I would read the hell out of a deep analysis of the many layers (internal, external, technical, personal, systemic, etc., etc.) that have combined to make early Google so arguably less dumb than early OpenAI.
It isn’t just rose colored glasses, right? There was no equivalent of the shareholder coup, the ScarJo voice thing, etc.?
This is probably the easiest path to hosting a website right now.
S3-compatible bucket, built-in CDN. Generous free tier. And if you want to do anything dynamic your files are already in-house with Fly.
One thing I think about a lot is "how much time should this organisation spend making tools to help with its main software tasks?" Experience has taught me that most invest far too little in this, but I've struggled to find a good way of defining what "too much" might look like.
i used to be impressed with cute syntactical constructs that would let you express things far more efficiently in programming languages but tbh over the last decade or so ive gone from that to "if your syntax noticeably diverges from basic C-style stuff then you've fucked up, simple syntax is best because sugar is bad for you"
"Each assemblage gains emergent properties produced from interactions between its components and relies on those interactions to continue existing. For instance, a tight- knit neighbourhood can build a collective memory about the reputation of all of its members and develop norms to promote prosocial behaviour. "
I still remember Dave Woods explaining that newcomers to the psychology department are told to not talk to him, as they would get, I quote, "infected by him".
We are the Renegades, as he says. Well. Tough luck but this is proper science and we will keep doing it. I am not exactly an academic partially due to all of this but.... Yeaaah.
It's REALLY weird to me when people in software mine research papers for their content and say "researchers" instead of naming the scientists who actually did the work they're using. We're human beings and our work is our livelihood (at a fraction of yours I might add). Name us.
Blessed for the community around me that has this value, side eye at the content engine that doesn't.
@luis_in_brief@glyph@grimalkina yeah it is really hard to communicate the sheer size of the dependency tree and authorship for software, so we simply stopped doing it.
It is also partially how we got into the current "supply chain" discourse. A lot of the "thought leadership" on it has no realization of the sheer size of it, they only see what skimmed up. So we get discourse highly separated from the reality far too regularly.
@mlinksva@luis_in_brief@grimalkina@glyph something to keep in mind is that there is probably a natural attraction, if presented with the choice, to say "oh attribution would be nice".
But that does not mean there is a loss feeling if the attribution does not happen.
I know for my own work, attribution would maybe make me happy a bit but in practice... Meh? Who cares?