Monday session
]]>
Sunday session
]]>Last year I described how I syndicate my posts to different social networks.
Back then my approach to syndicating to Bluesky was to piggy-back off my micro.blog account (which is really just the RSS feed of my notes):
Micro.blog can also cross-post to other services. One of those services is Bluesky. I gave permission to micro.blog to syndicate to Bluesky so now my notes show up there too.
It worked well enough, but it wasn’t real-time and I didn’t have much control over the formatting. As Bluesky is having quite a moment right now, I decided to upgrade my syndication strategy and use the Bluesky API.
Here’s how it works…
First you need to generate an app password. You’ll need this so that you can generate a token. You need the token so you can generate …just kidding; the chain of generated gobbledegook stops there.
Here’s the PHP I’m using to generate a token. You’ll need your Bluesky handle and the app password you generated.
Now that I’ve got a token, I can send a post. Here’s the PHP I’m using.
There’s something extra code in there to spot URLs and turn them into links. Bluesky has a very weird way of doing this.
It didn’t take too long to get posting working. After some more tinkering I got images working too. Now I can post straight from my website to my Bluesky profile. The Bluesky API returns an ID for the post that I’ve created there so I can link to it from the canonical post here on my website.
I’ve updated my posting interface to add a toggle for Bluesky right alongside the toggle for Mastodon. There used to be a toggle for Twitter. That’s long gone.
Now when I post a note to my website, I can choose if I want to send a copy to Mastodon or Bluesky or both.
One day Bluesky will go away. It won’t matter much to me. My website will still be here.
]]>]]>A ban on tracking-based personalised advertising will provide an incentive to reinforce sustainable alternative models and, in fact, will be a condition for making them viable. The advertising industry already has sustainable, proven concepts for effective online advertising that do not require targeted tracking and personalisation (e.g. contextual advertising).
Technology doesn’t have to be terrible. Here’s an absolutely wonderful use of an e-ink display:
]]>I made as much use of vanilla HTML and CSS as possible. I used a small amount of JavaScript but no framework or other libraries.
React is a non-transferable skill.
]]>React proponents might claim that React will teach you modern UI, but from what I’ve seen it barely copes with modern UI.
autofocus is broken, custom elements don’t work in all but the experimental version, using any “modern” features likedialogor popovers requiresuseEffect, and the synthetic event system teaches you so little about how DOM actually works. This isn’t modern UI, it’s UI from 2013 at its inception. I don’t have the time left in my career to pick up UI paradigms that haven’t evolved much beyond from when Barack Obama was in office.When I mentor early career developers and they ask me what they should learn, I can’t say React, they don’t have time. I mean sure, pick up enough React to land you the inevitable job doing it, but it’s not going to level up your career.
Wednesday session
]]>Looking up the translation for the word “cute” in another language, it’s listed in a dictionary as “cute, a.F” where “a.F” stands for “adjective, Familiar” …but that is not how I read it at first!
]]>
I’ve updated my website’s posting interface to allow me to selectively POSSE to Mastodon and/or Bluesky (previously I was using RSS-to-micro.blog for Bluesky syndication)
]]>
Sunday session
]]>Sitting in the front row at the Duke Of York’s to see Danny Boyle’s Sunshine projected on the big screen.
It’s daylight saving time!
]]>
Lunching and talking design with Daniel and Chris.
]]>
Wednesday session
]]>I reckon Musk should’ve been put in charge of mass deportations—I mean, just look at the amount of people he’s already managed to get to leave Twitter.
]]>
Tuesday session
]]>The same small dataset visualised in a hundred different ways, with notes on the strengths and weaknesses of each one.
]]>The slides from Hidde’s presentation at Beyond Tellerrand.
]]>There are different kinds of buzzwords.
Some buzzwords are useful. They take a concept that would otherwise require a sentence of explanation and package it up into a single word or phrase. Back in the day, “ajax” was a pretty good buzzword.
Some buzzwords are worse than useless. This is when a word or phrase lacks definition. You could say this buzzword in a meeting with five people, and they’d all understand five different meanings. Back in the day, “web 2.0” was a classic example of a bad buzzword—for some people it meant a business model; for others it meant rounded corners and gradients.
The worst kind of buzzwords are the ones that actively set out to obfuscate any actual meaning. “The cloud” is a classic example. It sounds cooler than saying “a server in Virginia”, but it also sounds like the exact opposite of what it actually is. Great for marketing. Terrible for understanding.
“AI” is definitely not a good buzzword. But I can’t quite decide if it’s merely a bad buzzword like “web 2.0” or a truly terrible buzzword like “the cloud”.
The biggest problem with the phrase “AI” is that there’s a name collision.
For years, the term “AI” has been used in science-fiction. HAL 9000. Skynet. Examples of artificial general intelligence.
Now the term “AI” is also used to describe large language models. But there is no connection between this use of the term “AI” and the science fictional usage.
This leads to the ludicrous situation of otherwise-rational people wanted to discuss the dangers of “AI”, but instead of talking about the rampant exploitation and energy usage endemic to current large language models, they want to spend the time talking about the sci-fi scenarios of runaway “AI”.
To understand how ridiculous this is, I’d like you to imagine if we had started using a different buzzword in another setting…
Suppose that when ride-sharing companies like Uber and Lyft were starting out, they had decided to label their services as Time Travel. From a marketing point of view, it even makes sense—they get you from point A to point B lickety-split.
Now imagine if otherwise-sensible people began to sound the alarm about the potential harms of Time Travel. Given the explosive growth we’ve seen in this sector, sooner or later they’ll be able to get you to point B before you’ve even left point A. There could be terrible consequences from that—we’ve all seen the sci-fi scenarios where this happens.
Meanwhile the actual present-day harms of ride-sharing services around worker exploitation would be relegated to the sidelines. Clearly that isn’t as important as the existential threat posed by Time Travel.
It sounds ludicrous, right? It defies common sense. Just because a vehicle can get you somewhere fast today doesn’t mean it’s inevitably going to be able to break the laws of physics any day now, simply because it’s called Time Travel.
And yet that is exactly the nonsense we’re being fed about large language models. We call them “AI”, we look at how much they can do today, and we draw a straight line to what we know of “AI” in our science fiction.
This ridiculous situation could’ve been avoided if we had settled on a more accurate buzzword like “applied statistics” instead of “AI”.
It’s almost as if the labelling of the current technologies was more about marketing than accuracy.
]]>
Monday session
]]>
Sunday session
]]>