[–] 1 point 3 hours ago*

The argument is extremely clear. People attacking Jews because they are Jews, outside of Israel and ones that are opposing Israel's actions, too, are in fact antisemitic. That doesn't change because they dress their antisemitism up as being "pro Palestine".

Or: It shouldn't change the fact but somehow does in your brain. Which is the reason you can't perceive arguments as clear or coherent anymore when the underlying facts don't match you world view. Cognitive dissonance in action...

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 4 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

    No, I just reject the notion that the ongoing discussion about AI use in software production is a moral/ethical one. That's a bullshit narrative to actually discredit all the good reasons against AI by making up a mostly fictional "but it's just ideology"-argument.

    Yes actions include moral choices. But actions that are stupid and make no sense at all don't need to be discussed in terms of is it ethically okay to do it, because that's not the interesting point there.

    I won't discuss about the moral choice of hitting my thumb with a hammer, even less to when I tried hammering in a screw like a moron. So I will also not discuss imaginary topics of ethical use of AI in coding. Because it's bullshit. It produces low quality slob. It's a scam trying to tell people with no clue about programmning that they can totally do it, too, while trying to gas-light programmers into believing that they really, really need to use that tool for coding or be left behind. Using AI for coding because you already used it for debugging tasks is not an ethical discussion. Just like using a hammer for a screw because you already hammered in nails is not one. It's a discussion about what AI CAN do and what it CAN'T. Discussions if you SHOULD use AI for a specific task have to happen AFTER you determined if it makes sense first place. And to return the hammer analogy a third time (it's a magic number after all...): If someone would try to argue that we need to discuss the ethics of hammering in a screw because it already worked with a nail, would you agree that all actions have ethical implications that need to be considered or would you dismiss him because the ethical discussion is not relevant. I did the latter in my comment.

    Again: If using AI for coding for real world purposes (and I don't talk about non-technical people building their low quality app here... that's mostly a gimmick) was viable, sure... use it. Or let's start an ethics discussion then. That's fine with me, too.

    But don't pretend that the actual discussion right know, mainly lead by clueless people evaluating a new gimmick with very little understanding of its actual capabilities (and limits) and CEOs willing to believe in any snake oil if it promises to help them get rid of those obnoxious workers demanding pay (it won't - every actual fact and number tells us that AI is in fact more expensive, even before figuring in the human employees also needed to hold the leash) is one about ethical use in coding. It isn't. It's about a discussion between those that use AI for the things it can do and avoid it where it's useless and those that somehow have found their new religion and saviour and try to make everything about a) those in tech that use AI because they obviously have seen the light and converted and b) those still left in the dark and fighting their new god for made up moral or other reasons.

    That's a fairy tale completely ignoring the third group: technical people that use AI only and exactly where it makes sense. A fairy tale mostly pushed by a few people behind AI development because they already sunk such insane sums into it that they need to believe (and make you believe) that an (human level or more) artificial general intelligence is just around the corner. Just think about it: there people are actually taking about the equivalent of creating new life (new artificial conciousness) to justify their insane investments. And we should talk about the ethical implications of using AI in coding? How is that not a distraction?

    Btw... now that I thought about it (and spelled some of it out) I want to walk back to my earlier statement. If AI is actually able to do soon™ what the morons behind it are proposing, that's indeed the moment to start an ethics discussion. A very complicated one about definitions of conciousness and life... good thing that this will not actually happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 0 points 8 hours ago*

    In my corner or Europe there are indeed many of those buttons that don't work and are purely cosmetically. It gives people something to focus on in the minute or so they have to wait for their light to get green which it would also do anyway when no one was there.

    And it's a somewhat standardized way of putting a vibrating indicator for people with impaired sight at the pole, whether it doubles to actually request a green light or just fakes it doesn't matter.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 1 point 8 hours ago

    I have become convinced that people get addicted to speed.

    While that part is certainly true, the modern homo sapiens automobilis seems more addicted to crawling along in slow moving traffic while hating everyone moving faster or able to escape in any way.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] -1 points 8 hours ago* (2 children)

    Maybe it's indeed my bias from knowing such "pro-palestine" people attacking jews that aren't supportive of Israel's pseudo-fascism at all.

    Oh, wait. That's also just openly demonstrated antisemitism dressed as support for Palestine.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 9 points 9 hours ago* (16 children)

    ...highlighting remarks made by a prominent member who described the 7 October attacks on Israel as a "successful resistance action"
    ...spread antisemitic positions, denied the right of the State of Israel to exist, and disseminated corresponding propaganda publicly
    ...calling for [...] the "liberation of all of historical Palestine from Zionist occupation, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea"

    So let's correct the headline to:

    German state bans "pro-Palestine" group over antisemitism

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

    Öffentliches Interesse besteht halt nur, wenn es die priviligierte Klasse der Deutschen betrifft. Wandel die in irgendwas für Rentner oder Verbrennungsmotoren um, und schon ist alles okay. Schaffst du beides gleichzeitig gibt's sicher noch staatliche Zuschüsse.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 7 points 9 hours ago* (3 children)

    Sorry but no. Contrary to what some activist types want you to believe it's not about actual ethical use when we are talking about software.

    It's about LLMs being a tool that should be used where it's the proper and efficient tool for the job (see: here) and that should definitely not be used where it isn't the proper tool (vibe coded bullshit) just because some PR guy told you that this tool is your shiny new hammer and everything is a nail now.

    When LLMs can produce proper reviewable code use them ffs... alas, they can't in any case complex enough to actually justify their use.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  •  

    As this will -thanks to me being quite clueless- be a very open question I will start with the setup:

    One nginx server on an old Raspi getting ports 80 and 443 routed from the access point and serving several pages as well as some reverse proxies for other sevices.

    So a (very simplified) nginx server-block that looks like this:

    # serve stuff internally (without a hostname) via http
    server {
    	listen 80 default_server;
    	http2 on;
    	server_name _; 
    	location / {
    		proxy_pass http://localhost:5555/;
                    \# that's where all actual stuff is located
    	}
    }
    # reroute http traffic with hostname to https
    server {
    	listen 80;
    	http2 on;
    	server_name server_a.bla;
    	location / {
    		return 301 https://$host$request_uri;
    	}
    }
    server {
    	listen 443 ssl default_server;
    	http2 on;
    	server_name server_a.bla;
       	ssl_certificate     A_fullchain.pem;
        	ssl_certificate_key A_privkey.pem;
    	location / {
    		proxy_pass http://localhost:5555/;
    	}
    }
    #actual content here...
    server {
    	listen 5555;
    	http2 on;
        	root /srv/http;
    	location / {
            	index index.html;
       	} 
        	location = /page1 {
    		return 301 page1.html;
    	}
        	location = /page2 {
    		return 301 page2.html;
    	}
            #reverse proxy for an example webdav server 
    	location /dav/ {
    		proxy_pass        http://localhost:6666/;
    	}
    }
    

    Which works well.

    And intuitively it looked like putting Anubis into the chain should be simple. Just point the proxy_pass (and the required headers) in the "port 443"-section to Anubis and set it to pass along to localhost:5555 again.

    Which really worked just as expected... but only for server_a.bla, server_a.bla/page1 or server_a.bla/page2.

    server_a.bla/dav just hangs and hangs, to then time out, seemingly trying to open server_a.bla:6666/dav.

    So long story short...

    How does proxy_pass actually work that the first setup works, yet the second breaks? How does a call for localhost:6666 (already behind earlier proxy passes in both cases) somehow end up querying the hostname instead?

    And what do I need to configure -or what information/header do I need to pass on- to keep the internal communication intact?

    view more: next ›