What I’m trying to say is that you should choose the programming language that will make your learning and early projects easiest.

Learning a new language later is not hard. Trying to use the wrong tool for the task when you’re just learning is hard, and will teach you the wrong lessons.

Learning more programming languages isn’t the hard part of becoming a decent programmer. You’re optimizing for the wrong thing here.

You should choose a language that works well for the specific projects you think you’re going to do in the near term. Depending on exactly what sort of projects you want to do, Python, Typescript, C++, and Rust are all languages I might recommend. I wouldn’t recommend raw Javascript for anything other than doing some tutorials before learning Typescript.

Without more information, I’d recommend Python.

The moment you start allowing limitations on who can or can’t be president you open the door to politicians shifting the requirements to fit their political needs. The legislature would immediate start the game of updating the requirements in a way that seems benign but is primarily calculated to hurt their opponents. Within 2-3 election cycles you’d have bills up specifically targeted to exclude their most popular opponents.

100% agreed, though I’m in the “neither is ideal” camp. My favorite language, by a long way at this point is Rust.

It’s not functional, but borrows a lot of functional idioms while avoiding the pain points functional language usually hit in exchange for losing the purity of functional languages.

Is France… ok?

I’ve always treated my home server with public facing services as presumptively compromised. I don’t put any data on there I wouldn’t want to see become public, and any data I actually care about losing is backed up to the cloud with an append-only key. The NixOS config lives in a git repo not on the server. If something bad happens, I can wipe the machine clean, redeploy the image, restore my backups, and we’re back to the status quo.

So, my threat model hasn’t changed much!

They really want people scared, ehh?

Probably though, in 30 years, reactions towards the current automation of certain jobs will be seen similarly as frivolity.

Honestly, it already looks ridiculous.

To be clear, I think the automation of jobs is, at least in the immediate, a serious problem, with real consequences. The problem is real. The issue is that objecting to the technology itself is idiotic. That’s not a fight you’ll win. The technology exists. People are going to use it. And in the long run we’ll all be better off for it.

There’s serious conversations to be had about how we use AI, and how we deal with the consequences of its use, and especially how we manage the transition. But you can’t have those conversations with someone who insists that AI is the devil and that we need to stop it, and who gets mad at you when you suggest otherwise.

note that you probably need to trust the remote household with your data

Probably not actually. Borgbackup (and any sensible encrypted backup system really), does client side encryption. So the data should be encrypted before it’s even sent down the wire. The remote household shouldn’t be able to access the data without the encryption key/password.

I mean, they will have to trust the remote household not to destroy the data, but that’s pretty much an unavoidable limitation.

You’d better give us money and not try to regulate us.

Actually, right now, the western AI companies desperately want regulation.

An unregulated environment is one where they’re forced to compete on price against the Chinese companies and startups running open-weight models. All signs point to them losing that battle.

OpenAI/Anthropic’s wish list right now is a bunch of regulation to prevent the use of foreign models, and to require expensive to implement “safety” requirements that make it hard for startups to compete.

I didn’t say that.

Listen, I’ve got nothing against you hating AI. There’s lots of valid reasons to be concerned, especially with the implications for the future of jobs and work. The way corporations are adopting AI is legitimately concerning.

Just don’t pretend it’s about the environment when it’s not. That isn’t just an unconvincing argument, it hurts the environmental movement generally.

It’s the plastic straws all over again. You understand that the stupid straws debate did the environment no favors right? Fighting AI as an environmental issue is much worse because the AI is coming, and you will lose that fight. If you’re arguing for more controls about water and power use, I’m with you. If you’re arguing for a carbon tax, I will sing your praises. If you’re trying to fight the idea of AI itself, and pretending that it’s about the environment, that’s where I have a problem.

The TPM exists because it’s useful to support use cases where you want your passkeys tied to a device. It isn’t a Microsoft thing either. I run Linux - my computer has a TPM. I can’t use it because Linux support for the TPM is weak still, but it’s there! You probably have one too if your computer was made in the last decade.

By default, even on Windows, your website passkeys aren’t stored in the TPM. No one is forcing you to store your passkeys on the TPM.

And they won’t, because it’s a bloody stupid idea that benefits no one.

Microsoft wants your passkeys synced across devices because that’s how you get lock in. If the passkeys are stuck on the computer you made them on, then you may as well buy a Mac for your next computer because those passkeys are gone either way! If the passkeys are in Microsoft Password Manager though, now migrating to a Mac is harder.

You absolutely shouldn’t be angry!

The existence of powerful open-weight models is the single thing that’s going to prevent us from descending into the full corporate dystopia everyone’s afraid of.

It’s going to hit the stock market hard once everyone figures out what’s going on though.

[forget]
keep-daily = 10
keep-weekly = 4

Daily backups are cheap because of de-duplication. I keep a few weekly backups in case it takes me a bit to notice something went wrong. I don’t usually back up logs.

I could probably drop the weekly backups without much risk, but I’ve got the space.

Sure.

Do you think that’s a reasonable reason to hate gen AI?

There are absolutely issues around the rollout of AI. I haven’t seen anyone disagree with that. That’s just not a good argument for being opposed to the technology. That might be a reasonable reason to hate xAI or Microsoft (and I do!). It’s definitely a reasonable reason to have concerns about how we’re doing this. You should be concerned.

It’s not a reasonable reason to hate the technology itself.

You’re free to hate GenAI all you like as far as I’m concerned. Just be honest about your reasons, and don’t pretend it’s about the environment if you don’t care enough to even look at the numbers.

The hilarious part is, yes, I don’t care how fast my launcher is.

But… also, Steam is by far the slowest, least responsive program on my computer.

“Faster than Steam” feels like a joke.

I don’t use a lot of non-open source applications (and not a lot of desktop applications generally). Have they gotten so bad that the slowness of Steam doesn’t feel bad to people anymore?

Have you actually looked into the real environmental impact of AI is compared to, say, eating meat, driving a car, or taking a yearly plane flight? It’s a rounding error. Have you looked into the numbers? Compared the environmental impact of your AI use to the environmental impact of taking a yearly vacation on a plane?

The RAM shortage is real, but very temporary. Check the news today! Chip stocks like Sk Hynix are way down because people are worried about over-production. The fact that a new technology caused a temporary shortage in a resource just isn’t even a coherent argument against the technology. There’s discussion to be had here about whether we should as a civilization reserve some resources for other industries. That’s a discussion we could have. But the idea that AI caused a temporary shortage in RAM, so that makes it bad is… like, really ridiculous? You must see that that doesn’t even make sense as an argument?

These are not arguments that hold up to scrutiny. You should consider whether you accepted these arguments because you looked into the details and they actually make sense, or if you accepted them because they’re telling you what you want to believe.

the models only need to be right some of the time and they still constitute a threat.

Right!?!

And with how cheap and fast they are to run, they don’t have to be right that often as long as a separate run can verify/validate claims. In a lot of ways what the LLMs do should probably be thought of as just a very sophisticated sort of brute force approach. You’re effectively just searching the space of combinations of known vulnerabilities. It doesn’t require particular cleverness, just an encyclopedic knowledge, a reasonable way to prune the search space, and the ability to put in the compute time.

I must be missing something, because you’re getting a bunch of upvotes. I don’t disagree with anything you said, but it feels like a total non-sequitur to what I was saying.

Yes - proper air-gapping is a good idea. But asking the big AI labs to air gap is kind of pointless. Liability already gives them legal incentives to avoid incidents. If that didn’t stop them, a letter signed by a bunch of academics sure won’t. More importantly, open-weight models capable of doing all the things that we’re concerned about are already in the hands of bad actors around the world.

This letter is asking us to lock the front door of the house when the back wall is missing.