Interesting you say the Dev isn't a great person, because I had a hunch when I saw the use of the Lena photo on the front page (https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/it-s-time-to-retire-...). It's interesting how small gestures present how someone sees the world.
Man… you guys are ruthless. The dude provides a free tool to use, and used a cute named, have opinions about code, and used the most common used photo on his webpage, and suddenly he gets insulted on a public forum by strangers. He's not perfect. Nobody is. He has opinions, and might not even know about Lenna.
> Interesting you say the Dev isn't a great person, because I had a hunch when I saw the use of the Lena photo on the front page
You say:
> you guys are ruthless (...) You people are gross.
I'm not saying you don't have a point. I didn't know enough to be sensitive on the Lena topic once either, and could have been the target of the above comment. So I think, perhaps, those could have been formulated more constructively.
However, I must say the same for your comment too. Can't we all be friends here? :)
I agree that calling someone a bad person for using one of the most common test images is excessive. However, regarding this:
> The subject of the photograph merely went along with it.
The subject of the photograph did ask for it to no longer be used. Here's a quote from her:
> I retired from modeling a long time ago. It’s time I retired from tech, too.
> to defiantly do the opposite.
If the policing comes from third party for virtue signalling, this is fair game. Here, I'd just suggest that respecting her wish is just common courtesy and consider someone who defiantly doesn't as a somewhat rude person.
Yes, I'm aware of her statement. My view is that she merely went along with what I see as reactionary nonsense as opposed to actually caring about the use of her likeness. We all have a civic duty to actively push back against the spread of polarizing reactionary movements.
Even if I believed her request to be genuine I can't bring myself to view reproducing a commercial image of a professional model that's in widespread circulation as being unethical under any circumstances. Neither would I ever agree to stop distributing a well known book if one day many years later the author woke up suddenly wanting to undo its publication. If you find my viewpoint confusing or seemingly unreasonable, for reference I view projects such as Anna's Archive in a positive light.
While I strongly disagree with what I perceive to be the intent behind the image being banned by many journals, I nonetheless agree with the outcome. It's an objectively poor test image for demonstrating the technical capabilities of the vast majority of modern applications. We don't benchmark modern video codecs by encoding VHS rips of classic Disney movies and we shouldn't do the equivalent for still images.
Sure, you can 'see' how 'someone sees the world' just by him or her not abiding to the current narrative. You do realise that the 'Lena' image has been the standard image for these purposes for decades and that some people might not consider the (politically charged) crusade to suddenly ban it from all such use as being the most pressing issue?
I think what you wrote here says more about how you see the world than how Goyal sees it.
You're right my comment was off the cuff but I stand by it's logic. I didn't say Kovid was a terrible person, just not great. Having not done research into him specifically I just noted with the parent that certain qualities such as supposed abrasiveness often overlap with qualities I dislike, like using the Lenna image.
My point is that using the Lenna image is a signal, just as you rightly point out so is my comment. I know exactly what the image is and is used for. But I also think it's sad that it's politically charged to say using a Playboy image in a literally objectifying fashion as a test-subject by a women who's requested we don't use it is bad.
It's not a sudden ban, it's been an issue since ~2015. Fun fact I learnt in this, Goyal is totally open to changing it (https://github.com/kovidgoyal/kitty/issues/661), it's simply no-one changed it. I'll see if I can, thanks for the correct call-out.
In all honesty, until I read about that I couldn't have imagined the original was a playboy image. What is really used and we see online is a cropped portrait of a playboy image. I am not even sure that playboy image may have been pornographic. Nudity != porn. What is sure is that cropped portrait is not in any way pornographic.
So I kind of have difficulties on drawing opinions about that. Surely the model doesn't have any copyright on that photo, rather the photographer/publisher have and apparently nobody has cared. I would not use it today out of empathy given the model would rather not see her image still being used today and how easy it is to replace it. I feel that consent is above copyright laws.
I have mixed feeling about the argument that the presence of that totally non pornographic portrait would make women feel less welcomed in science. On one hand I would say that if they say so, that could be true. On another hand I would ask if these women really are representative of all women? Does it really matters? Should we avoid posting picture of portraits and stick to animals or still life scenes? And if not why should we avoid only women ones?
Personally I consider the crop part of the problem. By cropping (rather than just picking another image) it "cleans" the image, but retains the context. I could crop many images to be valid as test-images, but people who know the context would still see them for what they are. Lenna represents a time when the highest quality magazine at hand in a laboratory was softcore pornography.
Using the 'Lena' image is only a signal for those who want to signal something. For most people it is just the standard graphic to use when presenting image processing software. There has been a movement to ban the image but that movement is most likely not nearly so widespread as some people seem to think it is. It wholly depends on which 'bubble' you are in whether using that image is a deadly sin or just daily routine. I suspect Goyal used it in the latter way, not to send some signal to the Image Inquisition.
I want to point out some of the language you've used. You've brought up "current narrative", "crusade", "sin" and "inquisition", when really you seem to be saying "the image doesn't signal anything and the push to remove it is overblown". I disagree with you (for example IEEE has banned it) but I do respect you believe the actual movement that disagrees with is small but influential.
Instead however I would ask you look at the words you used, where they came from, who said them to you, and why you brought them up here. They are strangely charged words for a debate over a picture.
yeah, so that tells us a lot about the yes-men at IEEE. I wonder what other current-thing they will follow when it suddenly becomes politically convenient.
how exactly is this a gendered thing at all? people can make whatever decisions they want, INCLUDING lena when she chose to make this photo public to the entire world, for people to consume. I respect that, and I understand that once you release such, theres no takes-backsies
It's a definitive statement that you don't want to talk to people. In London not wearing headphones ironically means you become a target for people who want your attention. And it blocks out the otherwise very loud cityscape.
Lets add some context. Amazon is the author's only job. 5yrs Software, 7yrs Senior, 4yrs Principal, now runs a YouTube self-help. Reading through there are multiple lines that collectively paint a picture of a difficult career.
"I had over 20 managers across my 18 years at Amazon", whilst this might be out of the author's hands, that's a wild manager history.
"..when I finally pushed for bigger scope at Amazon. My manager’s initial reaction wasn’t excitement. It was something closer to “But you’re doing so well where you are.”", most managers generally push their devs to always be doing larger pieces of work, if they aren't, that's weird.
"I was a passenger for the first 10 years of my Amazon career", which doesn't really line up, unless they're referring to their horizontal move to Prime in an effort to find promotive work.
"Not because I suddenly got better at my job, but because I started being intentional about which parts of my job were ... mapped to what the next level required.", which means the author worked out how to correctly market themselves internally.
"You know where you want to be in five years, and you’re actively seeking out the work that will get you there eventually.", again, they worked out how to find promotive work. This seems to be the key take-away they're dancing around.
> "..when I finally pushed for bigger scope at Amazon. My manager’s initial reaction wasn’t excitement. It was something closer to “But you’re doing so well where you are.”", most managers generally push their devs to always be doing larger pieces of work, if they aren't, that's weird.
From the business perspective, it may not be good to push. If they are really good at what they currently do, the manager would need to find a replacement, and there is no certainty that the old worker provides more value in the different job. When only the money is weighted, this will happen often. Seems to fit for Amazon's work culture.
The problem is bored employees find a new job elsewhere. Employees who feel they are not valued find a new job elsewhere. If you can find them a new job in the company you can have them train their replacement - years later the replacement can ask "do you remember why you did...". It also means if the old project has an emergency you have a bunch of people who can jump in much faster - to some extent this adding people to a late project won't make it latter (only some extent, it isn't perfect).
People also get old and retire (or die). By moving people around a bit you ensure that your training plan still works because you are using it. This also means there will be openings to move up the ladder, make sure you get the people on them. (There are stories from my company where after a big layout they got scared and hired almost nobody for the next 20 years, then those who made it passed the layoffs started retiring and there wasn't a mid level of engineers following to promote).
> The problem is bored employees find a new job elsewhere.
But this one didn’t. 20 years at one place, at least 10 with minimal support. Maybe all those managers were bad; but maybe they realized this individual wasn’t a flight risk, and had a reasonable strategy for maximizing what they got out of them, since they knew they didn’t have to guard against departure.
I think most managers prefer the status quo; why wouldn't they? Charitably, you can think of it as an assumption on the manager's side that you're fine with the way things are, because you haven't said anything. Similar things can be said about salary.
I don't know why people assume managers are interested in increasing salaries and distributing promotions. Every incentive and preference works against those things. If you want change, you have to ask for it.
From my experience it is futile to ask for any meaningful salary changes. Bands are usually fixed. Unless you're severely underpaid, they won't increase your salary by much. There are only two ways to increase your salary: leave for bigger salary, or threaten to leave and stay for bigger salary.
yeah this is exactly it - 'oh we cannot raise you as we have to be fair to everyone else becuz you are at the higher end of the band, unless we promote you but we wont' - sometimes its equality vs merit, no matter how well you do, its still discretionary unless you are in a place where there is a formula, like sales.
I've seen companies that do and companies that don't. I've actually had managers try to dissuade me from growing my scope of work or growing my career. "I don't know why you'd want to be promoted to manager, just stay an IC" was a common phrase to push back against my expressed desire for career growth. Definitely happens. Lots of companies erect career-ceilings over you.
Honestly great work, but this is very much something where the results matter more than the product. It ends without a single comment about whether it worked in Production.
How are they measuring the success rate? It seems like a project like this is a great time to dive into the problem and define the parameters of success. If only to inform how you design the ai’s presentation of the shop. Ie. how quickly does it get customer’s profile and discover their issue.
Thinking about my experiences with mechanics shops—with the exception of dealerships and larger operations—if you’re talking to a principal, the conversation is brief. It’s possible customers will respond positively if the bot is effective for scheduling and if the price communicated by phone, and the final price are somehow aligned to expectations.
Given MCP is supposed to just be a standardised format for self-describing APIs, why are all the features you listed MCP related things? It sounds more like it's forced the enterprise to build such features which cli tooling didn't have?
mostly by virtue of being a common standard. MCP servers are primarily useful in a remote environment, where centralized management of cross-cutting concerns matters. also its really useful for integrating existing distributed services, e.g., internal data lakes.
I think it's clear a self-describing CLI is optimal for local-first tooling and portability. I personally view remote MCP servers as complementary in the space.
When I started my career I heard people say almost verbatim "Stack overflow is making junior devs useless", with the idea all we did was copypaste scripts over. The same people failed, and the same people who can use the tools will succeed now.
You definitely did see a difference between people who just copy pasted from stack overflow, and from people with good fundamentals. The uncomfortable truth though, is that the industry didn't need good coders, it needed a bucket load of basic web apps and it needed bums in seats.
I think the irony of AI is going to be that it will make the remaining software jobs properly hard again, and implementers (ex coders) will be able to succeed with even less code knowledge than before.
I worked under people who started as juniors that way but were politically savvy. Or just ruthless. And pushed their way to the top by stealing projects, lying through their teeth, and other such tactics.
They were slowing down progress because their methods involved sabotaging the progress of others because it might make their own contributions shine a little less.
They were the cause of using libraries like leftPad all through business critical code, and cutting anyone down who dared to simply question why.
These things cause ripples. The smartest and most capable staff leaves, what results is a churn of the same kind.
But hey, they get a trip to Mexico every year and burn through millions every two years. Profit any day now.
It feels wild to have to keep reminding people, but AI changes very little. Tools have always had a variety of output, and ways to control this, and bad tools output a lot by default, whilst good tools hide it behind version of "-v" or easy greps. Don't add a --LLM or whatever, do add cleaner and consistent verbosity controls.
This is the answer. If you provide internet access to someone, you're responsible for it. It's a generally established law from a Torrenting PoV, so isn't it equally applicable to downloading content unsuitable for children. Sure it'll destroy offering free wifi, but that always was tricky from a legal PoV around responsibilities.
reply