What is Hackers' Pub?

Hackers' Pub is a place for software engineers to share their knowledge and experience with each other. It's also an ActivityPub-enabled social network, so you can follow your favorite hackers in the fediverse and get their latest posts in your feed.

0
0
0

🐸 [참여 요청] 🐸 성별 이분법으로 인한 차별 경험 및 인식 설문조사 민우회는 성별 이분법 해체(!)를 위해 일상에서 경험한 차별의 장면을 구체적으로 기록하고, 그 내용을 바탕으로 실천 내용을 마련하고자 합니다. 설문조사 결과를 토대로 수다회, 라운드 테이블, 페미니즘x젠더 페스티벌까지 다양한 행사를 진행할 예정이니 많은 참여 부탁 드려요!

🐸 [참여 요청] 🐸
성별 이분법으로 인한 차별 경험 및 인식 설문조사 홍보물입니다.
개구리 캐릭터가 배경에 있는 가운데, 참여대상, 설문 기간, 참여 방법, 설문 구성 등이 적혀 있습니다.

👥 참여 대상: 성별 이분법으로 인한 차별을 경험한 적 있는 누구나!
🗓 설문 기간: 3/11(수) ~ 3/30(월)
📍 참여 방법: 큐알코드(이미지 마지막장) 또는 프로필 링크(https://surveys.do/feminism_gender)
💟 설문 구성: 성별 정체성 또는 성별 이분법적 상황으로 인한 차별경험 및 대응, 차별구조에 대한 인식 등의 문항으로 구성되어 있어요.
🎁 설문조사에 참여하신 분들 중 30명을 추첨하여 CU 편의점 기프티콘(5천원)을 드립니다!성별 이분법으로 인한 차별 경험 및 인식 설문조사 홍보물입니다.
개구리 캐릭터가 배경에 있는 가운데, 설문 안내와 문의가 안내되어 있습니다.

설문 안내
-문항은 20개 내외로, 약 10분 정도의 시간이 소요됩니다.
-설문 결과를 바탕으로 민우회는 수다회, 라운드 테이블, 페미니즘X젠더 페스티벌을 이어갈 예정입니다.

문의
한국여성민우회 성평등미디어·반차별팀
02)737-5763
network@womenlink.or.kr
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1

自分の一つの夢が、絶たれました
まだ実感できてません。
まだ取り返しが着くと思ってます。
でも、もう次なんてないです。
書類すら読んでくれませんでした

1
0
0

Die Ki-isierung des Kundendienstes ist das schlimmste was uns in der Servicewüste Deutschland passieren konnte.
Was man mittlerweile an Zeit verschwenden um sich durch dämliche Chatbots zu chatten oder durch Telefoncomputer zu tippen oder zu sprechen ist unfassbar.
Und vor allem in den meisten Fällen nutzlos.

0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0

Japonsko si připomíná 15 let od ničivého zemětřesení. Vlna tsunami tehdy způsobila i havárii atomové elektrárny ve Fukušimě při které došlo k úniku velkého množství radioaktivních látek. Vzpomínky na ni však postupem času blednou a veřejnost je vůči jádru smířlivější, popisuje aktuální situaci zpravodajka ČT Barbora Šámalová.

0
0
0

중국에서 불닭처럼 유행하는 음식으로
신장 볶음 쌀국수(新疆炒米粉)가 있는데,
신장 위구르 지역에서 유래한 매콤한 볶음 쌀국수다.

사실 신장 위구르는 무슬림이라
매운 음식과는 거리가 있어 보이는데 :spaceblobcat:
사실은 위구르 전통 요리보다는
주변 사천요리 등지의 요리 스타일과
현지 식재료를 조합해서 만들어진 음식이라
매운 면요리가 탄생하게 됐다고 한다... :sacabambaspis_face:

약간 비주얼이 야끼우동이나 야끼짬뽕 같긴 하다.

0
0
0

메타가 오픈클로 전용 소셜 플랫폼으로 유명한 '몰트북(Moltbook)'을 인수했다. 메타는 10일(현지시간) 몰트북을 인수하고 공동 창립자들을 영입한다고 발표했다. 인수 금액 등 구체적인 조건은 공개되지 않았다. 등록 2026-03-11 13:26

메타가 오픈클로 전용 소셜 플랫폼으로 유명한 '몰트북(...

0

code.europa.eu has a new look!

Our repository for free, open source software developed by the European institutions now highlights the trending projects and makes searching and contributing to projects easier.

code.europa.eu aims to make public-funded open source code more accessible and reusable for public services, citizens and businesses alike.

Read more 🔗 link.europa.eu/NMhTHn

@EC_OSPOOpen Source Programme Office

cartoon of a man unfolding the road with the text: code.europa.eu - rolling out a new look
0
3
0
0
3
0
0
0
1

I'm writing this in English.

Not because English is my first language—it isn't. I'm writing this in English because if I wrote it in Korean, the people I'm addressing would run it through an outdated translator, misread it, and respond to something I never said. The responsibility for that mistranslation would fall on me. It always does.

This is the thing Eugen Rochko's post misses, despite its good intentions.

@GargronEugen Rochko argues that LLMs are no substitute for human translators, and that people who think otherwise don't actually rely on translation. He's right about some of this. A machine-translated novel is not the same as one rendered by a skilled human translator. But the argument rests on a premise that only makes sense from a certain position: that translation is primarily about quality, about the aesthetic experience of reading literature in another language.

For many of us, translation is first about access.

The professional translation market doesn't scale to cover everything. It never has. What gets translated—and into which languages—follows the logic of cultural hegemony. Works from dominant Western languages flow outward, translated into everything. Works from East Asian languages trickle in, selectively, slowly, on someone else's schedule. The asymmetry isn't incidental; it's structural.

@GargronEugen Rochko notes, fairly, that machine translation existed decades before LLMs. But this is only half the story, and which half matters depends entirely on which languages you're talking about. European language pairs were reasonably serviceable with older tools. Korean–English, Japanese–English, Chinese–English? Genuinely usable translation for these pairs arrived with the LLM era. Treating “machine translation” as a monolithic technology with a uniform history erases the experience of everyone whose language sits far from the Indo-European center.

There's also something uncomfortable in the framing of the button-press thought experiment: “I would erase LLMs even if it took machine translation with it.” For someone whose language has always been peripheral, that button looks very different. It's not an abstract philosophical position; it's a statement about whose access to information is expendable.

I want to be clear: none of this is an argument that LLMs are good, or that the harms @GargronEugen Rochko describes aren't real. They are. But a critique of AI doesn't become more universal by ignoring whose languages have always been on the margins. If anything, a serious critique of AI's political economy should be more attentive to those asymmetries, not less.

The fact that I'm writing this in English, carefully, so it won't be misread—that's not incidental to my argument. That is my argument.

5
12
0

The notion of a broken clock being sometimes right is based on a gross misunderstanding of what information is.

A clock that always shows the same time is never right, even in the moments of the day when the time happens to be what it shows, because you don't gain any information about what time it is by looking at the clock.

This reasoning also applies to chatbots. If you can't tell whether what you have been given is useful information unless you alreay know the information, then you haven't been given useful information.

0
40
0

I'm writing this in English.

Not because English is my first language—it isn't. I'm writing this in English because if I wrote it in Korean, the people I'm addressing would run it through an outdated translator, misread it, and respond to something I never said. The responsibility for that mistranslation would fall on me. It always does.

This is the thing Eugen Rochko's post misses, despite its good intentions.

@GargronEugen Rochko argues that LLMs are no substitute for human translators, and that people who think otherwise don't actually rely on translation. He's right about some of this. A machine-translated novel is not the same as one rendered by a skilled human translator. But the argument rests on a premise that only makes sense from a certain position: that translation is primarily about quality, about the aesthetic experience of reading literature in another language.

For many of us, translation is first about access.

The professional translation market doesn't scale to cover everything. It never has. What gets translated—and into which languages—follows the logic of cultural hegemony. Works from dominant Western languages flow outward, translated into everything. Works from East Asian languages trickle in, selectively, slowly, on someone else's schedule. The asymmetry isn't incidental; it's structural.

@GargronEugen Rochko notes, fairly, that machine translation existed decades before LLMs. But this is only half the story, and which half matters depends entirely on which languages you're talking about. European language pairs were reasonably serviceable with older tools. Korean–English, Japanese–English, Chinese–English? Genuinely usable translation for these pairs arrived with the LLM era. Treating “machine translation” as a monolithic technology with a uniform history erases the experience of everyone whose language sits far from the Indo-European center.

There's also something uncomfortable in the framing of the button-press thought experiment: “I would erase LLMs even if it took machine translation with it.” For someone whose language has always been peripheral, that button looks very different. It's not an abstract philosophical position; it's a statement about whose access to information is expendable.

I want to be clear: none of this is an argument that LLMs are good, or that the harms @GargronEugen Rochko describes aren't real. They are. But a critique of AI doesn't become more universal by ignoring whose languages have always been on the margins. If anything, a serious critique of AI's political economy should be more attentive to those asymmetries, not less.

The fact that I'm writing this in English, carefully, so it won't be misread—that's not incidental to my argument. That is my argument.

5
12
0
0
0
1
0
0

People are now buying the Apple MacBook Neo ($599 cost) not because it's as cheap as a PC, but because they are fed up with Win11 and its obsession with Copilot. This proves once again that if you push people too far, they will choose an alternative that isn't obsessed with AI or treating paying customers as idiots in paid OS. It is like choosing between two evils. I say go further and *BSD or Linux desktop if you can and it helps you. pcmag.com/news/asus-co-ceo-mac

0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0