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.
Když teda teď zas jedeme stát jako firmu, nemohli bychom ho svěřit Orlenu? Horší než s Točvolanty na MZV a životku to asi nebude a stran bezpečnosti mají evidentně víc rozumu než Agrofert, pardon, totiž ANO, ale bohužel i ODS se zoufalci typu Benda, Hraba a spol.
大阪のドールバーに行きたいけど姫路まで車で行くから飲めない
まあソフトドリンク頼めばいい話だけど
酒、それ即ちにょは
⋅⋆ ───
Lotus 1-2-3 on the PC w/DOS
https://stonetools.ghost.io/lotus123-dos/
VisiCalc started it, but 1-2-3 finished it. "It" being the discussion of what a spreadsheet can be, and also VisiCalc itself.
<- this is fun, but it is basically "a millennial discovers what you could do with 1-2-3 before they were born, and is blown away."
自信ある絵は何回擦ってもいいって
古事記にも書かれている
#唐突ですが貴方の自信作を見せてください
한쪽에서는 바이브 코딩 같은 걸로 AI에 유용함을 얘기하는데
다른쪽에서는 AI가 뭔가를 날려먹고 있는 희한한 풍경
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isn't. I'm writing this in English because if I wrote it in Korean, the people I'm addressing would run it through an outdated translator, misread it, and respond to something I never said.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.
From back when I used to flip through a thick dictionary, taking a minute for each sentence, to now, when I use an LLM to write in English, people don't realize that I'm personally speaking to them in English for their sake. Honestly, I just want to speak in Korean. I hate English.
와 나 개인 Apple 개발자 계정으로 내 iPhone을 한번도 안물려봤구나 허....
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.
Zajímavá #tldr úvaha k situaci v #iran
Zdroj: údajně Lucie Sulovská na Facebooku, ale ten nemám a nemůžu se doklikat na veřejný odkaz, tak sdílím bez souhlasu autorky. Nejspíš teda jde o překlad (?), původní zdroj prý Xitter (?).
„V roce 2003 sledoval generálmajor Mohammad Alí Džafarí, jak Spojené státy během tří týdnů rozdrtily centralizovanou velitelskou strukturu Saddáma Husajna. Následující čtyři roky strávil v Centru strategických studií Revolučních gard (IRGC) navrhováním vojenské architektury, kterou by nebylo možné „dekapitovat“.
V září 2007 byl jmenován velitelem IRGC a okamžitě přestavěl celý íránský vojenský systém: rozdělil ho na 31 autonomních provinčních velitelství – jedno pro každou provincii. Každé z nich má vlastní velitelství, vlastní systém velení a řízení, vlastní arzenál raket a dronů, flotily rychlých útočných člunů, integrované milice Basídž, předem delegované pravomoci k odpalu, zásoby munice i zapečetěné krizové rozkazy.
Tato doktrína byla vytvořena pro jediný scénář: smrt nejvyššího vůdce. Tento scénář nastal 28. února 2026. Doktrína se aktivovala během několika hodin. A běží dodnes. Otázka, kterou si téměř nikdo nepoložil, zní: může ji vůbec někdo uvnitř Islámské republiky vypnout?
Článek 110 íránské ústavy z roku 1979 svěřuje veškeré velení nad ozbrojenými silami výhradně nejvyššímu vůdci. Pouze on je vrchním velitelem. Pouze on jmenuje a odvolává vojenské vedení. Žádná jiná instituce – ani prezident, ani parlament, ani Rada dohlížitelů, ani soudy – nemá ústavní pravomoc vydávat vojenské rozkazy nebo rušit rozhodnutí nejvyššího vůdce.
Rozkazy o předem delegovaném velení vydal Alí Chameneí.
Alí Chameneí je mrtvý.
1/3
Wenn ihr euch für die Landtagswahlergebnisse in Baden-Württemberg interessiert oder sehen möchtet, was mit UX alles möglich ist, dann schaut euch diese Webseite an: https://visquill.com/gallery/?example=bw-elections.
Ihr könnt auf einer Karte einen runden Kreis ziehen und seht dann die Ergebnisse bzw. die Veränderung zum letzten Ergebnis.
Ich glaube, die Person, die diese Webseite erstellt hat, ist nicht auf Mastodon. Den Beitrag habe ich auf LinkedIn gefunden.
📢 Viñetas publicadas hoy.
‼️ El Roto. "Bombardeos humanitarios"
‼️ Eneko "Petala epici furoris"
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.
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.
@reiver@mastodon.socialis there a #FediCon account? Or shall we follow you for updates?
I have to make sure I'm there this year, so I want to make sure I can start scheduling things as early as possible. 😁
🎉 Happpy VeldaTV day to those who celebrate it.
https://djangotv.com/videos/djangochat/2026/from-kenya-to-london-velda-kiara/
RE: https://social.jpoesen.com/@jpoesen/116209737497689150
Anyone have experience with this platform? Would be curious to hear your take!
確かに呑まなきゃ車でっていうのもいけるやんねー！！(近隣駐車場情報
けど
)
なでぃさんご都合いけそうならぜひぜひねー！！
RE: https://misskey.io/notes/ajpk7f9w1iew0deg
どこかにビューン
やきそばバゴォーン
호시만쥬우가니가 우리말로 뭘까 하고 찾아봤더니 만두게래ㅠㅠㅠㅠㅠㅠㅠㅠ
いや飲まないし
RE: https://misskey.io/notes/ajpkigmk0v6o0by7
스토리텔링 하나 만큼은 진짜 기가 맥히네 ㄹㅇ...
RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:4sujqnbd47ey26qcvajqoxa2/post/3mgqt56ijv72f
バー
に車で…………？
もふもふしてたらもうこんな時間
In a major win for digital privacy, the European Parliament just (again) limited all scanning of communications for child abuse material to specific suspects. No mass surveillance, no #chatcontrol. Now the negotiations with Member States will be interesting. They are already supposed to start tomorrow morning.
Interested in organizing a #LibreLocal meetup but don't know where to start? We've got a meetup guide to get you going: https://u.fsf.org/45l
RE: https://social.heise.de/@heiseonlineenglish/116210356741309805
Do I hear someone say "PeerTube" ? 😃👍
@FediVideo has a nice selection of PeerTube videos:
노선 변화를 내걸며 공천 신청을 거부했던 오세훈 서울시장이 12일 후보 등록 신청을 하기로 했습니다. 절윤에 명확한 태도를 표시하지 않았던 장동혁 대표는 11일 “결의문 내용이 의원들과 저의 진심”이라고 직접 말했습니다. 국민의힘 6·3 지방선거 공천을 둘러싼 갈등이 ‘절윤’ 결의문’ 채택 이틀 만에 다소 잠잠해지는 분위기입니다.
침묵하던 장동혁 “절윤 진심”…오세훈 오늘 공천 신청키...
BenQ ScreenBar Proが欲しいかもしれん
나 요새 AI 관련해서 느끼는건데…
진짜 보안 쌈사먹는 사람들 많은 것 같음….
사고 한번 거하게 터지지 않는 이상 안바뀔려나?
피싱은 의심하던 사람들이 AI에는 권한을 무한하게 준다니
메타의 보안 담당자 이메일을 Openclaw가 날려먹는 훈훈한 사고
"Nothing humbles you like telling your OpenClaw “confirm before acting” and watching it speedrun deleting your inbox. I couldn’t stop it from my phone. I had to RUN to my Mac mini like I was defusing a bomb."
https://x.com/i/status/2025774069124399363
최근에 공격이 꽤 있었구나
"OpenClaw를 설치하려는 사용자들을 광범위하게 공격했습니다. 이 캠페인이 성공할 수 있었던 이유는 악성코드가 GitHub에 호스팅되었고, 해당 악성 저장소가 Bing의 AI 검색 결과에서 "OpenClaw Windows" 관련 검색어에 대한 최상위 추천 항목으로 선정되었기 때문입니다 ."
https://www.huntress.com/blog/openclaw-github-ghostsocks-infostealer
메타의 보안 담당자 이메일을 Openclaw가 날려먹는 훈훈한 사고
"Nothing humbles you like telling your OpenClaw “confirm before acting” and watching it speedrun deleting your inbox. I couldn’t stop it from my phone. I had to RUN to my Mac mini like I was defusing a bomb."
https://x.com/i/status/2025774069124399363
おま環かもしれませんが、Misskeyでノート投稿した時にTL更新されないことがある。
リロードしたりブラウザ立ち上げ直せば表示されますが。
何故だろう？。
한쪽에서는 바이브 코딩 같은 걸로 AI에 유용함을 얘기하는데
다른쪽에서는 AI가 뭔가를 날려먹고 있는 희한한 풍경
Silly game, but not easy, when you get close to the strait itself...
유희왕 애니메이션 공식이 백악관이 멋대로 AI영상 만든 것에 정색하는 입장을 일/영으로 게시.
Love getting flagged by an AI service for using AI to plagiarise coursework.
They quote a reference on a AI slop outlet site which scraped the content from another source.
That source was….
Meeeeeeee
Currently arguing with their submissions team.
Misskeyバーがイベントバーを利用している理由と、開催の目的
・みんなの交流の場作り！（第一）
・売上報酬によるMisskey支援！（重要）
・Misskeyを知らない人にもイベントをきっかけにMisskeyを登録してもらいたい（新規参入）！
大まかにこんな感じです #Misskeyバー
Jonesy has
1. Eaten his wet food
2. Finished Ripley’s wet food
3. Eaten his kibbles
4. Finished RIpley’s left-over kibbles
5. Licked bread crumbs from my plate
6. Made it known that he is still starving
ハイライト入りありがとうございますー！！
みんなの拡散のおかげだよーっ！！
RE: https://misskey.io/notes/ajpcs1fq1cvd01e4
Chao-c'
요즈미나 
봄별 はるぼし Haruboshi🌟
김강훈 | 金江訓 Kim Kanghun
Andreas Freise
봄별 はるぼし🌟 (Haruboshi)
@
しゅいろ
＠3/23(日)
東京オフ主催 
cos
AIイラスト 
