Martin Ruskov @mapto@qoto.org

@thegreenparty he didn't have enough time to explain: billionaires are bad. They are bad for the environment, they are bad for societies, they are bad for themselves.

Turning billionaires into multimillionaires is an extremely positive policy. It is doing a favour to everyone, including billionaires themselves.

@nazgul @croatia be careful with pubeurope.com. Usually they copy articles without referring to the original. Here's a link to yours: https://feddit.bg/post/393696

@nazgul @croatia be careful with pubeurope.com. Usually they copy articles without referring to the original. Here's a link to yours: https://feddit.bg/post/393696

@TheConversationUS "a predominantly catholic country" misses what Italy is

@ChemicalEyeGuy @TheConversationUS in the conclusion of the article, the author makes a very important distinction. I tend to agree that what makes the difference is how the training data is approached, both for nature and people. Slop is a problem caused by capitalist dynamics, not a technological issue.

@chrisvest @TheConversationUS even if this was measurable, does anyone really think that more planned centralization (trying to avoid "totalitarian") is a valid way of doing science? If people complain that Trump gets to dictate what is valid science or not, why would anyone ever think the Xi Jinping is doing any better. Unfortunately it is not even the CCP anymore, it is as unilateral as it could get.

An outstanding article, and it's not about AI. It's about added value and doing business:

"A marketing manager with no engineering background opens Cursor on Monday morning. By Wednesday afternoon, she has a working customer-facing app. It looks polished. It performs the core task. She demos it to her VP, who forwards it to their CMO, who then shows it in the executive staff meeting as evidence that the team is “moving at AI speed.”

By Friday, it is in front of customers.

No one asked who owned the decision to ship it. No one tested it against the conditions it would actually face. No one had the cultural standing to say this looks great, and we are not putting it into production. The prototype became a product because the organization had no system for telling the difference.

I watched a version of this scenario play out recently in a boardroom. A senior executive demoed an AI-built internal tool. The room admired the speed. What received less attention were the harder questions: Who would own it after launch? Who would maintain it? And what would happen when it produced an answer that was confidently wrong?

This is what vibe coding is about to expose across businesses. The companies that think the story is about software are going to lose to the companies that understand the story is about judgment."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonwingard/2026/04/23/vibe-coding-will-break-your-company/

@tedunderwood.com yet the 20th century internet was much less superficial. Then search engines and social networks figured out that they need to sell you the "for you" part. A contemporary comparison is the fediverse vs linkedin. I'm not saying vanity and envy are not around here too. They're just not as central to the experience.

@OrionKidder @LinuxToday well that makes a lot of persons that are fed up with the Clippy takeover
https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/discussions/microsoft-365/co-pilot-is-resurrected-clippy-on-steroids-give-us-actual-options-to-remove-it/4430458

@TheConversationUS doing exercise is still more accessible