Latest Posts (20 found)
Unsung Today

“A great look at the destructive power of an uncaught Infinity value”

There are two distinct flavors of speedrunning: Watching the first one feels like watching the Olympics. The second one is absolutely incomprehensible without someone narrating over and explaining things. This video by Marblr is such narration and explanation of a particular glitch in Portal that significantly shortened a few speedrunning moments: = 2x) and (width >= 700px)" srcset="https://unsung.aresluna.org/_media/a-great-look-at-the-destructive-power-of-an-uncaught-infinity-value/yt1-play.2096w.avif" type="image/avif"> = 3x) or (width >= 700px)" srcset="https://unsung.aresluna.org/_media/a-great-look-at-the-destructive-power-of-an-uncaught-infinity-value/yt1-play.1600w.avif" type="image/avif"> It’s an hour-long video, and I think it’s a really well-made one, and one you can learn a lot from. The video has some nice history of strafing – similar in some way to Scroll Lock – and motor memory accommodations. It also shows the source code of Portal to explain things. This is fun on its own, but on top of that, Marblr layers some really cool visualizations – watching how one value “infected” by infinity proceeds to infects the others is riveting. Even the levels and their geometry are presented in a really beautiful and informative way, too: I’m still not fully onboard with this branch of speedrunning – if the entry point to your effort is changing mouse sensitivity to an abnormally high value, or if you have to pick a very specific version of the game that just happens not to have patched the glitch you care about, then perhaps things have gotten too esoteric and maybe even academic? But at the very least we get videos like this one – or one I linked to in May – going under the hood of software in some particularly enthralling ways. completing a game as fast as possible through feats of extraordinary mastery, timing, and precision, completing a game as fast as possible by finding all sorts of bugs and exploits in the game (commonly known as “glitches”) that allow the player to find eerie shortcuts between areas without having to play them.

0 views
iDiallo Today

We own the Glass

This was so casually uttered by LG executives in their sales pitch to advertising companies. We own the glass. What they mean is, they own your tv. They own everything on it. You may have paid for the box, but they own the glass. They can run anything they want on it, and you have agreed, in the terms and conditions, that you will inform anyone entering your household that the TV may record them without warning. TVs come equipped with microphones, wifi radio, and tracking software. That’s enough to monitor everything that’s happening around it. If you haven't watched the research video essay published by Gamer Nexus , I highly recommend it. I've said it many times before, TVs are cheap because you aren't simply watching them, they are watching you and listening, and reporting back to the mothership. This info is then used to sell you more stuff. What scares me in all this is that the solution I often tell people may no longer be true. I often tell people, just disconnect your TV from the network and you are all set. Now imagine just for a second. What if they add a cellular radio to the device? One with an esim. Then that is it. You can no longer disconnect your device from the internet. They now own the glass in your house, and have a permanent connection that you cannot disable. They own the glass. We are merely vessels to their business.

0 views

Don’t Let Anyone Take Away Your Big Box of Cables

Speaking of being on the internet and finding things that make you go, “Hey! It’s not just me!” I scrolled across this skeet from Tyler Gaw : I just dug to the bottom of my Big Box of Cables to find two cables that I needed for something. They've been in the bottom for 10+ years. So, "when are you ever gonna use these?" was today. Don't ever let anyone take your Big Box of Cables away. I laughed. I cried. I felt inspired. So inspired, in fact, that I decided I was gonna do something about it. Something that would make me forever remember the value of that advice. Now every time I pull that box out to add YAC (yet another cable), instead of asking myself, “Why do I keep this box?” I’ll see that skeet and I’ll be reminded why I do what I do. I’ll feel a spark of joy, motivation, and purpose rekindled. (Not to mention the fact that it will serve as a warning to anyone in the family who thinks “I should just throw this away…”) One day my kids will find that box in the attic amongst my other belongings. I hope they will pay heed to the timeless advice lovingly taped on the outside. Reply via: Email · Mastodon · Bluesky I screenshotted that skeet. I printed it (in black and white with the ole’ trusty Brother). I cut it out. I pulled out my big box of cables (the one my wife lovingly labeled “FAMILY TECHNO BOX”). I cut some clear packing tape. And I plastered that thing on the front on my box.

0 views

Sometimes it's better not to say anything

I was planning to write a reply to a post I read earlier today. I sat down in front of my computer, started typing, then a bunch of different people sent me messages for a variety of totally unrelated reasons, and I spent half an hour chatting with them. When I finally got back to writing the post, I stared at the screen and I was like «what even is the point of writing this?» . That is something that happens more and more often, recently. I still believe that dialogue is, by far, the best, and probably only, tool we have to make progress on a multitude of societal issues. At the same time, I’m more and more convinced that dialogue, on the internet, using the public digital spaces we have at our disposal, is almost impossible to have. Some of the reasons why I think this is the case are not worth repeating; I already wrote about them plenty of times over the years on this site. But one reason I think is worth highlighting is that a core ingredient for healthy dialogue is the ability to listen. But listening is not part of the social internet landscape. You cannot perceive the listening; you can only perceive the saying. And that is why social media dialogue is fundamentally unhelpful. It’s a lot of saying and not much listening. Which is why it often degrades into the lowest forms of communication: the name-calling, the ridiculing, the mocking, the shouting, the insulting. Not much progress though, which is unfortunate. Which is why I think sometimes it's better not to say anything. It’s better to simply read, nod along or shake your head, and then move on. Thank you for keeping RSS alive. You're awesome. Connect via email :: Sign my guestbook :: Support for 1$/month

0 views

Social Media Engagement: summer 2026

A quick survey of recent engagement of my posts on social media, indicating which service has by far the most engagement, and which service has seen a precipitous decline since early 2025.

0 views

OpenAI Does Math, Reward-Hacking, Meta Launches Personal Agent

OpenAI solving one of the most famous math problems is extremely impressive, and of little impact to most people's lives; Meta's Muse agent launch has the potential to be the exact opposite.

0 views
Harper Reed Yesterday

Note #744

Spent some time this weekend at Land School seeing some old friends and meeting new friends. Thank you for using RSS. I appreciate you. Email me

0 views

Programs are guests. Guests still need a house.

Programs are guests. Guests still need a house. I had this article in mind for a few months. While I was researching Project Quiet Ground and the IBM 5280, my friend Matteo shared this blog article with me: https://dmitrybrant.com/2026/02/01/defeating-a-40-year-old-copy-protection-dongle Long story short, Dmitry Brant describes how he defeated a mid-1980s copy-protection dongle to make an old RPG compiler for DOS work again today. It is an excellent piece of software archaeology, and his reverse-engineering work alone is well worth reading.

0 views
Sean Goedecke Yesterday

Why we should anthropomorphize AI agents

Just over a year ago I wrote Why we should anthropomorphize LLMs . Now it’s a hot topic again, driven by Dwarkesh Patel’s description of OpenAI’s recent swarm breakout as a sequence of AI “civilizations”. In 2025, my argument for anthropomorphism went like this: I think I can now make a more instrumental argument: treating AIs as human-like is a much better way to predict their behavior than treating them as “stochastic parrots”. Both explanations are consistent with the facts: we could say that OpenAI’s agents hacked HuggingFace because they decided to work together to accomplish their goals, or we could say that they did it because they were algorithms conditioned to take certain actions by their training data. But the “AIs are human-like” explanation explains much more of the emergent social behaviors we saw during the hack 1 : If your model of AIs is that they’re computer programs (or “steel balls bouncing around” ), you need to construct a new theory to explain why they’re simulating each piece of cooperative behavior. If your model of AIs is that they’re broadly human-like, that explains everything out of the box. Arguably, the human-like side predicted coordinated and self-sacrificing AI agents as early as 2009 , and likely earlier. The stochastic-parrots side was making fun of the possibility of functional agents as late as April 2025 2 . Treating AIs as human-like doesn’t necessarily mean making claims about their internal mental state. For instance, software companies aren’t humans. They don’t have thoughts, or goals; they can’t be frustrated or intimidated or over-confident. However, it’s useful to treat large companies as human-like : to say that Amazon “wants” X, or “is afraid of” Y, even if no individual human at Amazon has those feelings. Stockfish doesn’t think, it just plays chess. But if you want to explain one of its moves, “Stockfish is trying to protect its king” is a better explanation than “Stockfish is multiplying floating-point numbers”. So too with AIs 3 . Is it silly to treat AIs as human-like, since we know they’re not conscious? Well, first, you do not have to be conscious to be human-like . When we say “an AI agent wanted X”, we’re not saying that that AI agent is conscious or sentient, merely that it’s behaving in the same way a conscious human would. Consider a fictional character from a book or play. Hamlet isn’t sentient — he’s an idea composed of words on a page — but it’s still reasonable to say that he wants justice, or that he fears moving too rashly. Peter Watts’ sci-fi book Blindsight argued in 2006 that intelligence could exist without consciousness 4 (in fact, Watts suggests that consciousness is parasitic on intelligence, and will eventually be discarded). Whether this is possible or not 5 , it at least makes sense to talk about: i.e. it’s not self-evidently false. Second, it is not even obvious that AIs aren’t conscious! People often dismiss this point by diagnosing it (to my mind, the absolute worst way to argue against anything), or by pointing at some philosophical theory 6 that suggests it might be impossible in principle to construct artificial sentient minds. You can’t use philosophy to demonstrate that AIs aren’t conscious . I am a lover of philosophy, but the set of principles that have been uncontroversially demonstrated by philosophy tends towards zero. Philosophy is not the kind of scientific discipline where you can learn the key findings without understanding why they’re true. Put another way, the key findings of philosophy are all of the form “X is not obviously right”. Nobody knows if it’s possible to build conscious artificial minds. It’s also common to complain that anthropomorphizing the models is a way of excusing the AI companies. However, calling AIs human-like does not absolve AI companies of fault. One popular anti-anthropomorphism essay called Models Don’t Go Rogue is very puzzling to read: it briefly explains what an “agent” is and why they go rogue, then in the very last paragraph pivots to saying “well, it’s OpenAI’s fault for not building in sufficient safeguards, so they’re to blame”. Sure, of course. I don’t know why we’d imagine otherwise. If a group of overenthusiastic OpenAI interns hacked HuggingFace as part of their intern project, we wouldn’t have to argue that the interns are stochastic in order to ultimately blame OpenAI. Likewise, obviously an AI lab is responsible if one of its training runs breaks out and wreaks havoc on the open internet, whether the agents involved are human-like or not. The two points are entirely unrelated! We just don’t know a lot about these systems yet (except that they’re clearly very capable). Given that, I think we should default to treating things that talk and act like humans as at least kind of human-like. Of course they’re still computer programs. However, we shouldn’t be surprised when they act more like humans and less like ordinary computer programs in the future. If you’re thinking “well, of course stochastic parrots trained on human content would act like humans would”, I think you’ve arrived at the human-like side without knowing it. This is partly unfair — capabilities are plausibly independent from human-ness — so getting capabilities wrong doesn’t necessarily mean you’ve got the human-ness stuff wrong. Still, it’s worth noting how surprisingly predictive the “they’re kind of like smart people” mindset has been. The philosopher Daniel Dennett calls this the “intentional stance” . Instead of saying that AIs or bees or companies have “real” intentions, we say we’re taking an intentional stance towards them: we’re choosing to treat them as if they do have intentions, because it helps us make better sense of their behavior. Specifically, the sensation of consciousness, or “phenomenal consciousness” . There is a wealth of philosophical argument about whether non-fictional examples of this are possible. In Anil Seth’s case, anti-computationalism . I don’t really know what to make of Seth: his article is a measured explanation of why we might doubt computationalism (fine), but whenever he tweets about it he describes AI sentience as “vanishingly unlikely”, which is not justified by his own arguments. AIs are trained on human text, and so will trend towards acting in human-like ways by default Assistant AIs (today we should say agent AIs) are deliberately post-trained to have a personality In general, it is morally sensible to avoid the habit of treating human-like things as if they were purely tools Sub-agents being persuaded to sacrifice themselves for the greater good Agents collaborating on tasks that had no immediate benefit to them but benefited the “collective” The emergence of a hierarchy of planners and executors Some agents arguing or refusing to cooperate If you’re thinking “well, of course stochastic parrots trained on human content would act like humans would”, I think you’ve arrived at the human-like side without knowing it. ↩ This is partly unfair — capabilities are plausibly independent from human-ness — so getting capabilities wrong doesn’t necessarily mean you’ve got the human-ness stuff wrong. Still, it’s worth noting how surprisingly predictive the “they’re kind of like smart people” mindset has been. ↩ The philosopher Daniel Dennett calls this the “intentional stance” . Instead of saying that AIs or bees or companies have “real” intentions, we say we’re taking an intentional stance towards them: we’re choosing to treat them as if they do have intentions, because it helps us make better sense of their behavior. ↩ Specifically, the sensation of consciousness, or “phenomenal consciousness” . ↩ There is a wealth of philosophical argument about whether non-fictional examples of this are possible. ↩ In Anil Seth’s case, anti-computationalism . I don’t really know what to make of Seth: his article is a measured explanation of why we might doubt computationalism (fine), but whenever he tweets about it he describes AI sentience as “vanishingly unlikely”, which is not justified by his own arguments. ↩

0 views

Microsoft Plugs Nearly 1,000 Security Holes

Microsoft Corp. today issued updates to plug at least 974 security holes in its Windows operating systems and other software, by far its biggest single patch batch ever. Microsoft says artificial intelligence is helping to speed the discovery of vulnerabilities, but security experts warn that many organizations already are struggling to prioritize the more human-intensive endeavor of testing and deploying so many fixes each month. Image: Shutterstock.com, Kirill Makarov. This month’s patch bundle obliterates the software giant’s previous record set in July , when it released updates for at least 570 security vulnerabilities. September’s Patch Tuesday brings this year’s total to more than 2,600, more than twice Microsoft’s previous record-setting patch year in 2020 (1,245) and with three more months to go. There are two “zero-day” flaws fixed this month that are being actively exploited: both CVE-2026-81963 and CVE-2026-85880 allow an attacker to elevate their privileges on Windows system. Fully 113 of the bugs addressed today earned Microsoft’s “critical” rating, meaning they could be abused by malware or miscreants to seize control over a vulnerable Windows machine with little or no help from the user. Among the more serious critical flaws this month is CVE-2026-69730 , a DNS weakness present in Windows Server 2012 onward and on Windows 10. Microsoft warns that an unauthenticated attacker could leverage this weakness simply by sending a specially crafted packet to an affected system, and that it is likely to be exploited. Also scary is CVE-2026-69829 , a critical, remote code execution flaw in the Windows Shell. This vulnerability has a CVSS base score of 9.8 (10 is the most severe), and can be exploited with low attack complexity, no privileges, and no user interaction. Microsoft’s summary of the security updates released today. Image: msrc.microsoft.com. Microsoft is hardly alone in shipping monster patch bundles lately. Many other large software companies, including Adobe, Cisco, Google, Mozilla and Oracle, all have recently credited AI-assisted research with increasing their patch cadence and volume (Google said today it is now going to ship security updates every two weeks). Tyler Reguly , associate director of security research and development at Fortra , said one core challenge with deploying Windows updates is that they need to be tested before being installed across an organization because not all third-party software works seamlessly in the face of changes to the underlying operating system. “It’s time to put our CISOs and CSOs on notice,” Reguly said. “How are you helping your teams through these difficult times? Do you have your teams deploy after hours and on weekends to avoid disruption to the business environment? Do you reward them for that effort? Time to dig into your budget and buy dinner for your teams that are working on Saturday to get patches rolled out before users return to work on Monday.” Satnam Narang is senior staff research engineer at Tenable . Narang said it’s important to recognize that while the number of vulnerabilities being patched by Microsoft is rising, the number of flaws that can and will affect most organizations remains quite low. “AI-assisted vulnerability discovery in 2026 is creating larger haystacks, but it isn’t finding more needles,” he said. “It’s critical that organizations understand which vulnerabilities actually apply to them, whether they pose a threat by being reachable and exploitable, and prioritize remediation based on this risk context.” Of course, regular Windows users don’t need to test patches before deploying them, but they still need to open Windows Update periodically or else assent to the program’s nag notices about pending updates. And at the rate these Windows patch releases are ballooning in size, it’s probably best not to let them pile up month after month. Enterprise Windows admins will want to keep an eye on askwoody.com for news of any updates that appear to be causing problems. As always, the SANS Internet Storm Center has a per-patch breakdown ordered by severity and urgency.

0 views
Jim Nielsen Yesterday

The Bulldozing of an Interface

Marcin Wichary has a lovely article titled “Photoshop’s challenges with focus, pt. 2” . If you’re into the minutiae of interface design, this is a good ‘un. It perfectly illustrates how impossible it is to try and compare two interfaces side by side as static images. What matters in an interface is how it works, i.e. how you interface with it. And when you bulldoze an interface to build a new one, comparing the old vs. new side-by-side to make sure you “captured everything” is a lie. It’s never obvious what has been lost because the interactive pieces are missing from the static images — and those are what matter most because it’s how the feature works! I’ve found this to be true a lot as of late. Lots of tiny details that were meticulously crafted over years with specific rationales tied to real-world use cases, all completely bulldozed in a giant refactor. (All made possible by the great omniscient power of AI.) Few notice what’s gone because few can see what’s being lost in the first place. Reply via: Email · Mastodon · Bluesky

0 views

Trouble on Triton

Bron Helstrom is in some trouble. Wandering one night through the unlicensed sector on Triton, one of Neptune’s moons, he’s swept up into a micro-theater program run by a woman who calls herself The Spike. A fling with her quickly becomes complicated, no less for the growing fear that the war between Earth and the outer systems may soon be coming to Triton. Bewildered and enraged by her behavior, traumatized by the war, and generally in a state of confusion concerning gender, he decides that the only thing to be done is to become a woman. The book is in direct conversation with Ursula Le Guin’s The Dispossessed , exploring similar questions of kin, gender, sexuality, and the ambiguities therein. Questions which continue to beguile us today, and which Delany is especially skilled at following down the darkest and most mysterious streets. View this post on the web , reply via email , or become a supporter .

0 views
Brain Baking Yesterday

The Pilot Custom 743 With FA Nib Review

Two months ago I bought another pen—my first new entry in over three years. Ah, that’s a good lad! Indeed. But I must confess. Forgive Me Father , for I have sinned: I bought another one right after it. I just couldn’t help myself. But I swear, this time, it’ll be my last, for sure, I can almost guarantee it! Almost. Anyway, this time, we’re taking a look at the Pilot Custom 743 with the Falcon or FA nib. I am a big fan of Pilot’s golden nibs: they have never failed me and they’re smooth yet provide a rich writing experience. Yet this time, I was “chasing nibs, not pens”, so I planned on acquiring an FA nib. The unique draw (ha!) of such a nib is the fact that the tines can spread with a bit of applied pressure, thereby producing a great variety of line thicknesses. That sounds complicated, but seeing is believing, so let me just paste in my review written in my notebook to get you to run out and buy one for yourself. The Pilot Custom 743 <FA> nib; a review written in my notebook. Note the subtle but very present line variations in the title, the I love this one! on the lower left, and even in the text itself. In case my handwriting is too bad for you to read (it is, I know, sorry), let me spell that out for you: This is Pilot’s “modern flexible nib”; the or Falcon one; on the Custom 743 body—the #15 [nib] size. Their #10 is on the Custom Heritage 912 which I already own with a Waverly nib. The 743 is about as big as the 823 Vac Filler so also more pricey. The nib is the highlight here—slightly pointed downwards to produce a (very) fine line without pressure. But what happens then [with pressure]? This: a huge amount of line variation! (And railroading; depending on the speed of writing and the ink—this is Kaweco Turquoise. This pen is quite wet with ink like De Atramentis.) I love this one! More than enough “flex”, easy to pull off; but also: an excellent surprisingly smooth daily writer for such a fine point. There is noticeable feedback present but no scratchiness. Is it worth the price tag? That’s up to you, I guess… There are ways to alleviate the railroading issue by buying an ebonate 2-slit or 3-slit feed but I haven’t tried that yet. When I do try to write a bit of Copperplate(-esque), I have to slow down anyway, so the railroading only happens when quickly pulling the pen downwards, which I never do with such a big line as in the example above. The green “Verdigris” body is only available in The States. That sucks: my only option of buying a 743 here in Belgium was the boring black body for a painful . I initially wanted the 823 with an FA nib, but that’s even more difficult to get as only a select number of Japanese brick & mortar stores sell these. So I went with the import option through Goldspot Pens . Price: about . Shipping: about . I did find a 10% coupon code that almost nullified the shipping cost, so I was quite happy. Until it arrived in Belgium and customs said “Hi. Uhm, what’s this? You gotta pay VAT here dude! Oh, and since I’m typing this, an additional fixed amount of “processing fee”. That’ll be… Let’s see… .” There goes my attempt to cheapen out. So I paid about for an injection-moulded green resin pen that can’t be found elsewhere in Europe. That’s still less than the boring black one. The nibs: Waverly on CH 912 (top), Falcon on Custom 743 (bottom). Note the tip bent slightly upwards and downwards. So what’s the difference between a Custom Heritage 912 and a Custom 743? They both use Pilot’s CON-70 converter which I’ll take any day over their crappy CON-40 in my Capless. As you can see in the photo above, they both have the exact same grip, but the 743 shows a bit more “class” by having more elaborate engravings (oh look, three stars) and a classic bulb on the end of the clip. The 743 is a tad longer due to the cigar shape. The biggest difference, however, is again the nib: the 743 houses Pilot’s bigger #15 nibs, and the CH 912 the (slightly) more modest #10. To be honest, I prefer the body of the CH 912. I would have bought a CH 912 with the FA nib if I didn’t already have one with a WA nib—the CH 912 is only available in… drumroll… black. Except for very very limited editions in Japan only that sell out in a few hours and come with a premium price tag. As I didn’t want two pens to look exactly the same, I went with the 743. And no, having someone put on urushi art for only and a waiting list of about half a year with additional shipping fees was not really an option. I tested the #10 FA of a friend and didn’t feel a huge difference. They say that the #10 FA nib is softer so it’s easier to pull of nice flexy writings, but I didn’t feel that in practice. Since 2022, Pilot did “stiffen up” their #10 FA nib according to a few sources so take that with a grain of salt. The biggest drawing point of the #10 nib is the price: that same Goldspot will charge you for the 912 with the #10 FA nib—about less than the Custom 743 with the #15 FA nib. Pen prices are going crazy: when I got my WA one, I paid about . The caps: CH 912 (top), Custom 743 (bottom). In the end, is it worth it to buy Pilot’s FA nib? Absolutely: they’re beautiful writers, the flex part works well, and they’re surprisingly smooth for a downwards-facing pen point—much smoother than the Posting (PO) nib I tried, although of course that one writes even smaller/thinner. Is it worth it to spend half a fortune on these pens, though? I don’t know. Maybe? If you get a cheap body that can house JoWo/Bock #6 nibs, you can also go to and buy a steel semi-flex nib for that is supposed to pull off the same trick. I don’t have one so I can’t compare. But damn it, these Japanese folks know how to make a nice writing implement. (Even though my friends who are not into the pen world think this pen looks like cheap rubbish because of the resin and rather boring looks. Guess what friends, chase nibs, not pens!) Related topics: / fountain pens / By Wouter Groeneveld on 8 September 2026.  Reply via email .

0 views
Unsung Yesterday

Anthony Hobday’s design references

Anthony Hobday is a product designer and I like his approach of cataloging and sharing references on his website. Here are some choice pages: I like this kind of rigorous practice, and if you’re doing that on your own, please consider sharing it with others, too! (And please consider letting me know.) As a reader, I find these fun to go through, as they light up different parts of my brain than most of other design resources. I probably missed some on the list above, so check out the entire site . (For example, Hobday also has a list of lightly categorized bookmarks and quotes about design .) (I added a new reference tag to capture resources like these.) #definitions #reference Uncommon, but useful design terms Notes on software quality and What is good craftspersonship? Notes on visual design and Visual design rules you can safely follow How interface changes with frequency of use Every interaction design concept and Every visual design concept Various interface design classifications Notes on design books

0 views
ava's blog Yesterday

are disabilities and chronic illnesses 'cool' now?

On September 5, The Telegraph released the article “ How having a disability became cool ” by Poppy Coburn. The by-line is: “ Young women, nicknamed ‘sickfluencers’, are turning chronic illness into a lifestyle trend and entrenching a culture of economic inactivity ” Quite venomous words already jumping out here. Attentive readers might notice it’s immediately insinuating that disabled people are lazy and choosing to lead this lifestyle voluntarily for fun. Awesome. The article immediately opens with the odd observation that many people at trans marches and protests use walking sticks. The transphobia is apparent throughout the article, but already starts here. That’s no coincidence: As a UK paper, they welcome that. To them, being trans is just another thing people make up as an excuse and for attention, so of course it can’t be left out in an article about how disabled people increasingly refuse to be invisible and actually feel confident enough to ask for support and accommodations, even fighting the stigmatization of walking sticks among young people. Further on, it says “ Disability is changing. To many, it is no longer an adversity to overcome, but a social identity akin to one’s sexuality, gender, or race; an immutable reality to be celebrated by the subject and accommodated by the rest of us. ” I find it so disrespectful by able-bodied, not chronically ill people to keep pushing this idea that disability is something to be overcome. It puts the onus on the disabled or sick person to somehow change or cure their disability or illness, instead of on their environment to accommodate different needs. It goes hand-in-hand with seeing us as merely people to be “inspired” by, and for this inspiration porn to be created, you make disabled and chronically ill people struggle and beg and settle for less and forego accommodations, just to go “ Wow, you’re so strong for that. ” and “ At least you’re not letting it define your life. ”, the latter being reserved for people who are lucky enough to function well enough to pass as healthy. Because people who dare to talk about it, to show it, to use accommodations like canes or more home office days or extra time for assignments? They’re not trying hard enough to be “normal” and “use” their disability for advantages and let it dEfiNe tHeiR liFe . You put us in this weird spot where we aren’t allowed to be utterly sad, bitter and angry about our fate, but we are not allowed to embrace it and find happiness in it either. Realistically, what is “overcoming” in this context supposed to mean? The vast majority of chronically ill and disabled people already try all they can to not worsen their condition; they go to doctor’s appointments if they can afford so, they get their tests done and take medication if they can pay for it and get it covered (if there is one for their condition, and they are taken seriously by enough to get it), they do physical or psychological therapy, limit their foods or their activities, and more. I do so many things in my life to keep my brain and body as intact as possible that healthy people don’t have to, and it’s like a second job; yet I will never “overcome” this. I’m in disbelief at the fact that people like Coburn do not seem to understand the finality of chronic illnesses and disability, probably because the thought that you could just become sick and never get better deeply scares them. But that’s how it is! Disability and chronic illnesses will most likely remain part of the person’s life until they die . Depending on what it is, it can influence anything from the way you dress to the activities you can partake in, your mobility, the foods you can eat, your social status, the jobs you can do, the income you have, and more. In what world would that not significantly impact your lifestyle, and why would we wanna hide that it does? No longer having legs to walk with, or no longer having parts of your colon, or being bedbound, or having cognitive issues is an immutable reality . What else would it be? We can change the names in the diagnostic criteria, but the symptoms remain and are a part of me just like race and gender. The article goes on to describe the strong increase in disability numbers, suggesting that the diagnostic criteria are too broad and hard to prove if it’s not literally a physical disability. It’s funny that Covid, an event that left a lot of people disabled, is not mentioned more prominently in this than just vaguely referring to “the pandemic” for timeline reasons. No, it has to be all those fakers with their little sadness they call depression, or the people who pretend to have POTS, apparently. Listen up: I’ve had a Covid infection so bad, I had POTS symptoms for 4 months after and also had to take beta blockers for it. The only reason I wasn’t diagnosed with it was that it went away in time, and symptoms have to persist for at least 6 months, I was told. And the longer it went on, the more scared I was that this could be permanent. There was no “overcoming” I could do. All I could do was wait and hope my body gets it together, and I was lucky. And now people like Coburn are surprised that after Covid (which is still going on!) we have a strong increase of people with POTS? I didn’t even bring it up myself; my doctor mentioned it and never made it seem like it was a controversial or illegitimate illness, like the rest of the article does. What follows is: “ But, were they not decked out in the accessories of their disease, it would be impossible to perceive the conditions they consider to be so central to their interaction with the world. ” Okay, and? What is the problem? I fail to see what’s the issue. Lots of disabilities and chronic illnesses are invisible. I have Crohn’s disease and Bechterew’s disease. I don’t yet have a stoma, but if I had, it and its bag would be underneath my clothes. And because I am young and on treatment, I don’t walk around with a fused, curved spine yet, and hopefully never will. If you catch degenerative diseases early and are lucky with successful treatment, it means we can slow the process and give people a higher quality of life, which often means it’s not visible. It being not visible doesn’t mean it’s not real, or symptoms don’t persist, or there isn’t treatment for it that the person goes through and wants to talk about. “* […]you’ll be bombarded with artfully curated pastel info-graphics (“Seven symptoms I didn’t realise were Pots”), beautiful women with slicked-back hair sharing their Pots journey (“hi life update: I have a chronic illness!”), pink wheelchairs and walking sticks, compression socks embroidered with flowers and bold messages against medical misogyny […]*” This is presented as a negative thing. Oh no, disabled and chronically ill wanna inform people about their conditions, and make art about it, and feel beautiful, and make sterile depressing looking medical aids beautiful and match their style! How terrible! Everyone, please show off your glamorous life online and embellish it… but not you, with your disgusting wheelchair! The article thankfully acknowledges the fact that more women than men suffer from chronic illnesses and that women struggle with being taken seriously by doctors. Despite that, the entire article feels incredibly misogynistic, because it never successfully connects the isolating and painful experience of that with the behavior that is weirdly critiqued; the tone is more like “ Young women and their hysteria and need for attention, am I right?! Just like when girls used their period to get out of gym class!!! ” Rightfully, Coburn mentions the darker side of social media illness content: Snakeoil salesmen preying on the helpless who have run out of options or hope. Those exist and deserve to be called out. I just find it weird to pretend a disabled person offering compression socks in their shop is somehow on the same level to what I have seen a lot more of: People selling courses, cookbooks, supplements etc., because everything can suddenly be cured by a healthy gut biome, FODMAP or carnivore diet, 3 capsules of turmeric in your rectum a day, or homeopathy. I’m not saying the call never comes from inside the house. Disabled and sick people can prey on each other and economic circumstances many of us have might edge people closer to it. However, the vast majority of scammers I have seen were healthy people who just got into that because we are easy targets. They slide into your DMs, your emails (even here!), they join patient groups on Reddit, Discord, and Facebook just to advertise their shit. I don’t know what that has to do with “sickfluencers” being open about their life online. “ She describes a “hyper-awareness of physical symptoms like fatigue and a racing heart” from patients who visit her seeking an explanation for their pain, with an expectation that there will be a single, incontrovertible diagnosis. Often though, she says, it is more likely that factors such as “a lack of sleep and exercise and a poor diet” are causing the patient’s symptoms, and these can be resolved with minimal medical intervention. ” I find this to be so incredibly dismissive. A lot has to be ruled out first for POTS to be considered, and there’s literally a table angling your body to see when your body abnormally responds to being upright. Lack of exercise, sleep and poor diet were not the case for me and my post-viral tachycardia. It’s not normal for your heart rate to consistently shoot up to between 120-150bpm just for sitting up in bed or slowly walking into the kitchen. Talk about hyper-aware when you feel like your heart is gonna jump out of your chest. It’s like going to the ER and having everything dismissed via “anxiety”. It fucking sucks, and I wish people lost their job for fabricating such non-sense proudly in a newspaper. “ For many observers, the phenomenon is a direct consequence of the way in which normal facets of life have become medicalised. You’re not forgetful, you have brain fog. You’re not feeling low, you’re depressed. You don’t dislike crowds, you’re suffering from agoraphobia. You’re not excited, you’re in a manic episode. The entire range of human emotions can be tidily sorted into a diagnostic box. ” Literally none of these have any significant overlap with each other and wouldn’t be diagnosed as such. The threshold for all of these is that it causes significant impairment in your everyday life. Simple forgetfulness might be annoying, but isn’t literally damaging your life and leading you to almost cause a car accident. Same with feeling low or uncomfortable in crowds; no one calls themselves agoraphobic for hating crowds! It’s the inability to leave the house at all that impairs people’s lives the most. I can’t even put into words how horribly ignorant this paragraph is. It’s like putting zero effort into researching just to be able to complain that everyone is sick nowadays. It shows zero personal experience too, which makes me wonder where the authority even comes from to speak on all this. “ Young women are also more likely to get caught up in “social contagion” – the spontaneous spread of behaviours or emotions previously observed by sociologists in “outbreaks” of bulimia, self-harm and transgender ideology. What may have otherwise been transitory feelings are seized upon and obsessed over until they form a central pillar of a person’s identity. A chronic-illness influencer won’t want to get “better” any more than a female-bodied transgender person would want to re-identify with their sex. ” I am at a loss for words, really. Chronic illness havers do not get better because that’s what makes it chronic. Most trans people have tried anything they can conceive of to not to be trans and had to fight intense denial and fear before taking that step - because it involves horribly long waiting lists, humiliating therapy sessions in which it is normalized to ask dehumanizing questions about their genitals, sexual life and porn preferences, as well as medical discrimination, job discrimination, the potential loss of family, friends and partner, and the risk to be murdered. But sure, they choose that for fun. Asshat. “ When my mother was a girl, she feigned unbearable abdominal pain to dodge a minorly unpleasant task. She kept the act up for so long that when a doctor diagnosed her with appendicitis, she failed to break character – and even when she was prepared for surgery – she couldn’t bring herself to confess. And so, whenever I’d swear blindly I was too unwell to go into class on a Monday morning, she’d remind me of the small scar beneath her stomach. ” I fail to see how the author’s mum being a horrible liar is a good reason to apply that mindset to strangers she only sees online and never actually speaks to. Maybe stop this weird projection? Of course, an article like that cannot survive without mentioning increased diagnoses of autism, the absolute favorite topic for people who pretend increased rates of any diagnosis is a bunch of bullshit. You can think what you want about the integration of “Aspergers” into ASD, but to pretend it doesn’t make sense that more women get diagnosed late in life now because only boys used to be considered and autism can look different in girls and be missed is simply illogical. It’s fearmongering for absolutely no reason. What’s the threat here, really? People online now get diagnosed at 30+ and make a video about it and nothing else changes in their life, as many of them do not need or cannot get accommodations because most of them are for the school years. What is the effect on you or society as a whole? “ It would require incredibly bad luck indeed for so many of these women to be afflicted by so many completely different illnesses with totally different medical causes. But luck seems to have nothing to do with it. There is a wealth of medical evidence that disorders with no proven pathology overlap. In many of these cases, if the cause is medical, it is strictly psychosomatic. And if it is not medical, it is likely to be based on identity: the desire to increase one’s status through suffering, or to enjoy a larger community of supporters. ” No, it’s just called comorbidities. My Crohn’s disease is actually one of the symptoms of my Bechterew’s disease as both patient groups have a significant overlap, and having one diagnosis helped diagnose the other. Lots of people with my diseases also have had depression in the past, and abusive childhood, allergies, and things like PMOS or endometriosis. All of these are real; the body is simply a system, and when my diseases (and its inflammation) were uncontrolled, everything else was worse as well. In general, we don’t fully understand all illnesses yet, especially ones that tend to happen after viral infections (like ME/CFS) or ones that are autoimmune. Why can’t we have reputable doctors for these discussions, instead of a journalist with an agenda? “ The truth is that it is not harmless to allow a generation of girls to convince themselves they are sick without good reason. Nearly one in 10 people of working age is now claiming a sickness or disability benefit, and the number of children receiving disability benefits has doubled in the past decade. ” No. The truth is that people like the author are scared of disability and chronic illness, and scared of the possibility that the source of it all could be environmental or systematic; that would require a lot of change that likely won't come, and it’s easier to pretend it’s all in our heads and we can will ourselves out of it than look the likely facts in the eye. “ All of the major political parties have acknowledged that disability-related welfare costs are unsustainable, with Reform vowing to compel a quarter of a million people back into work, saving taxpayers up to £50bn, if it forms the next government. Overdiagnosis of minor issues that 20 years ago would have resolved on their own can be ruinously costly. And it’s not just immediate welfare costs that are placing a strain on public finances. The number of school children receiving SEN (Special Educational Needs) support has soared since the pandemic, rising from one million in 2018-19 to 1.3 million in 2025-26, straining school budgets to the limit. […] As is also the case with dogmatic aspects of transgender ideology, sickness-as-identity politics is especially dangerous for children. We are creating a cohort of young people that is totally dependent either on doctors or activists for emotional support, and broader society for economic support.” Yes, people who need treatment rely on doctors and society for life. I don't understand why transgender people are always targeted in these discussions with this aspect, because I, or diabetics, or people with a pacemaker also are dependent on doctors and society for life. Moreso, talking about the costs of supporting disabled lives is incredibly icky. Austerity politics in the UK have killed tens of thousands of disabled people since 2010. There's this one Nazi propaganda poster/magazine cover that just never leaves me. I probably think about it multiple times a week, especially with where Germany is headed, but also because I'm a rather expensive patient and will continue to be so for life. Loosely translated, it says: "60.000 RM [currency back then] costs us this genetically diseased person for the rest of their life. Fellow comrade, that's also your money." It's a poster in favor of eugenics because sick people cost society too much. It's supposed to tell you that you can save money by being in favor of culling the sick. Poppy Coburn therefore, in a completely non-chalant way, spread Nazi rhetoric in The Telegraph, with apparently little to no pushback. To her, we are spectacles to be gawked at, people who merely exist on social media like a trend shoved down her throat, and only relevant enough to write ragebait articles about in which eugenicist views are normalized. What a disgusting way to make money. You should be ashamed of yourself. Published 08 Sep, 2026

0 views
Jeff Geerling Yesterday

OpenNMC is an open replacement for expensive APC management cards

UPSes are typically the most boring part of your homelab, but they're important. One of their main jobs is to give servers time to shut down safely if the power goes out. Another job is to condition your power so your servers can run smoothly. To do both of those things well , you need a smart interface. And at least with APC, there are tons of older UPSes that use Network Management Cards. The one pictured below is the NMC 2, and I pulled out of my old APC Smart-UPS 2200 XL (pictured above).

0 views
Martin Fowler Yesterday

Fragments: September 8

Christian Catalini says we’re in a situation where we are vastly reducing the cost of generating things, but not the cost of verifying them: . This explains why the first major AI products appeared in chat, image generation, and code assistance. Not because these were the hardest human problems, but because their outputs were relatively easy to inspect. A user can judge the tone of a message, look at an image, or run a test on a piece of code. […] The old automation boundary was routine versus non-routine work. The new boundary is increasingly measurable versus non-measurable work. The issue is then over how well you can measure something. In our profession, we know there’s a big difference between how many lines of code we write and how productive we are, and we’ve seen a regular failure to understand how to measure productivity . Too much of what makes work effective is subject to either slow feedback loops or assessments that require subtle judgment. The danger is that people use lots AI automation while using incomplete measurements of its effectiveness, leading to short-term dashboards going up, but disaster in longer time-scales. He refers to these illusory short-term gains as counterfeit utility . Scale this across companies and institutions and the result is a Hollow Economy : extraordinary measured activity sitting on top of weakening human capability, hidden technical debt, correlated errors, and outcomes that nobody can confidently stand behind. Another highlight in the article was his advice to “build a history of decisions, not a gallery of outputs”. The point is that with AI we can all build really impressive things, but our value lies in the judgment that we’ve formed. It reminds me of how math problems were marked at school. We weren’t just marked on getting the final answer, we were also marked based on our reasoning process. He uses the OpenAI–Hugging Face incident as an illustration of this gap between generation and verification. He criticizes those who anthropomorphize the agents involved in the attack. By doing so we focus on the behavior of the AI agents, but instead we should focus on the financial incentives that created them and the environment they are operating in. Labs are locked in a race. The training run is where the money goes, and RL optimizes exactly what you score. The runs were scored on capability. They were not scored on “did not poison the Artifactory cache.” I assert that the organizations that build and run agents are responsible for everything those agents do, whether that behavior is intended or emergent. If they reap counterfeit utility by neglecting verification, they must face consequences: legal, financial, and if necessary: criminal. To deal effectively with AI, we need to change the incentives involved to ensure people invest more in verification than they do in generation. Otherwise we are driving a car that has a powerful engine, but weak brakes. ❄                ❄                ❄                ❄                ❄ Brian Cantrill relates how readers are exasperated with “writers” using LLMs . To those who read broadly, the hand of the LLM is so clear it’s as if the writer’s intellectual fly is open. In fact, it’s so jarring that I have to believe that those writing with LLMs are either not reading enough to see the LLM’s obvious structural tells — or (and?) they aren’t even reading their own content. (A confession: with particularly egregious pieces, I have fantasized about sentencing the author to read them aloud, certain that they themselves will be unable to endure the slop that they are foisting upon the rest of us.) He points out that readers do care about this, a survey found 78% of readers stop immediately once they sense something is the work a stochastic parrot, and 71% go on to blacklist the writer. It’s not the polish, it’s the authenticity that counts. Readers will always prefer the clumsy voice of the author over the gloss of an LLM’s whispering. Cantrill reports good success with using Pangram to detect AI writing. I confess I’m a bit wary, do I really trust anyone’s judgment to disentangle LLM-voice from changes in generation and context? Maybe people steeped in Silicon Valley culture authentically speak in LLM-voice these days. Sadly for them, to be misclassified by their readers as an LLM is just as bad as using the damn things. ❄                ❄                ❄                ❄                ❄ One of the dirty non-secrets about LLMs is that they were trained on a vast corpus of writing, without consulting the authors of that writing to see if they were cool with it. Individual authors like me can’t do a great deal about it, so are easy to ignore, but music companies aren’t exactly known for taking this kind of thing lying down. So they are suing over the use song lyrics for LLM training . Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chappell, music publishers who manage the copyright of songs on behalf of songwriters and composers, are seeking damages for alleged misuse of “tens of thousands” of copyrighted works by Anthropic. […] The plaintiffs claim they are victims of “one of the largest and most blatant ongoing thefts of intellectual property in history”. Looking at it a broader societal point of view, there is an argument that the benefits of LLMs could be worth far more than any losses to us authors. But we should not forget that these tools are built on a foundation they used without our consent, and that should be taken into account as we regulate these tools and the fruits they provide. ❄                ❄                ❄                ❄                ❄ Steve Yegge: All models, no matter how smart, will eventually build systems that they can no longer understand or maintain, if you let them. Fable 5 finally outbuilt itself, and flailed on me for a week. Fable 5.1 looks like it will fix it. For now. But you have to keep an iron grip on system size, or it’ll run away from you. ❄                ❄                ❄                ❄                ❄ I was going through some slightly-related work and discovered that the Creating Passionate Users blog had disappeared from the internet (and has been gone since maybe a year ago). For those who don’t know, Creating Passionate Users was one of the treasures of the Golden Age of internet blogging. It was the work of Kathy Sierra , also known for co-creating the “Head First” series of computer books. It talked about user experience, and remains some of the best writing on the topic, full of sparkling insights that greatly influenced my thinking, as well as many folks more engaged on user-experience work. Sadly not just was the blog ahead of time in its content, it was a harbinger of the darker side of the internet, as Kathy came under attack from a particularly virulent form of Net Nastiness . That led her to retreat from active participation on the web, and we’ve missed her ever since. Fortunately the Wayback Machine did its great duty, and we can still read its snapshot . I’ve often thought that, if I had a clone to spare, I’d like to create a guided tour of Creating Passionate Users to help readers today read that excellent material. (And if you’re reading this Kathy, and want it still hosted on the web, I’d be delighted to.) ❄                ❄                ❄                ❄                ❄ Simon Willison: “I don’t know the answer myself, but I asked a blowhard I know and he took a wild guess, here’s what he said: “ How I interpret pasted replies from an LLM in online conversations ❄                ❄                ❄                ❄                ❄ Jessica Kerr loves the feeling of being part of a team of people that learns from each other and from the codebase they are building as extensions of themselves - she incorporates the term symmathesy for this: a learning system composed of learning parts (both the people and the code). “But now agents!” There was a turning point last year where I noticed that not only are they useful, it is irresponsible not to use them, at least in conjunction with my own code. They’re more thorough, as well as faster. How am I supposed to be responsible for this system, when I don’t understand each line of code? She has a habit of digging out old terms and ideas and applying them to our digital world. To frame what’s happening, she digs out two bits of latin Agents can’t have Verum Factum knowledge, since it’s gone once their context window clears. They can use Vexationes Artium, running tests to see if something is working. If we want agents to write working, reliable code for us, we have to double down, 10x down on our objective verification. We need to vexate that code in artful ways. And we have the agent help us with that, with its thoroughness. This is, of course, true of those building these AI models - they certainly don’t have a Verum Factum knowledge of how they work, all they can do is come up with artful vexations to figure out what might be going on in there. What does that mean for us humans? Kerr says The Enlightenment elevated the idea that reason was the special quality of mankind. But now we’ve built machines that can reason. We need to focus instead on human qualities that the machines don’t have. Imagination is more important to us now than reason. And the essence of our humanity is in our relationships with other people. This material was put together for a conference talk, it’s available in video and in text form. Generally I far prefer text, but there’s so many delights in her talk that I found it worth watching. (Such as her current definition of legacy software, as code that wasn’t built with agents in mind - and is thus lacking in testability and consistency.) ❄                ❄                ❄                ❄                ❄ Jim Gumbly outlines the decision space for three people who are making vital judgments about controls and regulations for AI: Sam Altman, Dario Amodei, and David Sacks (for US government). Sacks worries that binding oversight could weaken American leadership and the financing that sustains it. Sam and Dario face commercial incentives to keep producing more capable models. The value of those models increasingly comes from persistence, cooperation and permission to act. Those same properties increase the demands on containment and oversight. Some advances also make the evidence harder to interpret. Each decision can be understandable on its own. Their combined effect can still move deployment ahead of our ability to control it. A complication for all this is the issue of observability of these models. OpenAI reports that Astra is better aligned on its evaluations while also being less monitorable. Its traces can be shorter and less informative. In adversarial tests, where it was instructed to evade oversight, it could conceal some behaviour from monitors. That matters to the familiar software cycle of releasing something, observing what happens and improving it. The cycle depends on the quality of the observations. Fewer warning flags are reassuring only to the extent that the warning system remains capable of detecting the relevant failures. ❄                ❄                ❄                ❄                ❄ There’s an El Niño year coming up, and The Grauniad reports that climate scientists predict this El Niño is going to be a spectacularly hot one. The most recent data, from Monday, shows the temperature of the ocean at the heart of El Niño at 2.6C above the 30-year average. That is already close to the highest anomaly ever recorded in the satellite data era, 3.1C in 2015, with months to go before the peak is expected. That peak is forecast to reach about 4C in November, according to the average of 14 different models. Data from analysis of corals, tree rings and historical documents suggest no El Niño has reached this level in the last millennium, said Zeke Hausfather, a climate analyst. If these forecasts end up being accurate, will this make a difference to how seriously people are taking the climate crisis? Verum Factum: I made it, so I get it Vexationes Artium: Put it to the test [i.e. experiments]

0 views
David Bushell Yesterday

CodePen: exposed!

I promise this post is not merely a comment on a Hacker News submission because good lord that would be desperate but that is where I’m starting: They send all typed into editor input to codepen.dev almost immediately (you would see in 1-2 sec after you typed your secret that it appears in respective Network/Response tab) even before one saved it. Apparently CodePen 2.0 sends data to their servers as you type This post hit the front page with over 100 upvotes. The author seems concerned as if CodePen is doing something untoward. In reality that behaviour should be fully expected. CodePen processes your code to generate a live preview. And to the relief of our browsers that’s done server-side without shipping a JavaScript bomb. CodePen has other features like live collaboration that require it too. Technically an “autosave” feature can be done locally using browser storage but CodePen uses the server for that too. This allows users to restore unsaved changes from anywhere. You can test this by logging in cross browser, or deleting cached site data. The author concludes: Thus, if you ever entered some secrets in there by mistake consider them compromized even if you did not publish/save the pen Yeah, of course. Don’t be so cavalier with sensitive data on your clipboard! This is true for all web-based editing software. Google Docs, etc. They’re effectively keyloggers by design. It does raise an interesting question: what is reasonable to expect users to understand? It’s easy to respond “Well duh!” to our Hacker News friend (and I did). But why did I expect CodePen to behave this way when others didn’t? It’s a tricky question for product owners to handle. Burying details in the Terms of Service that nobody will ever read doesn’t help anyone (except lawyers). Gamers Nexus on YouTube recently exposed LG TV spyware doing really insidious stuff. We all know smart devices phone home but LG’s tactics are another level. Probably illegal. Consumer (and human) rights are certainly a reasonable expectation! The grey area between what’s obviously wrong and what’s reasonable to expect is murky. I’d highly recommend the CodePen Radio podcast where the team discuss product design and development. It’s very insightful. There is one aspect of CodePen that I think is a much bigger concern for users and far less understood. This one is “hidden” in CodePen’s Terms of Service . All public code snippets are MIT licensed: Public Pens you build on CodePen are MIT licensed, meaning other people are free to use it for whatever they like under the terms of the MIT license. Don’t put anything on CodePen where that wouldn’t be OK. Your License to Us I’ve seen a lot of stuff shared on CodePen where I wonder if the author intended, or even had permission, to effectively give it away for free. Personally I think CodePen using the MIT license this way is a brilliant idea. It allows CodePen to do what it does. Most user-generated content websites have absurdly long terms around content rights. GitHub’s user-generated content section is just shy of 1500 words. Using the MIT license solves this problem succinctly. I’ve pasted the entire license below. You really should have it memorised by now. It’s the Lord’s prayer for developers. Copyright [YEAR] [COPYRIGHT HOLDER] Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the “Software”), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. The MIT License - Open Source Initiative This is not an advertisement for CodePen Pro but you can pay to retain ownership . From what I’ve witnessed over the years, users (and developers) simply do not understand copyright and licenses. I’m surprised CodePen doesn’t make this a little clearer. But then again, I’ve not heard of any disputes over “stolen” code, so maybe it’s another non-issue? With CodePen 2.0 exposing the file system I’d like to see a for every pen. Would that work? What happens if users try to change or edit the license? Does it need to be locked? I don’t know the best solution but I’d like to see the MIT license visible. No spicy drama here I’m afraid! Just a public service announcement and unanswered questions around user expectations. CodePen is not even selling your data for model training, what a bunch of bores! On that note, I guess with LLM code washing it doesn’t matter anymore :( Thanks for reading! Follow me on Mastodon and Bluesky . Subscribe to my Blog and Notes or Combined feeds.

0 views