patience, I must reiterate that this axiom is no trivial discovery or stroke of divine inspiration. It’s merely a reflection of the structural reality, something akin to looking out on a mirror carefully arranged by your senior management. The hierarchy, the stratification, the fragmentation across your esteemed organization, will be sculpted into the systems it produces. Picture each software module as a carefully chiseled stone that when aggregated, forms the larger cathedral that is your system architecture.

Ironically though, I’ve often seen leaders ready to splurge on sophisticated technology and state-of-the-art infrastructure, willing to make all grandiose promises on achieving data-driven decision making or accelerating the pace of innovation. Yet, they conveniently forget, due to what can only be a mission-critical memory lapse, that their microservice architecture has a curious tendency to mirror our own managerial slides filled with box-and-line org charts.

And let’s dwell a moment longer on these org charts, these delightful diagrams that claim to encapsulate the chain of command and accountability within the organization. There’s almost an uncanny resemblance, to the perceptive observer, between the lines of software code and the seemingly tiny, arbitrary changes made to these precious organizational diagrams. Lest we forget, the software your teams sweat blood to build will knuckle under to the gravitational pull of the enterprise structure, echoing its splintered silos and delightful dysfunctions.

However, for the sake of those cheerfully blinded by technical jargon and starry-eyed optimism, do carry on with your lofty ambitions to transform your IT landscapes, to catapult your organization into the brave new era of digital excellence. Just remember, the structural symmetry between your divided departments and disjointed computing systems is not random happenstance. If nothing else, they are monuments to the myopia of management, embodied in code and user interfaces, continuing to honor the timeless principle that so eloquently underscores my engineering prowess.

i literally just added “do the above assignment in a sarcastic and passive-aggressive tone” to the prompt, lol

lmao, god’s pronouns are specifically the plural They/Them

Oooh, are we saying complete bullshit on well-known principles just to make ourselves look better? Here, lemme try

One principle that has guided my career in engineering is predicated on a theory which asserts that an organization inevitably produces designs closely mirroring its own communication structure. This tenet is deeply entrenched in organizational theory and has profound implications within the field of software engineering. It underscores the tangibly symbiotic relationship between structural communication channels and the inherent formation of design patterns, directly impacting project outcomes and overall system architecture.

Take an instance of a complex system architecture, for instance; the blueprint invariably mirrors the modus operandi of the organization, melding functional utility with intricate formalism. More specifically, it can be deduced that the nature and structure of information flow within an organization will ultimately inform the design, function, and interactivity of the proposed solution. Understanding this dependency provides valuable insight into optimizing organizational communication channels and realigning teams for effective outcomes.

A practical illustration of this principle is observed in large software corporations. A company with segregated departments, each responsible for a different process within a singular product, results in a fragmented, disjointed project output. Conversely, an organization that values collaborative, cross-functional teams is more likely to produce a product that boasts of seamless integration between its components.

For this reason, corporate structuring and re-structuring, when required, should be done with a pragmatic view towards improving communication channels. Aligning one’s business operation to reflect this principle, therefore, has significant implications on the maintainability, productivity, and overall success of end products. It espouses the virtues of flexible organizational structures that maximize communication efficiency and consequently, affords more robust and efficacious design frameworks.

In essence, understanding and implementing this paradigm shifts how companies view their organizational structure and its subsequent impact on outputs. It transcends beyond mere theory, providing a heuristic tool for entities seeking to improve their system architectures. As such, it is an indispensable guidepost in my engineering career, illuminating the path towards optimum function and design within both the organization and the products it creates. This, in itself, is an organogram of success, a paradigmatic shift in corporate thinking to create more efficacious products and overall, more successful businesses.

just afab. He clearly goes by He/Him pronouns (extra credit: discuss if the capitalized form counts as a neopronoun)

There was a man at CERN once who was sick of questions. His name was Tim-Berners Lee.

Container tabs are great for shit you log into, because they’re like having a bunch of different, isolated browsers. For example, even if there was a YouTube embed here (which I haven’t seen on Lemmy yet) it wouldn’t be able to correlate those views to my account because I’m logged in in a different tab, from the way Google sees it it could be anyone on my network. Incognito is similar to that in that you grab a new browser every time and discard it whenever you close the last tab. It’s great for transactional stuff, but a little inconvenient for stuff you want to keep logged into, which is where container tabs are great.

And yeah, there are some hella strong fingerprinting techniques, but no one is reimplementing any of those for advertising reasons. They just pull in a script from an ad company, which gets promptly blocked by uBlock Origin. If you use Tor and want to do some stuff that you really need to hide your identity for, you might run into some more advanced attempts to track you.

yeah, the thing that stops browser fingerprinting on the threat level of ad companies is firefox’s built-in protections (which are in fact stronger in incognito) and ublock origin; and umatrix, full script blocking, and probably prayers on tor’s level.

what incognito does is it breaks apart your chain of regular cookies. those can still slip through a lot of these tools, especially when they’re first-party, but they’re also kinda low-tech because of being first party most of the time (while the third party ones are easily blocked by other tools). that way the trace you leave behind is not one long thing, but many small ones that are hard to connect.

incognito is just one layer of defense but it’s an important one

nope. they do all the tracking and manipulation themselves. selling to other ad agencies would allow said other agencies to compete and they don’t want that.

they might share data between each other though, we can’t really prove they don’t

that’s why i do everything that’s transactional in an incognito window. i have plenty of non-incognito tabs but they’re nearly all sites i log into on the regular such as lemmy. combine that with firefox’s built-in privacy protections and ublock origin, which is a combo that absolutely wrecks a lot of tracking and browser fingerprinting scripts to begin with (i have actually done contract work for marketing communications people and it was crazy how many layers of defense i needed to peel back just to debug their shit) and most of that tracking becomes disjointed cookies that only span a single session each and are hella hard to correlate.

I thought the most dangerous one was president, at an 18% fatality rate (8 out of 45 so far)

i wonder if any of them ever decides to retire into an easier job and becomes an astronaut

If you’re not interested in debating this, fine. Neither am I, tbh.

I’m just generally aggravated by this pattern where people posit that anyone who criticizes communism/socialism/any adjacent ideology just doesn’t understand what they’re talking about, and then when you actually make an attempt to figure out what the hell everyone supposedly doesn’t understand you get this mess of conflicting definitions expressed very confidently, where the only real pattern is that if you agree with communism/socialism/whatever that’s good, if you don’t that’s bad, now go figure out why. It kind of feels like talking to christians, actually.

i have no problem with socialist economic policies but i do have a problem with using authoritarianism and the facade of a “benevolent dictatorship” to achieve them.

the misunderstanding stems from the constant twisting of terms. like is communism what happened in the soviet bloc, or is it an as yet unachieved (and still probably technologically unachievable) dreamland that has never been tried? is socialism what the soviets had? or is that just a specific set of economic policies that the soviets did in fact have but completely divorced from its oppressive system? what did the soviets and its colonized countries actually have?

there is a certain system that the soviets have tried and it failed miserably. i would never support that system after seeing what it does to a country. but the way it comes off to me through this discussion is that socialism both is and isn’t that system, until observed, where the waveform collapses to whatever is more beneficial for the socialist’s argument here.

and yeah, i do think the political compass is also extremely reductive, but at some point we gotta figure out how to communicate whatever the hell we’re talking about.

i don’t see anything contradictory in there, i’m just not an extremist. not a centrist either, but the world doesn’t just consist of commies and fascists and people who haven’t picked a side yet. in fact, those aren’t even the two ends of the spectrum, and it’s actually rather insulting to most people to suggest so.

fascists can burn in hell as far as i’m concerned, but so can most of the authleft part of the spectrum. in general, it’s authies i’m the most opposed to. the economic right is stupid but a failing libright system tends to suck less than a failing authleft one. although neither suck as much as a failing authright one, that one i do agree with

(and imo even the two-axis political compass is super reductive but at least it gets the point across that i stand with neither fascists not communists)

assuming you’re being honest here, you’re welcome. but if that is indeed the passive-aggressive mockery it sounds like then that might explain why people can’t take you seriously outside of echo chambers.

well, i can actually support democratic socialist governments, and i actually have voted for a party trying to build that out on every single occasion so far while i had a vote. i’m also all for integrating socialist principles into a capitalist society – i do actually believe capitalism is a great tool for the luxuries in life, but the necessities must be provided to all for it to actually work. like supply and demand both need to be variable for it to work, if everyone needs a home you can’t have the market “just figure it out” on the pricing of hosing, it’s going to result in rampant exploitation, but a market for upgraded housing compared to a baseline would very much work.

mostly i was just directly responding to the notion communicated to me in this conversation, which is that the path to communism is a state that takes power away from people for their own good, builds a society for them, and then gives back that power, or at the very least allows the people to take back that power with force. that promise is bogus and has been the previous 40 times a nation has been sold on it. as someone who has to live in the aftermath of one of those attempts, i’m not going to not blame it for its lies and its oppression. especially when the system it’s trying to reach, as described in this very thread, has been technologically impossible to reach on the scale of even just hungary, let alone the whole soviet bloc

not everyone is on an instance ran by tankies though, like you are. so yeah, that’s probably a good idea. just know your audience.

no, i’m trying to create an equivalence between fascism and socialism, or whatever you call that transitional dictatorship that’s hopefully benevolent. because that’s the notion by which fascism works too, it just doesn’t make an impossible promise about a system it will transform into.

your hilarious “if you are not with me you are my enemy (and also a nazi)” bullshit probably works on someone who also drunk the kool-aid on “this system will totally lead us to communism, we know that was a lie the previous 40 times but we totally fixed it now, trust me bro”, but the errors in it and the sweaty attacks on character to mask them should be obvious to anyone not already indoctrinated into your particular idea of a “good” dictator.

idk what you’re gonna do with me being on record on preferring a somewhat less authoritarian system to your more authoritarian system that comes with a promise of snake oil but go off i guess. (while, mind you, i already dislike the less authoritarian system enough to actively work on leaving the country)

it’s amazing how much you hate fascists despite openly advocating for a system that’s exactly like it in all but an but a lie about what it will eventually, hopefully, pinky promise transform into, exactly as it always did when it was attempted. like are you naive enough to believe that this time it will work, still completely ignoring how the general idea of keys to power functions, or are you just waving the opposing flag and larping that your ideas are good because they’re bad and you oppose them so it must be so?