Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g79GPZSQHBk

RE: https://fosstodon.org/@atro/117614490852905309

I'm not looking forward to this. We have a really poor track record with adapting Sci-Fi these days. An all around impoverishment of imagination and understanding with the original materials.

I loathe Neuromancer as a story. It exemplifies everything I dislike about the early internet and hacker culture but I do respect it's hyperstition. That is has inspired and been influential - is still worth something, but our way of approaching things... just isn't going to give it justice.

https://www.wired.com/story/exclusive-apple-tv-neuromancer-creator-interviews/

My Syndicate Actor Model catlang managed to spawn it's first entities and send it's first messages!

It's implemented in Racket on top of a remix on the CESK machine.

It's cathartic to see parts of the DSA blow up over the most inconsequential questions of our time.

RE: https://fosstodon.org/@atro/117604470199405752

There are no friends of foes only charming or tedious people - how can we provide something different, that gives voice to a new visions, while preempting the worse of these technologies?

The answer isn't going to be building _something_ specific but it could be teaching an essential point or having a philosophy that cultivates.

Again purity attestation - I don't use them.

The contrast between "Puritan" and "Luddite:" both were subject to a change in their ways of lives. One sought to protect the very form of their existence and the other was placed in a double-bind for their daily substance.

A developer that is upset at the terms of their world changing and is concerned with obsolescence... I do have empathy for.

Some who's only conception is a return to form, or puts what was the "Status Quo" on a pedestal. No, y'all have done enough damage.

These days I'm honestly not sure who is more harmful.

The bender having "Fear and Loathing in AI" style crowd or the Puritans masquerading as Luddites.

I know the latter really grind my gears more.

The coolest occupation to have today is to make the interactive displays for museums.

RE: https://fosstodon.org/@atro/117599279994949277

This headline made me laugh...

"Philosophers can't agree on what constitutes philosophy"

https://www.santafe.edu/news-center/news/what-is-science-even-scientists-cant-agree

https://tutorial.ponylang.io/reference-capabilities/reference-capabilities.html

It also can be adaptable to times.

Publication of the tax heuristics to newspaper of record everytime there is update can count.

Later on regulation around the kinds of disclosure can protect private interest by only referencing an approved intermediate representation. As long as they represent some sort of equality of function. (Think C <-> Assembly)

Edit: Or you know that could also protect consumers from private interests making up weird arbitrary standards.. etc..

This also is sort of timeless. The heuristics of the tax man in 1840 is a kind of computational process.

In the 1950s IBM was running census for government. Knowing how they were doing that - probably should have been public.

In the 90s transparency around the data the federal government was collecting for the welfare debates would have likely meant keeping AFAC.

2030, well, it'll be nice to see what Plantir is tracking.

We dont have to strain our imagination to see how this might work 2050.

RE: https://fosstodon.org/@tarsius/117592216945420470

Read a bunch of the philosophy of the American Revolution (250 anniversary this year) so it's fresh on my mind. To theory craft from that perspective I'd say:

Opacity/Transparency, in the sense of "right to face your accuser," any computational process you are impacted by you should have right to introspect.

Anything additional to this might get too far into specifics. With just transparency you could derive your own computing without being specifically compelled in any particular direction.

Really, like how many of us spent hours digging - almost obsessively, into the website. Looking over serial numbers, pouring into the emails, and literally projecting our desire onto what crumbs we could discover.

That may have been the real technological innovation here.

2pac sort of thing:
"I'm not [...] gonna change the world, but I guarantee you that I will spark the brain that will [...]"

Been thinking recently about Dynamicland's presentation: the site, the physical location, and the occasional talks from Bret Victor, etc.

The whole aesthetic and it's physicality based open sourceness, these particularities, maybe more so than the technology alone, has had more impact than it would have otherwise. It's served as like a kind of "objet petit a."

As various projects get closer to where it's last presented "frontier" was. How are we to keep the desire alive to build something new.

RE: https://fosstodon.org/@petermathijssen/117590014349843582

My son attended the Junior track this past conference.

He has not stopped talking about FOSDEM. He doesn't care about his upcoming birthday, Christmas, etc.. no, he is counting down the days until the next FOSDEM.

Last nights' mayhem brought us an A-doorno-saur. No doubt a great view for a minima reptila.

#dinovember

My purity attestation. I don't use LLMs. Not interested in doing so. I do understand how they work and will more than happily debate Kant with anyone.

But Bateson is the decider here, "Information is the difference that makes a difference." I cultivate myself and my own skill and the vast majority of LLM use cases in our modern day - expend more energy than I feel ethical, while reducing my capacity to grow.