If the flow is just typing prompt after prompt into AI, I guess just ignore that it's running and keep typing? Or open a new tab and keep typing. Why does Claude even break the typewriter flow thing that's going for you?

Different person's POV here: I fully expect from my mind to enjoy video games.

Then I open Steam, and feel the strong sense of rejection, like eww this is well and truly a disgusting selection of repackaged Unity assets, and I'd like to have absolutely none of that please.

It's this cognitive dissonance maybe, that's the guilty displeasure. Because I do keep coming back, we all do.

In the grim darkness of the right now, with former gaming companies focusing on live services and loot boxes and advertising, core gamers' very conception of video games is simulacra, a copy without the original.

With time, this will fade; like when searching for Jesus, you don't really expect to physically find the dude hidden in the corner of the church. Expectations decay.

Maybe I will visit Steam on the Internet Archive and still browse, when everything is gone and dead, and the guilty displeasure feeling will have outlived the displeasure, and the guilt.

Sounds nice, but it doesn't fit. Games are awesome right now. There are so many and so many good ones. You can play the free ones Epic releases each week and have a good selection only by that. Baldur's Gate 3 was already mentioned and is not only indeed really good, it's only the tip of the iceberg: There was a resurgence of CRPGs the last years. Including some offsprings, like Disco Elysium. A game so awesome that all "games were better in the past" statements immediately get disproved. If that's not your genre no problem, all genres thrive currently.

Sure, there are games with repackaged Unity assets on Steam. But it's on you if you just open steam and browse the new releases. Go by proper game reviews or recommendations by friends with similar taste, which has always been the right way to go, even three decades ago.

Staying sane is a gradient.

But personally the current war gives hope. Ayatollah was Putin's serious leg to stand on, not just in the region. If Iran's new govt is normalcy-adjacent, not just the terrorist orgs suffer without support, but also the Putin's war thing collapses. A decade (or less) of peace and prosperity is upon some of us.

And AI is neat, it highlights so many things about people. We start to value agency in fellow human beings. People understand context better now, and give more context proactively when talking; but also understand that there's context poisoning, which is why derailing is bad.

In the end everything is a tool: AI is a tool, war is a tool. We think AI is for coding, and war is for power, but in the end AI makes us know ourselves better. War makes us know ourselves better (and also gave us fast airplanes). This is the important, this is what will remain -- when the kingdom is ash, and the echo still drums.

Another good analogy would be, said theocracy is (was?) like a very bad piece of legacy code, impossible to refactor, until the entire feature gets thrown in the trash.

That’s a greater analogy

The need for killswitch I think is self-inflicted.

* Mozilla has a track record of forcing unwanted changes on its users. What with Pocket, data collection and telemetry defaults, sponsored links throughout the UI, all the good stuff.

* The enduring users are more likely to want to revert any Mozilla default the moment it's introduced. (This is why Firefox has disproportionately many projects to un-Mozilla the thing: Arkenfox, BetterFox, LibreWolf, Waterfox...)

This is from the annoying (sure hope so!) sporadic Firefox user who was actually pleased by the news. Honestly, I saw it and though: wow, Mozilla giving the tiniest part of control back to the user, that's actually good! Short-lived as the excitement was, in these fading moments of Firefox I'd like to see more of this and less of the user-hostile thing please.

Most people aren't human then, sad.

I think Dune is easily a top ten franchise among computer people, so that sort of thing is nothing new.

Thank you very much! I also feel that the impact of software licensing on violent groups behavior might be low.

It is, however, interesting on principle, since it only allows the use by criminals (implicitly), and not by law enforcement. By then making the tool very impractical to use, we can punish bad actors still.

(I think there was a honeypot operation to this effect, something with feds making up a "secure encrypted phone" and then acquiring Cartels as a major customer.)

(On the off chance I just burned this very similar operation: dear feds, I'm so sorry!)

> I think there was a honeypot operation to this effect

I think that's the Anom phones - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Trojan_Shield

Did you really say that only criminals are permitted to use Reticulum?

So presumably, by the extension of your argument, average person using Reticulum is either ("implicitly") a criminal or breaking the licence / ToS.

Where do you see it?

The comment that started this thread is as follows:

> Too bad the Zen of Reticulum is against freedom. Specifically freedom 0: the freedom to use the software for any purpose. Its restrictions preventing it "from being used in systems designed to harm humans" [...]

So if you're a lawful good human-harming person, you are prohibited from using Reticulum by this Zen document.

If, however, you're an unlawful kind of human-harming person, then you likely don't feel the pressure from the Zen document to stop using Reticulum.

(And surely you can't flip the logic like you did right there: "engineers are implicitly allowed to use X" doesn't convert to "users of X are implicitly engineers".)

So no, I'm saying that of all users intending to cause humans harm with this tech, only criminals are permitted (or at least, aren't meaningfully restricted) to use Reticulum. Only in this niche case.

The OP doesn't even say "Totally not going to do it", merely "it feels off-mission", so a vibe check away from doing it.

Yep, and that's how he arrived at the $number. If a small number of people were using ad blockers, the cited sum would approach $0 since disabling ad blockers would affect very few page views, right?

Is that true? What if Google just pays them $150m to disable ad blockers?

Not sure if that's legal or whatever but killing ad blockers is probably worth it for Google.

Google wouldn't spend $150m to block adblockers if nobody was using adblockers.

Oh I know this bug! Happens with their own Bixby assistant too.

(Either Samsung dropped the ball on quality in the last 5-10 years, or I just started to pay attention, but the desire to throw this garbage in the bin is real.)