Sven Slootweg @joepie91@pixie.town

Like, for comparison, with the cryptocurrency grift I'd been arguing against it for like 7 years (ie. since it became a Problem) before I noticed the broader public opinion shifting? Whereas with LLMs and the like it seems to have only taken 2 years or so

I am cautiously optimistic about how many people are seeing through the AI hype - I've (consciously) been through a few tech hype cycles and I've never seen folks catch on to the grift this quickly before

(Ik geef ook altijd aan dat ik op eigen initiatief dingen zoek om financieel te steunen, en ook dat is niet genoeg om ze te laten verdwijnen, want ze willen die verkoopbonus graag hebben...)

Ook niet heel gek, als je bedenkt dat dit soort werving tegenwoordig uitbesteed wordt aan marketingbedrijfjes die verkopers op provisie-basis op pad sturen... dat zijn al lang geen betrokken vrijwilligers meer.

Ik ben intussen toch echt wel een beetje klaar met hoe er tegenwoordig aan werving gedaan wordt voor institutionele goede doelen. Het begint ondertussen energieverkoper-vormen aan te nemen qua opdringerigheid. Nee betekent nee, en er hangt niet voor niets een sticker bij de deurbel...

Corollary: if you have a governance problem, and you create a Foundation... you now have *two* governance problems, and one of them is the board

I really wish more people would realize that "non-profit foundations", as a concept, are fundamentally designed for abled white cis men and the personal resources that come with that, and that unless you *very actively* subvert this, that is the bias that you will be perpetuating in any sort of project or group that is governed by one, regardless of what your code of conduct says

Every time I see some sort of 'Foundation' anywhere in FOSS announce 'representatives' and 'elections' I check whether they have done the work to make the process inclusive, and every. single. time. the answer is "no"

No details on how the Foundation intends to materially support socio-economically disadvantaged elected board members, of course...

They only mention that they will seek to accommodate remote participants (which is good!) but nothing about how they will make it possible for people to do the job to begin with (like who pays for travel costs, whether there is financial support, what to expect from the board meetings exactly...)

(Dat wil zeggen, je gaat niet met ze in 'debat', maar je vertelt ze hoe de zaken ervoor staan en dat ze het daar maar mee moeten doen)

"Het demissionaire kabinet wil miljarden uittrekken voor belangrijke zaken die "niet kunnen wachten". [...] De NOS berichtte gisteravond al over de belangrijkste voornemens: miljarden extra voor Groningen, toeslaggedupeerden en asielopvang. [...] Van Weyenberg laat in een reactie aan de NOS weten dat het kabinet "doet wat nodig is". De Kamer kan dat volgens hem "wel of niet steunen"."

He he. Zou er nou eindelijk iemand zijn die begrijpt hoe je met fascisten omgaat?

For those who are curious, here's a work-in-progress draft of the spec so far: https://gist.github.com/joepie91/9ced67203070051be70c2ae0cd644a30

@serapath Notably though, performance is not my #1 goal; I'm prioritizing ergonomics and reliability above that. It should Just Work reliably as essentially a multiple-value counterpart to Promises, and be similarly trivial to use

@serapath That looks like it's based on Node streams - the awfulness of Node streams was very specifically why this project originally started :p

The system I'm working on is quite different in a lot of ways - for starters, it's pull-based rather than push-based (which makes for better backpressure control, among other things) and it doesn't require special inheritance trickery to use; the design is more of an iteration of pull-streams, but with native Promises support and an actual solution to parallelism (which streamx doesn't seem to have?)