Login
You're viewing the mensmaaktmooi.nl public feed.
  • Cory Doctorowpluralistic@mamot.fr
    Oct 21, 2026, 8:16 PM

    The LLM spat out a grub "GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT" line that (again) Just Worked.

    The last time I had to do this, I spent days painstakingly trouble-shooting options by trial-and-error. Using a chatbot to fill in the gaps left by decisions about which configuration options to place within reach of regular users and which to reserve for power-users has made my computer much more useful to me for the things I want to do, like writing and making collages.

    21/

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0

Replies

  • Cory Doctorowpluralistic@mamot.fr
    Oct 21, 2026, 8:17 PM

    The reality is that it's just not practical for technology developers to turn every conceivable function of your computer into a simple-to-use, accessible tool. A large part of technology design is about leaving things out (or, as my favorite Eno Oblique Strategy goes, "Be the first person to not do something that no one else has ever thought of not doing before").

    22/

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Cory Doctorowpluralistic@mamot.fr
    Oct 21, 2026, 8:17 PM

    No matter how thoughtful and diligent a technology designer is, they will never fully anticipate the needs and exigencies of their users. That's why the motto of the disability rights movement is "Nothing about us without us."

    The users of technology know more about their use-cases than can ever be captured through a requirements gathering exercise and user testing.

    23/

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Cory Doctorowpluralistic@mamot.fr
    Oct 21, 2026, 8:17 PM

    One of the best and proudest legacies of technology is the lineage of "user-friendly" programming tools that let nontechnical people design their own applications that exactly met their needs, from Hypercard to Visual Basic to Scratch, a lineage that vibe-coding tools are arguably part of:

    pluralistic.net/2026/09/25/oth

    24/

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Cory Doctorowpluralistic@mamot.fr
    Oct 21, 2026, 8:17 PM

    But these tools are not perfect (nothing is). For all that Hypercard lets you do *many* things that would otherwise require a skilled programmer, it was also always limited relative to, say, writing MacOS code in Objective C. Your Hypercard program might do *exactly* what you needed it to, but slowly, and sometimes unreliably, and with serious limitations, such as a relatively low ceiling for the number of records you could add to a database.

    25/

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Cory Doctorowpluralistic@mamot.fr
    Oct 21, 2026, 8:18 PM

    Vibe-coded personal apps aren't necessarily subject to these limitations, but they come with some significant risks. Vibe-code can have serious security vulnerabilities that expose the user to things like identity theft or sextortion.

    26/

    💬 2🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Cory Doctorowpluralistic@mamot.fr
    Oct 21, 2026, 8:18 PM

    It's conceivable that a vibe-coded garage-door opener app might make it possible for attackers to open your garage door when you're not home (or worse, when you are!). Depending on your risk-tolerance and expertise, these might be acceptable prices, or they might be too high.

    But it's important to clearly identify the problem here: if the alternative OS you install on your smart TV exposes you to privacy-invading hack attacks, the problem is the *defect* in that software.

    27/

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Cory Doctorowpluralistic@mamot.fr
    Oct 21, 2026, 8:18 PM

    The problem *isn't* that you had the temerity to rip out the manufacturer's own software and replace it with code of your choosing. You bought that TV, it's yours, and you don't owe the manufacturer an obligation to expose yourself to its own, built-in, intentional surveillance and invasive ads.

    28/

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Cory Doctorowpluralistic@mamot.fr
    Oct 21, 2026, 8:19 PM

    Here's a parallel: you have the right to put any shoelaces in your running shoes. Sure, Nike might prefer you to lace up your Jordans with its expensive OEM laces, but that's Nike's problem, not yours. Now, Nike might argue that by using no-name laces, you run the risk of having a lace break while you're running, which could also break your ankle. That's certainly a possibility: shoelaces do break, and Nike might be justifiably proud of the quality of its laces.

    29/

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Cory Doctorowpluralistic@mamot.fr
    Oct 21, 2026, 8:19 PM

    But if your generic laces snap (and so does your ankle), the problem is that the shoelaces you chose were defective. The problem is *not* that you chose someone else's laces.

    30/

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Cory Doctorowpluralistic@mamot.fr
    Oct 21, 2026, 8:20 PM

    Your stuff is yours. You can put anyone's milk on your cereal, not just milk that Kellogg's endorses. If the milk you choose is sour and you have to pour your cereal down the toilet, that's too bad, but it doesn't mean that Kellogg's should have the right to shame you for having the temerity to choose milk you preferred, and it *certainly* doesn't militate for DMCA-style enforcement to coerce you to use Kellogg's official milk in the name of protecting you from food wastage.

    31/

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Cory Doctorowpluralistic@mamot.fr
    Oct 21, 2026, 8:20 PM

    I raise this because there's a live debate over this subject, which is well represented in the latest 404 Media podcast:

    youtube.com/watch?v=UbG1qwxMtU0

    In the podcast, Koebler and his 404 co-founder Joseph Cox express misgivings about various possible uses of "slop interop."

    32/

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Cory Doctorowpluralistic@mamot.fr
    Oct 21, 2026, 8:20 PM

    Koebler discusses the fact that John Deere sells the same physical tractor at many different price-points, depending on which software a farmer chooses, and raises the possibility that a farmer might vibe-code software that replicates the high-end functionality without paying for it.

    33/

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Cory Doctorowpluralistic@mamot.fr
    Oct 21, 2026, 8:20 PM

    Koebler discusses two possible downsides to this: first, that the vibe-coded software might be defective and expose the farmer to risk; and second, a question about whether it's fair or just for a farmer to get those additional functions of their tractor without paying for them.

    I think the first objection is entirely legitimate. The software you run on your expensive tractor should be secure, both for your own benefit and for the security of our food supply.

    34/

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Cory Doctorowpluralistic@mamot.fr
    Oct 21, 2026, 8:21 PM

    But if you provide *yourself* with that functionality, using software *you* procured independently of John Deere, then John Deere has no right to get paid for it, and they certainly shouldn't have the right to stop you.

    That tractor is *yours*. The fact that John Deere manufactured it is irrelevant.

    36/

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Cory Doctorowpluralistic@mamot.fr
    Oct 21, 2026, 8:22 PM

    If you pay a contractor to build a house for you and later on pay a different contractor to add another bathroom to it, you don't owe the first contractor anything. It's your house (and if that bathroom has a leaky toilet, that's a matter between you and the second contractor, and not a reason to force you to only use your original contractor).

    37/

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Cory Doctorowpluralistic@mamot.fr
    Oct 21, 2026, 8:22 PM

    The law defines a narrow slice of functions that manufacturers get to control: those ideas that a patent examiner deems "novel, useful and nonobvious." It's legit (and good) for commercial operators to copy and improve the ideas of their rivals and competitors. It's why skilled tradespeople cluster together in the same geographic area.

    38/

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Cory Doctorowpluralistic@mamot.fr
    Oct 21, 2026, 8:22 PM

    Take Clerkenwell, the neighborhood in London where precision machining was invented by the jewelers and machinists who clustered there during the Longitude rewards. The reason all those competitors sought such close promixity to one another was because they wanted to copy the new techniques their rivals were developing (even if that meant that their rivals would be able to copy them):

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitud

    39/

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Cory Doctorowpluralistic@mamot.fr
    Oct 21, 2026, 8:23 PM

    If you're old enough to remember the advent of spreadsheets and the rollout of Visicalc, Lotus 1-2-3 and Excel, you'll know that every time a software vendor invented a new spreadsheet feature, all the other ones immediately copied it. This wasn't bad for spreadsheets: it was *good* for spreadsheets, just as copying your competitors was good for precision machining in Clerkenwell.

    40/

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Cory Doctorowpluralistic@mamot.fr
    Oct 21, 2026, 8:24 PM

    Everything from GNU/Linux (a feature-for-feature clone of AT&T Unix) to SAMBA (a plug-compatible clone of Microsoft's SMB) to iWork (file-compatible, feature compatible clones of MS Office's apps) came about through this "adversarial interoperability."

    41/

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0