Are you a dev? What does part time look like?

Yes, I write software. The company is 100% remote with an annual team meetup and an annual company meetup, but I only go to the team one.

4 days a week, online at 9-10 am, offline 2-3 pm most days. Sometimes I'm working a sticky problem and stay online later. Or if I start a deploy in late afternoon, I'll stick around to finish it, etc.

Still on group chats, may or may not mute them on my day off.

I have a similar problem in a community I'm a a part of? How are you reliably detecting AI?

It's not about perfectly identifying AI content. There's a relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/810/

When posts fall within "acceptable" then it does not actually matter where it comes from. Logorrhea, massively offtopic, and/or shitposting are bad when humans do it. Those should suffer the same fate.

Historically it was tolerable, but has become the highest priority today because machines have cranked up the volume. If we mis-identify human garbage as robot nonsense it does not matter.

You create an agency and give it a mandate that requires it to balance concerns.

This answer can be applied to pretty much any social question.

If it were so easy, we'd do this all the time. We already do it a lot, and there are heaps of examples where it goes wrong.

And examples where it goes right. Federal reserve, FDA, SEC, etc..

> The burden of proof should fall on the platform, not the victim. The question is not whether a harmed user can show specific damage. The question is whether the company can show, before rolling a product out to billions of people, that it is not predatory by design.

That's asking every company to prove a negative before rolling out new features.

Could we have a regulatory agency that keeps an eye on dark patterns and deals with them as evidence emerges that something is harmful.

> That's asking every company to prove a negative before rolling out new features.

That’s not as rediculous as it seems. That’s sort of model that drug manufacturers follow. It would also mean that if internally they see troubling behaviour they know they have to stop.

Practically, it would be corporate cover up. And applied earnestly it would make these businesses unviable.

Wait how?

Internal testing showed these features were addictive. They had resources allocated to creating addictive experiences for tweens.

The underlying behavioral science is well studied, down to the causal level.

Dark patterns are designed to make it hard to exit and unsubscribe. The language is purposefully obtuse, the options buried behind menu choices. We have enough A/B testing data to know how effective friction is at dissuading people from following a path.

How are we proving a negative here?

Proving something is addictive is not proving a negative

Ok. So is that you are saying that the quoted section is setting up a situation where the firm has to prove a negative?

Yes

> The question is whether the company can show, before rolling a product out to billions of people, that it is not predatory by design.

"Not predatory" is a negative

Only for a subset of people. Many would accept solutions that preserve privacy. Divide and conquer. Remove supporters from the anti-privacy group.

If I need to grab 100 locks, they are all moving around a lot, but I've got the first 10, will the order be the same for someome trying to get the same 100? Eg maybe someone swaps two that neither of us has grabbed yet.

That makes sense you could only move locks that are "after" all taken locks

I don't think they were talking about the size of the codebase. How much funding does emacs require to maintain?

If you're running in a docker container you share the host kernel. You might not have a choice.

Am I still allowed to invoke cc in a bash script, or is that out too? Interactive sessions only.

Agreed, I found this article hard to follow and emotive in a way that made it feel extremely biased.