Damus
Peter Ludemann profile picture
Peter Ludemann
@Peter Ludemann

Assume any of my comments has a sarcasm/snark tag - I'm a survivor of the 1980s Usenet Flame Wars.
Retired from software {Google, Yahoo, start-ups, IBM, BNR}; sometime bicyclist, sailor, & non-gardener; easily amused by PL design and type inferencing.
Los Altos, California (previously Tokyo, Osaka, Toronto, Ottawa, Victoria, Vancouver)

Relays (1)
  • wss://relay.ditto.pub – read & write

Recent Notes

hex · 11w
I keep seeing the "cars replaced horses" thing related to "AI." People keep comparing "AI" to cars (positively) without thinking about the fact that cars were forced on people (AAA bought up and dest...
Peter Ludemann profile picture
@nprofile1q... My suspicion is that most of the people who made the decisions that have left the US car-dependent weren't *intentionally* trying to boost cars over all else but simply weren't thinking about the negative externalities. Similarly for the people who devised exclusionary zoning in the suburbs (of course, *some* people did have malicious intentions in pushing this kind of zoning).
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"
And that stupidity (a.k.a. "car brains") explains why it's so difficult to dig us out of the hole that we've dug. Especially because almost every incremental step will make things worse before more incremental steps make things better.

[BTW, we won't minimize car usage until we get rid of "Euclidean zoning"]
Mignon Fogarty · 35w
What's with people writing ellipses like this lately... with a space on only one side? I suspect it's an AI thing because I've never seen it before, and suddenly, it's everywhere — so much so that ...
Peter Ludemann profile picture
@nprofile1q... If you dictate speech with Android and say "dot dot dot", then you get something like this... Which requires a fix up (this text dictated on a Pixel 8a phone, with manual fix up of "dot dot dot" where "... " was output)
note1f83m7...
Peter Ludemann profile picture
@nprofile1q...
But what if the "executive order" is that federal employees can only serve people who are wearing their underwear outside their clothing?
Or would this be unconstitutional because it would affect the rest of us's sartorial choices (not that freedom of sartorial choice is anywhere in the Constitution AFAIK, but maybe there's an implied freedom ...)

[Although this is obviously weird, I can think of less weird EOs that have nasty knock-on effects, such as non-citizens can only be served between 8:00 and 8:15]