The proliferation of Hanlon's Razor has been one of the most damaging things to society.

People as a whole are not incompetent, every individual (and every grouping of individuals) have goals and will take appropriate actions to achieve them with intent, but somehow a neologism has tricked people into believing this is the exception and not the norm.

There's two different questions here: one is "is the way things are currently done stupid" (to which the answer is often "yes"). The other is "can a random outsider do better just by thinking about it" (to which the answer is usually, though not always, "no").

It's the same principle as another comment I made a few days ago ([1]). It's not hard to identify problems that really are problems, but finding effective and feasible solutions to those problems is often far more difficult, especially if you're an outsider. The mistake isn't in identifying the problems, it's in thinking that you can come in totally blind and know how to solve them. (Or, put another way, in thinking that you as an outsider can tell the "dumb and easily fixed" problems from the "horrifying systemic nightmare" problems.)

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43265532

It's because most of the time people see mostly powerless people trying to do their jobs and messing up. They don't have as much of a frame of reference for how powerful people act, especially because there is so much mystification in the media (literally owned by the said powerful people). The rule you apply to your friends and co-workers isn't suitable for the maniacal supervillians running society. Of course, those guys also fuck up in bizzare and stupid ways too, so people will point that out and be like look, they're just bad at their evil jobs!

I guarentee that the first thought in any good CTO's mind in that world is "How much payroll do computer babysitters deserve?"

They ask that already.

Right now we're trained computer masseuses, not yet computer babysitters.

And to torture the analogy further since Im already in this rabbit hole, masseuses and babysitters probably have to put in the same amount of effort in their work.

Right, which is substantially less than the stated $20k/month.

edit: I see we're actually in agreement, sorry, I read the indentation level wrong.

I can very confidently state /biz/ does not have its moments.

the rise of crypto broke that board

Based on what criteria? A set of meta-axioms?

Based on whether they take you to places you don’t want to end at, which is an incomplete measure but quite a pragmatical one. E.g. if your set of axioms end at “erase half of the population by force”, then perhaps revisit your axioms.

That's what soulofmischief is saying. If your reasoning ends at somewhere you don't like emotionally, then your axioms are bad i.e. your actual axioms are emotional. Which is fine!

No, no meta axioms. Just by quantifying whatever we can as much as possible to be as objective as possible.

"as possible" means an incomplete system that still relies on assumed axioms.

Maybe. I don't think so though. I think everything can be quantified and qualified.

Unless you can provide a proof, it remains conjecture.

I think what this branch of comments is trying to do is to reinvent `ideology` as a word.

I have no interest in ideology and don't see even the concept as relevant to any point I've made.

I'm not trying to call anyone out, just thought that what is being discussed is concepts laid out doughnut shaped around that word.

That's fair enough, I guess you could say my position is perhaps an ideology, but I do belief it can be defended objectively as possible.

My gut still tells me this relies on a human-defined optimization metric.

Pokemon is extremely hard to completely brick a run short of actively releasing your entire box which is very appealing for an MVP run, and is also literally the biggest media franchise in the world, which is a very appealing for people seeking hype.

Extreme category error, try again.

The premise of being a segmented run uploaded by an amateur a decade ago provides a _lot_ of leeway.

Presumably the font will represent letters to look like a different letter, making it not useful to LLMs scraping the site but useful for visual readers.

This would have detrimental effects to people who use screen readers or have their own stylesheets of course.

For that it would make more sense to run a routine which replaces letters with visually identical glyphs at different encoding points.

> For that it would make more sense to run a routine which replaces letters with visually identical glyphs at different encoding points.

It seems like that would be pretty easily defeatable with the similar mapping to the one used to do the replacement.

Yes, but it's one more hurdle for them.

That would only stymie the smallest-time players. Things like sideways text in margins or rotated table column headers are common enough that these have been solved problems for decades. Breaking the text down into specific elements and handling it differently or ignoring it altogether based on context and content is trivial.

To me it seems like it comes from experience solving sudokus. If you've ever tried it (or watch Cracking the Cryptic if you haven't), you don't store just the solution of each square, you keep track of what you've ensured cannot be in this square.

From that mental model, the choice of data structure would seem to follow directly, which would tie nicely with the subthesis of programming within your genre.

I dunno. When I first read Norvig's beautiful solution, I immediately thought, "Only someone coming from a Lisp and (old school) AI background (or maybe a super-Mathy background where everything is a Set) would have picked that representation, but oh man does it work so, so well."