• Facebook: I barely used it and I wasn't in the mental space to handle the place during the lockdown days so I made a bit of a snap decision. A really good decision in the long run.
• Twitter: Well, do I even need explain that one? Granted, I didn't really use that one either.

Now things get interesting:

• Reddit: Yes, I was somewhat active there in some places. Funny coincidence, it was Reddit that got me into the fandom. Back to the topic however, there were 3 abrasive traits in many spaces there:
  • Directionless, paralysing, unsubstantiated rage
  • Delusional sense of superior competence
  • Unwillingness to discussion when the talk was indeed in good faith (the automatic “you don't agree = you're the enemy”)

There's a very old picture I saw once that was poking fun at various internet spaces and Reddit in there was described as “Stupid people pretending to be smart” and sadly, it's one of those cases of “stereotypes are based on facts” (that of course doesn't make them good or harmless). So no, it wasn't the “Reddit pulled the rampant capitalism” thing with ts API that got me out, it was the atmosphere above. And mind you, I'm far more of a passive actor rather than the super talkative one (this will become important later). * BlueSky: Now we enter the era of when I actually started taking my online presence more seriously. Those who have been following my journey know I was both on Mastodon and Bluesky, the latter which I eventually stopped using although I haven’t left fully yet (although I doubt I’ll come back there as the place burns brighter than Betelgeuse). What got me out of there? Well, let’s see: * Inability to properly self-moderate (seriously, you give people the moderation tools and they proceed not to use them; granted, it’s not a great approach to moderation either as it’s more of shifting the responsibility but at the same time it doesn’t really paint a good picture about those who scream “we can handle ourselves”) * Directionless, paralysing, unsubstantiated rage mixed in with doomerism (like, holy shit that place can be so dark it makes the goth culture look like the most colourful circus) * Inability to respect boundaries (goes hand in hand with the first point and is especially present in my dear fandom; there’s a reason why the “furries are the biggest haters of furries” exists and the disrespect towards personal boundaries is one of them) * (This one’s mostly personal) Exposure to “my people” (as you know, I’m at consistent odds with my place of birth and living and what drives me to bestial rage is the “liberal whiteness” of people here; trust me, I’d happily join in if someone came here and punched that stupidity out of my kin)

Now add to this BlueSky becoming the “Twitter 2.0” just more quickly and you have many reasons to never touch the place with a ten-feet pole. For me personally the place also fails the “Casual furry exposure test” = if the place can’t handle you at your weird (note, weird not boundary-disrespecting and personal-space-invading) then it’s not a place you want to be in. * Mastodon: Finally, we arrive to my current “online home” which honestly took me a bit to settle in. The initial anxiety wasn’t exactly due to me being bad at social things (I’m techie so of course my social skills are shit and will be my life-long “ticket” to work on) but the perceived inconsistency and sometimes overzealous enforcement of rules (the term “Mastodon HOA” exists for a reason). Personally, I wasn’t affected by it because as it turns out, people in general have some sense of moderation and won’t kick your face in for a small transgression (and those who do aren’t your people in the first place). The only warning that came my way was after years me being around, it was very warranted and it wasn’t even for me being really harsh in the post (I just forgot about a CW in the heat of the moment).

With all that said, I don’t just stick to my home and venture to the wider network as well, even going into places I don’t have to. Why, you ask? To get the overall feel of the place because that feel will inevitable seep into the home place too. And frankly, I don’t like what I’m seeing. Now, the feeling is skewed by the events unfolding at the time of writing but I’m noticing “the Reddit pattern” with some other things added up in the wider network: * Directionless, paralysing, unsubstantiated rage * Delusional sense of superior competence (which is harder to break due to the nature of the network) * Unwillingness to discussion when the talk was indeed in good faith (the automatic “you don't agree = you're the enemy”; it’s less present there since it’s largely coming from bad actors but there are moments which do raise questions) * Sense of “benign superiority” (it’s still supremacist, even if it doesn’t seemingly hurt anyone) * Interest in “being right” rather than “doing something better” (And I mean better; equal isn’t enough)

The thing I’m talking about here is the wider space is feeling like it’s creating “anxious safety” — the place is safe because the people who are familiar with it already know the rules and the new people are quiet because they’re too afraid to break them. Occasionally someone manages to get through but to do it can come at a cost: they need to adapt in a way that suppresses and might even erase part of their personality without an improvement if there was a bad trait present. This has two massive negatives: It makes the place unsafe for those who are already “othered” and are looking for safety and it gives ammunition to bad actors to break the space apart. It effectively creates an online equivalent of the suburb where all the houses look the same, with the same fences and with the suburb walled off from the outside world. Which is mildly ironic considering the wider network consists more of people (at least I believe that’s a thing) who would get utterly repulsed by such image.

I personally have experienced people stepping out of the network who didn’t really do anything wrong. Hell, I’ve seen instances of people being decent and only providing their voice and showing no bad faith to be hammered by people more radical in their stance. I hate to say it but that’s not what a safe space looks like. That’s very much how you get people to leave. And I don’t mean bad actors, those should be kicked in the arse on their way out. I mean people who are indeed decent folks that do no harm but get absolutely tired of having nails thrown under their feet for “not doing enough”. Mastodon tends to be guilty of that. Not too often or at least many instances of this evade my eyes (I’m not terminally online) but it’s there and it doesn’t bode well. Yes, many of you are terrified. Many of you are in survival mode (myself included even though it doesn’t look that way). But none of that warrants the use of your views and your pain as hammer to bash everyone around you. We already have enough people like this in power; the kind who use their faith/ideas etc. to bash everyone (sometimes to a fatal end) who doesn’t agree with them.

So please, instead of lashing out, look for ways forward. Step down from the pedestal of “being morally on the right side” and examine whether it’s actually true. And I mean examine, not just superficially think about it. Don’t shut yourself away from disagreement. I’m not saying engage with bad actors (fuck no, preserve your sanity) but don’t immediately assume malice where there might be a hint of curiosity. Discussions aren’t binary and never will be in a healthy environment. Look into the history. Every time there were only two sides, things weren’t in a good shape. Things are never purely black and white. They’re also not perfectly middle grey either (that’s for those who want to scream “CENTRIST!”). The things can however be many shades of grey between the two. Sometimes just a smidge off white, other times almost black but not quite. Whatever it may be, it shouldn’t be so white that it blinds you with its brightness nor so black that you can’t see any other way.

In the end, what am I trying to say? That it’s not the whims of the owners of the platform that are the driving force for people leaving. It’s the atmosphere in general that contributes to that drive the most. The former can be a major force to commit to the step but every plan requires a build-up of which you might be a part of without knowing so.

R.R.A.

And the adventure turned out to be a fuzzy one. And the place of the ancient civilisation was surprisingly recent, very fancy and very close to my home – a not-so-small city of Vienna hosting a not-so-small anymore convention of Awoostria: Echoes of the Ancients. As the short intro suggests, this time it was themed around ancient civilisations. And for me personally, the adventure was two-fold. First, it wasn’t just “my own” adventure but with a pack this time around. Sure, a pack of a wolf, a yeen and a cheesecake (a sergal for those less familiar with fuzzy lingo) may sound a little odd but who says my pack has to be a monoculture? Secondly, this con is yet another one where I “debut” (I’m at 3 our of 4 cons where I’ve got something new) my suit crafts; the first con on which I’d be suiting in full. So let’s not hold back any longer and listen to the echoes of the ancients.

Day 0 … Meeting the pack

As usual, first day is the travel day. This time around a really easy one since Vienna is quite close to my hometown; just a short train ride. But of course, national railway company being the national railway company, the train was delayed. Just a little bit but still can’t help but to poke fun at them :P. The trip being short also got me considering whether I could travel with both of my suits but I opted just for my woof because the full suit already takes a lot of space in the suitcase. The price of having a big tail and feet. The trip itself went smoothly and soon I was in the city of waltz and schnitzels meeting the fellow furs of our small pack: DannyYeen and Beals.

Once together, we went to the hotel to check in to our con room (Danny and Beals already stayed in the same hotel since they were arriving earlier) and so I can release the woof from the “travel prison” and we went into the city to be the “tourists” for a bit because once the con starts, there won’t really be time. I have to say, the downtown of Vienna is still gorgeous even if the last time I saw it was over 15 years ago. That said, the Vienna metro (underground, U-bahn) is … very old-timey :P As it was slowly getting dark, we went for dinner and eventually slowly back to the hotel to get ready for the adventures of the coming days.

Day 1 … Setting the beast free for the first time

First day of the con … which means the one mandatory “queue-con” aka registration. Luckily the queue was really short so the registration went through quickly. Danny and Beals also got the acrylic badges which are super neat. However, there was a hidden wait ahead since the suit lounge wasn’t ready yet. To pass time we found the place in the lobby for the time being with Beals already spotting cool places for pictures as they were “armed” with camera. Meanwhile I was resisting the itch to suit up, passing the time with occasionally putting my fuzzy head on. I also went for a small walk around the place to “scout” the area and maybe run into a familiar face. And I did as I spotted the silly bat Protox with at the time solidified goo dragon Sunio. I’ve reintroduced myself again since this time I wasn’t suited up and first time they met me I was a silly orange critter :3 and of course we began the furry version of “barter trade” also known as sticker trade :P

Eventually the fursuit lounge opened. It was time to let the wolf loose for the first time at the con and for the first time in full suit. It was a bit challenging since the lounge wasn’t operating at its full and I also didn’t have the cooling gear ready but that didn’t stop me. After few minutes I was all ready, in full fur and this time around even with a bandanna around my neck. Something I never wore on my woof despite making it an integral part of the initial design. “Dressed for the occasion” I ventured into the con space along with my friends to have the first bit of suiting fun (trust me, there was a lot :P). It didn’t take me long to get into character and just embrace my woof me. All I can say is that partialling is great but the full body gives it just that little bit extra. I already had a bit of a taste of that at NFC when I wore my foxxo with a kigu and this time around I could experience the real thing. Beals, armed with their camera, was of course looking for any photo opportunity where I could be a model or anything happening around the place that would catch their eye. Danny in the meantime was easing into the atmosphere of the con, watching his woof friend being a creature.

As the time of the opening ceremony was closing in, Danny split up to try and maybe find a spot to watch the event. Me and Beals continued in the suiting adventures as I ventured back into the lounge to grab my plushie stick to “monch” or “poke” furs around. Beals also sort of joined me for the fun as they got into their red sergal kigu to “blend in” :3 At the same time they could still engage in taking pictures of any situation since their hands are free and also less extra warmth. Note to self, make a kigu for my characters *looks at the suit-making board*.

The suiting adventures continued with me either monching on my plushie stick (which some fellow furs confused for a horn or an antler, trying to frame me for stealing some >:3). It also served as a funny pointing tool for posing along some rather amusing signs in the hotel lobby :P As the suiting went on I suddenly noticed a very colourful dragon and next to them another one, clad in white fur and a very bright pink mane. One could even say … Brightmane :P That’s right, it was the cosy dragon Brixxy accompanied by an adorably colourful Alto. Which means, I could fulfill my promise: begin the slow transformation of Brixxy Brightmane into Brixxy Darkfin but sharing some of my black furcoat :P Of course Alto wasn’t spared either so if you found some black tufts around … *grins devilishly*. I poked around the place a bit more but the day was slowly coming to end so the inevitable return to my “boring human” form came. Besides, adventurers need rest.

Day 2 … A bit of culture, a bit of looting (the good kind ;3) and a bit of photography

Second day of the con and this time around with a bit of a schedule. This means that I won’t be “confined” to my fluffy “prison” (not that I’d mind :P) all the time but I’ll have a chance to experience some of the events and even take some pictures. First things first, breakfast of course, fitting for a woof. Which means having some of the richest breakfast for months because normally I’m rather lightweight with those. But a) I’m on a vacation and b) it’s quite important during cons, especially when suiting. Trust me, it’s an exercise of its own.

And of course I wouldn’t miss an opportunity to be fluffy critter so soon after the suit was packed in its huge carrying bag (seriously, making that thing was an amazing idea) and we were on the way to the con space. This time around accompanied by my plushie “mini me” (not 100% accurate but still, plushie woof :3). And after few minutes there were two black woofs giving folks cuteness overload.

But you know what’s better than one plushie? More plushies, of course! Even better when accompanied by familiar friendly faces. Because just a few minutes on the outside terrace found me a company of fluffy fedi folks: Kianga, Keeya and Rengyr. And the moment they spotted my plushie woof, I suddenly became mildly overwhelmed with more plushies: Kianga’s small travel fox and Keeya’s fluffy fennec together with an arctic fox. My royal title, The Jester King of Plushies, has become a reality. Well, almost, since I was lacking in the “royal attire” (I haven’t got one designed for Rawi yet).

The fluffy adventures continued until around the noon as we had plans to attend the concert of the fluffy piano fox-dragon, CoVahr. Our small pack went for a lunch and I got back to the hotel shortly to return my plushie woof and also grab my small camera to be able to take some pictures myself. Something I’m really bad at because I get too immersed in the moment and well, it’s hard to take pictures with big paws (although this time I had a new pair of paws with finger holes). But I did succeed in capturing some moments. Stuff like dancing dragons, “firebending” cats, very handsome noodles, drawing red pandas or a fencing gryphon. Don’t believe me? See for yourself!

As the time of the concert came near, me and Danny joined the queue (the obligatory queue con but not a bad one) while Beals continued catching more and more pictures. The wait was short and I spotted a familiar-looking pair of ears in the queue. Because one thing I did due to an earlier post was to set a small challenge for myself: find a duo of friendly fedi-cats, Tuxel and newly fuzzy LynxOnRails. With Tuxel I succeeded only partially as we did indeed meet in person but I missed the fluffy version (seeing the suit in lounge doesn’t count). The pair of ears I mentioned belonged to the latter, Lynx. We haven’t got a chance to talk in the queue yet since they were ahead of us but we got together later during the con.

The wait in the queue wasn’t long but the place definitely got warm so having my speedy fan was an advantage. And once inside the main stage room, the familiar (at least for me since I had a chance to experience CoVahr at NFC) fluffy group of musicians was soon providing the amazing experience for everyone’s ears. Seriously, it’ll never seize to amaze me what people can do suited up. Be it dancing, considering just suiting is already quite an exercise, playing musical instruments (be it the piano where you can’t really see the keys or the flute since the suit head will make it harder to breathe) or drawing (I already mentioned the drawing wah :3).

As the concert finished, it was time for another mandatory event of any con: “Making artistic investments and supporting the craft which makes the fandom go” … as I like to call spending money in dealer’s den so I don’t feel bad about having maybe a little bit of self-control issues. And of course I didn’t leave empty-handed. Me being a shirt-goblin, of course I expanded my collection. Add to that some more pins, new lanyards so I can phase out my “neutral-looking” ones, some more tags and key-chains. Like I said, investments were made. And no queues since we went in later.

As the evening approached, I got back into the fur to possibly try and make some nighttime pictures. A bit difficult since I’m a black wolf but there are spots that can offer some interesting lighting. I also tried to revive one of the features of my suit, the magnetic eyelids. I very rarely use them since they limit my eyesight and also they’re difficult to move around with considering they don’t hold on as well. But this time around they worked out really well.

The night also served me a bit of an unexpected sight. In one of my roams around the outer area together with Danny we stumbled upon familiar dragons, Alto and Brixxy (who was in partial suit this time around). We stopped by their group for a bit to mingle and I noticed a familiar badge on one of the unsuited furs. And this is how I found Reiko’s “human disguise” (seriously, Reiko has their human form just to blend in :P).

I kept going on with the suiting, even lightly tempted to dance but since next day was the suit-walk day, I wanted to keep the suit in a reasonable shape and make sure it dries out over night. That said, I’ve grown a bit lazy to take the suit off so before we headed back to the hotel, I just grabbed my things from the lounge and took the walk back suited up. I always wonder how non-furs feel about someone in a full suit just casually walking around the town. That said, I don’t think I’d be willing to walk around like this without someone being my second pair of eyes and ears.

Day 3 … I think I’ve gained a superpower

Suit-walk day; the day you worry about the weather to not be too hot but also not rainy. Luckily, neither was the case. I woke up a bit earlier so I could prepare the suit for transport, trying to be as quiet as possible around my fuzzy roommates. We arrived at the con space nicely in time without being too early (a weird trait of mine). I got into the suit, caught up to the fellow rainbow jaguar Kianga and we went outside to take the con group picture. And all I can say is … Awoo Crew, you need someone with a megaphone or a booming voice to “herd” the critters around properly X3. Also, the attendees were not really fond of memey things :P (you can guess what I’m referencing).

Once the group pictures were taken, the crowd slowly moved into the suit-walk path going through the nearby park. Unlike NFC, the road wasn’t closed for the duration of the walk but the con crew made sure all the traffic rules were properly observed. The park was a bit quiet since it was Friday which meant people were at work but we had a chance to meet some folks outside the con. The walk was on a shorter side compared to for example NFC or EF. It also started drizzling a tiny bit, as in it was barely registered by those who weren’t wearing their fuzzy coats. We looped around the park and slowly returned to the con space only to form a spontaneous conga line in the plaza. Small tip for fellow suiters, if a fluffy critter in front of you is much taller or they have a long tail, it’s easier to gently grab the tail. Because a) you’ll have easier time to keep pace and b) you’ll prevent the risk of tripping over their tail. Just remember, no pulling. Only gently hold. Once the conga line dispersed, the fedi-floofs got together for a small group photoshoot at which we “volunteered” our fellow noodle Karb to be “conquered”. Disclaimer, no dragon was harmed during the event.

After all the pictures I went for a break in a lounge and started thinking about maybe a break from suiting but somehow I just kept going. It was weird because I wanted to spend some time at the evening dance which would usually get me to save energy but I just didn’t want to take suit off and my body wasn’t really resisting the idea of suiting. I guess I stole Reiko’s superpower last evening because I didn’t feel the usual weariness that eventually comes with longer suiting. It’s like the suit mentally “fused” with me so it didn’t even fell as if I was wearing it. Like, if you sewn me shut in the suit, I wouldn’t even mind. It was a really cool moment of immersion.

Eventually however I took the suit off (it was quite a late afternoon when I did) because the “human inside” needs sustenance and it’s definitely healthy to take breaks. Thus we went for a late lunch and I took a peek into dealer’s den afterwards since I wanted to ideally pick up an extra set of cooling packs for my vest and collar (part of the secret how I managed to stay in the suit for so long) but I wasn’t lucky this time around. But I still didn’t leave empty-handed, snatching some more badges for when my other characters “come to life”. As I was out of suit for the moment and had my camera with me, I took some more pictures of moments around the con.

As the evening was approaching, I went back to the hotel to reduce the amount of things I carry on me as much as possible because I don’t want to carry extra stuff with me to the dance and I sure as hell don’t want to leave anything valuable in the lounge. Before the dance though, me and Danny lost track of our fellow cheesecake, Beals. This got my inner wolf mildly unsettled (I tend to be “protective” about a group I spend time with and I grow anxious when folks aren’t “accounted for”). Turns out Beals got “snatched” by fellow fluffy dragons, Shano and Vudo for a small room party so everything was in order. Either way, I was soon back in fluff, this time without my signature Keeya-made bag (seriously, I love this thing to bits) and was happily dancing out the bits of energy I had left in me to the bassy music. The sets weren’t the usual ones I’d attend but I was delighted to just let go and move to the rhythm, the worries of “boring human” going away. Just me, fellow furs, pleasant sounds. And believe me, I could go for a really long time if my body wasn’t telling me that I should really take a break.

It was around midnight when I said myself that enough is enough because my legs were really starting to feel it (damn you, knees worn out from years of climbing). But I can absolutely confirm that dancing in the full suit is something I can easily handle and you’ll have a hard time to pry me away from the place. Nevertheless, the time has come to return to the hotel so the suit can dry for the inevitable trip home.

Day 4 … The Echoes of the Ancients

Final day … the day nobody likes to admit but it can’t be stopped. The day when the magic slowly fades and we begin to come back to our usual lives. Packing the suit for the trip home always feels a little sad because it’s the reminder of the con ending. Thus our pack took the last breakfast at the hotel and once we checked out of the room, we left our luggage there for safekeeping while heading back to the con space to hang out with the fellow furs for some more time. We settled down in the lobby and after a while a bright tiger Zak appeared, making our last hours at the con more enjoyable as well as giving me a motivation to make my Starlight/Brightwing woof a thing. I also caught up with fedi-floofs for one more time outside the in the plaza.

Eventually the afternoon came and I had to take my baggage and head for the train home. Well … home as in the place I spend my daily life in. But is it a home? As the train started moving, I felt the familiar feeling creep in; the misty eyes, lumpy throat … it felt like I was leaving my home rather than returning. Especially as I’m leaving people that make me feel myself rather than having me to “blend in”.

*a quiet sad howl echoes in the distance*

It may be an echo of the past, but it guides me towards my future.

R.R.A.

A bit of background: Online privacy rotting from the inside

At the time of writing, there have been quite some already on-going waves in privacy space and the most recent one involved one of the possibly most trusted VPN providers, Mullvad. What happened? Well, people found out that one of the owners has been financially supporting a party of, let’s say some really nasty people. The kind that would’ve been trialed in Nuremberg in 1945. This of course basically kicked any and all trust people had in Mullvad in the teeth so hard that all of them fell out while the very nasty people are now drowning in champagne and having whatever kind of orgies they indulge in (something you’d probably never want to be part of otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation).

Privacy and general infosec space being a bit rotten sadly isn’t anything new in this regard. I’m sure everyone who reads this knows Brave; the browser, not the movie. A browser who has been at the forefront of privacy-conscious tools and one of the vanguards of adblocking. But then you look a little under the hood and what do you find? The ad-blocking is replaced by injecting their own ads (which you, the user, can’t control so you’re basically switching one bad thing for another bad thing), crypto currency stuff and as a cherry on top, the CEO isn’t an exactly savoury person either (folks at Mozilla know).

Want another privacy company going tits up because of a bit too fashy CEO? Look no further than Proton. Yup, the “Apple of online privacy” (not in the good sense) has had a bit of rocky ride. Let’s be honest, their crypto wallet was already a bit of a warning sign but at the same time they were considering turning it into a general use wallet as well over time so you could give it a pass. But with Proton Scribe (the AI-assisted writing), the warning sign got bright and the CEO praising the current US mad house (“administration” — I need bigger quotes). Add to that a further dive into AI space and well, that’s one privacy company burying their trust and desecrating its grave.

Social media tools aren’t safe from this either. Ever heard about Nostr? Decentralised, no easily identifiable IDs, same protocol as Mastodon … sounds like a perfect combination, right? Well, if you ever had the unfortunate experience of seeing someone from Nostr space under your Mastodon posts, you know how “nice” the network is. Even just the rare occurrences I had make the old 4chan look like fairy tale land. But then you look at who helped to found and promotes Nostr and a lot of this starts to make sense. Want a hint? It’s the same person who made Twitter and Bluesky a thing.

All of the above might make you think that privacy is being used for malicious intent. And believe me that this sentiment is very much alive among the people everywhere and it’s this very thing that fuels some of, if not all of the absolutely useless and insanely harmful surveillance laws. Because they fail to stop the perpetrators and sometimes actually protect them by giving them the tool to remove their opponents. Because while privacy can be abused it’s also absolutely necessary to protect the very victims.

Privacy as a shield

Let’s put ourselves into a perspective of someone who’s a victim of abuse. I get a feeling that many won’t even have to imagine this because you likely experienced some of it. What would you give to have a tool that can be perfectly confidential? You’d be thrilled to have a way to voice your pain in a without a risk of things becoming worse or being revealed by an another bad actor helping your abuser.

Now set yourself into a position of a journalist who needs to report on something super sensitive. They’re absolutely dependent on such mechanisms to a point where revelation may be fatal to them and those they hold dear.

These people need to have tools that are trustworthy and confidential, built and maintained by people who follow the same mission and uphold their goals without compromise. By compromise being absolutely equal in treatment of any potentially bad faith actor. I emphasise the bad faith because there are definitely those whose underlying philosophy may be noble but their use of it is more akin to a hammer to stifle their opponents rather than a principle to mentor them and others with a similar train of thought.

Privacy as a cloak

Now let’s look into the dark side of privacy. Because the bad actors also want to make sure their communication and actions stay confidential. But this time the motivation isn’t noble. They need to hide from those who could throw the proverbial wrench in their malicious plans. Not to mention, if no other third party can see what they’re doing, how can you prove their malice? I’m not saying you can’t. And you’d be surprised how insultingly silly their mistakes can be. But in a world of total privacy, you would lose this connection which is often quite direct and could sometimes be THE key to putting these in their place.

Does that warrant removing the privacy veil in an interest of security? No, it doesn’t because …

Privacy is a human right

And that means it applies to everybody, regardless of their motives. For human rights to be upheld, they must be absolutely universal. They are one of the very few things where there is no nuance; either everyone has them or nobody has them if they can be arbitrarily taken away. So yes, the worst kind of person has the same level of rights as a kid suffering the worst kind of abuse.

What does this mean for those who are in the position of providing privacy-defending tools and services. That they cannot be held accountable for the communication that passes through their infrastructure or who uses their tools. Doing this kind of vetting would impede the premise of privacy being a human right and thus create a class of people whose rights are higher than others. Not to mention it would undermine the principle of privacy itself. How can something be private if the third party can see into it? Third party being the service provider. You can say that rights can be temporarily revoked if violated or bent in a way that’s unacceptable. At this point we’re reaching the “who watches the watcher” kind of situation which sadly infinitely recursive. Or if we apply a bit of computational theory, this problem would fall into the set of problems complementary to “Halting Problem” — problems which cause the computing machine to “stop” the computation in correct way (end of program, infinite clearly defined loop or abnormal termination). Infinite recursion is neither of the correct terminations.

However, there’s something you can keep an eye on and if you’re in a position of a provider of such services or tools. You can AND should check who supports your activities. Because by doing so you create a foundation for trust that you build up with wider community of your users. And if you betray that trust, you harm not only yourself on human level you also hurt your service which is probably your livelihood. And trust once broken is extremely difficult to rebuild. Can it be done? Yes. But that depends on how severe your betrayal is (looking at you Mullvad) and how bad your track record is. Repeated betrayal will destroy any trust completely (looking at you, Proton). You might want to say “isn’t that denying them the human right to privacy”? If that thought came to your mind, let me steer you back a little: you’re not denying them the service (that would in fact be a violation of said right), you refuse their direct support or endorsement.

R.R.A.

The chapter I’m referencing is specifically the one about genetic programming or as I jokingly call it “the original vibe-coding” in a little bit of a tongue-in-cheek jab. The way I described it in a rather simple manner, was that it’s basically a highly constrained “randomness-driven” process which can deliver a result satisfying these constraints. The constraints are very much the key to why genetic programming works quite well for the tasks you want to use it for. You know what you want in quite a good detail and you have a way to evaluate the outputs of the algorithms properly and you don’t need to know every single detail of the implementation because the robust and clearly defined verification process ensures the solution is correct.

Now let’s take a look at Rust, specifically one of its core features; the compiler and the rules it enforces. If you ever wrote a piece of code in Rust, you can very much relate to the experience of wrestling with the compiler screaming at you about properly passed mutable references, data races you missed etc. Eventually, you either brute-forced your way with unsafe code, basically demoting Rust into C with some extra features (sounds familiar? *cough cough* early C++) or you “took the beating” from the compiler and eventually learnt to write the code satisfying all the constraints it threw at you.

Now what happens if we replace the human coder with AI? We get an autonomous algorithm working in a highly constrained environment to produce a result satisfying the constraints … wait, that sounds like genetic algorithm. Well, you’re not far off. While the resulting code will be hard to read (remember, going through generated code is a really unpleasant task), it’s very likely it’ll be functional and even reasonably safe. All that because the Rust’s compiler will basically drag the unruly AI, kicking and screaming, towards the right path to go through. It won’t necessarily be the ideal solution or even the most optimal (you’d have to actually employ some more principles from the genetic programming field to get that) but the strict rules will keep the AI in check. This is of course limited to the technical or engineering level of the code and not the usability which would require a whole another set of constraints.

“But Rawi, you could do that with any programming language.” Yes, technically you can do it with any structured language, be it a programming or a mark-up one (natural language is far more difficult due to the amount of possible nuances and indirect meanings). But no matter which one you choose, Rust’s compiler is your very likely minimal benchmark. You need to at least match what the compiler does. And you have to do that as a one person for every single problem you want to “solve” with AI. Meanwhile the compiler is being developed by dozens of people who are experts in field of formal languages, grammars and all the compiler theory.

Are you sure you can match that as an individual? Repeatably and reliably?

R.R.A.

“My dear, it’s precisely because I’m a tech person. It’s because I have a hands-on experience with this stuff. That’s why I consider this ‘people going ape-shit’ insane.”

And the same applies to the age verification and digital privacy stuff. Because I know the “other side”. Yes, you’re reading this right. I’ve been there, on the opposing side of the barricade years ago.

Why am I writing this? Because I want to. I’m not interested in seeking some redemption. And yes, I know some of you will now want to hang me for “being one of them”. To you I say: “People can learn. People can change. If you don’t believe that, you’re not what you claim to be.”

Me and ML/AI: It will never work.

Partly because it literally can’t do all the stuff “AI-bros” think it can do and partly because none of the problems I faced a decade ago with FAR SIMPLER implementation have been resolved or at least mitigated. They’re still there and will be forever; the “inbreeding”, the need to constantly revise the inputs, the need to constantly revise the outputs because the results aren’t consistent … congratulations, you’ve replaced “busy work” with “busy work you have no idea about”.

In case you’re wondering what I’m talking about, back in my “Rawi’s going to be a scientist” days, I was working on utilising ML for analysing network traffic, especially with regards to not having to dig into the contents because A) you need a warrant for that stuff (seriously, you can’t just tcpdump whatever traffic you want and dig into it if you want to use it, even if it’s for research purposes) and B) you won’t be able to if it’s encrypted (if your ears have perked up with caution and warning signs start screaming at you in your mind … you’ve got a good hunch where I’m about to go with this). The goal was to come up with something relatively small so it could be used in a programmable hardware and basically be a preprocessor before the data went into software for more detailed processing. This not only was a challenge due to resource constraints (you can’t really squeeze in a massive ML model into a chip which still needs to fit the network interfaces AND an already present processing pipeline) but the ML part itself had huge obstacles to get over, one of them already mentioned.

Where do you get data? Well, I had a sample from when we were testing our little toy in our lab (we basically became our own guinea pigs) which I could use for training the model. But here comes the first problem: data is data. A binary mess with no meaning at all to the machine. This is where the human needs to step in and provide context clues. How do you do it? By, wait for it, sitting down and going through the pile MANUALLY. That’s right, I had to take the pile of data, take out a sample from that pile I would use for training, MANUALLY classify what is supposed to be in there and then do the same for a dataset I’ll be using for evaluation. Great, that’s weeks of super mundane busy work WHICH YOU CAN’T AUTOMATE. Why? Because machine has no brain. Someone needs to provide it. And that someone … was me.

How good was what I came up with? Well, the thing had about 95% accuracy. And it was giving a very rough overview about what might be in the data stream while it sometimes had really clear clues. And the worst part? It couldn’t retain that accuracy. I’m not kidding. I could grab the same model weeks later and run it on the very same sample without changing anything and the accuracy would plummet to 70%. Let me say it again: I took the SAME model, fed it the SAME data and it deteriorated. And it wasn’t even a complicated neural network, far from it in fact.

Then there’s the “AI inbreeding” thing; what happens when you start training the model on an output of another model or even its own output. Well, you’re getting into training the model on data without any oversight. And as you know, AI models are sycopanthic “by design” so they’ll end up in a self-affirming positive feedback loop. And if you’re in any way familiar with signal processing, you know that positive feedback is something to avoid like plague, covid and ebola combined. Long story short, feeding the model its own output for training will make it deteriorate even faster because it’ll lose the ability to “apply” the learnt patterns onto anything that’s not almost 1-to-1 to the output. Basically, your model will become a binary decider with extremely narrow margins for error.

May I add a sad story to this? At one of the meetings which served as brainstorming sessions in our research groups, one of my colleagues and friends who was working in the same field raised this question to my supervisor. I already had this concern but he had the guts (and the position) to say it out loud. When I heard that question, my brain immediately sent me “See? You’re not alone thinking this. You’re very much onto something.” And the supervisor answered to my friend:

“You’re too skeptical about it. You say it because you don’t believe in the idea.”

Does this sound familiar? The tone, the wording … Mind you this was my supervisor at the time. And this was at the time of writing seven years ago. I’m kicking myself in the arse in retrospect for not standing up and saying: “Believe? He’s right! I’ve had this on my mind for some time already and this is serious issue which basically makes this idea infeasible.” But I didn’t. I did voice some of my skepticism later in a milder way, more along the lines of being worried about it but not having enough substance to confirm it. But fucking hell, I should’ve shouted loud that this is wrong and it’s never going to work.

Oh well, can’t change the past. But I can learn from it. So when you see me going up in arms against AI, it’s not just for the moral an ethical reasons but also for the technical reasons and things that haven’t been solved and honestly, they can’t be solved.

But now for the harsher confession … the one that will probably make some people hate my guts and also provide the reasons why I was doing what I was doing.

Me and AV and Digital Privacy: I was one of them.

No this isn’t a lie. I was indeed one of the bad ones. I was indeed one of the “Bastards”. Yes, I worked for Law Enforcement, specifically for Lawful Interception of network data. THIS is why I’m so militant now when it comes to Age Verification and all the privacy invading mess. It’s also partly why I can tame my reactions to it occasionally because there’s a little bit of silver lining: it gave me the insight into the legal framework of how this stuff is used.

The latter I’d like to expand on a bit. The dark side is, my country isn’t private. It abso-fucking-lutely isn’t. We have LI laws. we have Data Retention laws. Like, we have a digital “State Security” and we had it FOR YEARS. Luckily, nobody really gives a damn. And frankly, not even the people who should enforce it. Why? Because whoo boy, the legal framework is strict about using this stuff. Remember when I mentioned you need a warrant to handle network data. This is exactly it. There’s a specific law on WHAT you can capture, HOW you can capture AND HOW you can use it. And if you break ANY of this, the court will just toss the evidence in the trash. To give you a small overview: The capture needs to be EXACT (as in nothing extra is allowed to be captured), it must be COMPLETE (you lose something and the evidence goes out the window) and it MUST NOT touch any application data that’s not the intended target. The last part is important because it’s really difficult to do at all, let alone do it right. The law is a little more lenient when it comes to metadata but you’ll get a really nasty “side-eye” if you go too broad there too.

So yeah, this stuff isn’t easy from a legal standpoint but that doesn’t give an excuse to be invasive. Not that the cops need to be because an overwhelming majority of people are doing their job for them *points at EVERY SINGLE social media profile*. By the way, I have that from someone literally working for our national secret service. Seriously, as much as they liked the tools we were working on, the person I talked to pretty much told me that “We can just look at their Facebook page because they’ll tell us everything there. Seriously, people are this bad at OpSec.”

Now, how does this relate to me being militant about AV and privacy and frankly sometimes losing my mind with “privacy freaks”? The AV part is quite obvious. It’s victim-blaming, dehumanisation of kids and basically a dream world for the likes of Gestapo/NKVD/KGB/CIA/GCHQ etc. The privacy part is, and I’m going to get a lot of flack for this, so many people are so high on their own “privacy supremacism pedestal”. Except that pedestal is so shaky that it can topple with a stronger sneeze. On one hand, one’s personal life is nobody’s business. Yes, I mean it. Nobody is entitled to know what you’re personally doing.

“But what about criminals?” Does the saying “Snitches get stiches” sound familiar? Yes, that is a huge part of why so many bad people go away with things. You don’t hold them accountable and it’s your fault. Yes, I know, power dynamics are a thing. But hear me out: If you didn’t allow things to rot and fester into this power hellscape, you wouldn’t need to be worried.

“But I’m a targetted person of ” So am I. Very much so despite not looking like it. But here’s a thing. If I was in an actually serious danger, I wouldn’t be writing these lines. Hell, we wouldn’t be having any conversation anymore because either I’d already be behind bars or a fertiliser or I’d be fighting teeth and nails to not be that.

And even with all that said, the “my personal life is nobody’s business” stands. Same goes for kids. Their personal life is nobody’s business unless it harms them. And trust me, kids UNDERSTAND VERY WELL something’s not right. The reason they often don’t tell anyone isn’t because they don’t know, but because they’re scared. And being far less experienced in this world which we made opaque and obtuse for some unknown reasons, they’re much easier to manipulate.

So yeah, the reason I’m so much against all the Age Verification and privacy-removing bullcrap and I go borderline rabid at anyone who even thinks about defending it is because I know the other side.

So there it is. A confession of someone who was the bad guy, or at least worked for the bad guys (Banality of Evil, anyone?). Am I going to piss someone off with this? Absolutely. But hear me out. I’m not hiding behind all I’ve done. I’m not justifying the behaviour I contributed to. I want to at least try and fix what I can. Can I do it easily? No. But I don’t have to do it alone.

R.R.A.

Back in my uni studies, I was attending a course called “Biology-inspired Computing”. The subject was pretty neat, focused on applying principles found in natural world to computing tasks such as chip design optimisation, runtime hardware adaptation (look up stuff like evolvable hardware) and even a concept called DNA-computing (literally using a specific artificial strand of DNA to perform computation — it’s really, really slow so not really viable for real-life application). In the chip design and optimisation part a lot of emphasis was on concepts of usage of genetic algorithms to design a configuration for an FPGA (Field-Programmable Gate Array, basically a chip which can be programmed to work as any piece of hardware — no, you can’t fit an entire x86 CPU in that) and even implementing such algorithms in the FPGA itself to have a chip which can reconfigure itself during its use.

Sounds pretty cool, doesn’t it? And it’s a surprisingly simple idea. Let me demonstrate with a piece of code

func_blocks = []

class GenCircuit():
    def __init__(self):
        self.__config_blocks = [ rand(0, len(func_blocks)) ]
        self.__viability = 0

    @property
    def config_string(self);
        return "".join(self.__config_blocks)
    
    @property
    def viability(self):
        return self.__viability

    def splice(self, instance_b: GenCircuit):
        splice_point = rand(0, len(self.__config_blocks))
        cut_a = self.__config_blocks[splice_point:]
        cut_b = instance_b.__config_blocks[splice_point:]
        
        self.__config_blocks = self.__config_blocks[0:splice_point] + cut_b
        instance_b.__config_blocks = instance_b.__config_blocks[0:splice_point] + cut_a

    def mutate(self):
        mutation_point = rand(0, len(self.__config_blocks))
        self.__config_blocks[mutation_point] = rand(0, len(func_blocks))
        
    def compute(self, *args):
        # simulate whatever the block is supposed to do here
        pass
    
    def evaluate(self, scoreboard):
        for test in scoreboard:
            result = self.compute(*test)
            if result == test.result:
                self.__viability += 1
    
if __name__ == "__main__":
    generations = 1000
    max_instances = 10
    splice_chance = 10
    mutation_chance = 0.1 # always significantly lower than splice chance
    
    scoreboard = []
    viability_threshold = len(scoreboard) * 0.9
    for _ in range(generations):
        instances = instances + [GenCircuit() for _ in range(max_instances - len(instances))]
        
        # evaluate the population
        for i in instances:
            i.evaluate(scoreboard)
        
        # discard non-viable instances
        instances = [ i for i in instances if i.viability >= viability_threshold]    
                
        # splice instances
        for i in instances:
            if rand(0,100) <= splice_chance:
                i.splice(instances(rand(0, len(instances))))
                
        # mutate instances
        for i in instances:
            if rand(0,100) <= mutation_chance:
                i.mutate()
                
    for i in instances:
        print(i.config_string)

The code above is a basic skeleton (it won't work so if you want to toy with it, adjust as necessary) of a genetic algorithm. It consists of a population of randomly generated instances of the GenCircuit which are then evaluated against the scoreboard depending on what your goal is. The most viable instances are then taken into the next generation but before that, they're randomly spliced with one another and some can be mutated before the next generation starts. At the end of the run, you'll end up with instances which are most viable at performing the task you defined in the scoreboard.

The biology-inspired parts are quite on the nose here. Splicing means you cross the “genetic code” of two instances and mutation means the instance gets randomly altered in certain spot. The core principle however is quite simple: generate random “results”, check how good they are, mix them together and maybe change some of them, rinse and repeat. Basically, you have a guided and very specifically constrained RNG.

“Wait, the core principle of that sounds a lot like vibe-coding. That too essentially does random stuff and watches what works!” YES, EXACTLY! Except vibe-coding has far weaker constraints. In what way? The scoreboard is the key. The scoreboard, which in the example is empty and would likely fit a fairly simple task (say, something like a mathematical unit), it's one of the key components because it precisely defines the characteristics of the result. You could say it's a definition of the testbench (technical term in HW verification but also works in the general sense). Putting that scoreboard together requires understanding of the task the final design is supposed to fulfill. And guess what vibe-coding lacks? Exactly.

Now, you might be thinking “But can't genetic algorithm come up with a better solution than the traditional approach?” I'll surprise you but there are instances in which it can in fact come up with a solution that's correct AND more efficient than a traditional design on the same hardware. BUT ... there's a significant caveat. That solution is going to work ONLY and ONLY on that one specific chip or set-up. If you try to transfer it somewhere else, it may not perform well or even not work at all. Why? That's still being investigated and studied but it's quite interesting that the algorithm can sometimes leverage even tiny deviations which happen during the manufacturing process.

But portability, or lack thereof, isn't the only problem. Optimisation is also a non-trivial task because, sure, the correct and reliable output (emphasis on reliable) is critical but it's what use is for a solution which you can't use in the end because you haven't got the resources to run it or it takes ages to produce the result? This is where genetic algorithms get complicated because optimising the solutions to multiple criteria is where the science of this field sits and yes, there are genetic algorithms which are indeed capable of that.

“Ok, the code above seems kind of trivial. It can't be that resource intensive,” you might say. Oh my sweet summer child, the code above will be capable of “resolving” something trivial too. But if you want something really complex, get ready to burn hours and hours of computation on supercomputers and vast majority of that will be verification. Worse, you might end up with a population of solutions that aren't viable at all because there's a small error in the algorithm itself and you have to do the entire process all over again. Need to change the parameters? Full rerun of the algorithm. Adding another parameter? Yup, you guess it, full re-run. See where I'm going with this? Getting these solutions is horrendously inefficient in terms of compute time.

“Wait, can't I just change the resulting code?” What code? In the example above there's no code at all. That example is coded in a way that would produce a finished configuration string to load into the chip (by the way, this is only possible with chips where you know the format of the string in terms of how the blocks and their connections are encoded). Fair enough that you'll likely end up with a generated code, be it Verilog or VHDL (I'm more familiar with the latter from my school years but my current job taught me the former “the hard way”) or if you're using this for software (at which point, who hurt you?) a generated pile of code in the language of your choice. And keep in mind that code has no idea about libraries and/or coding practices because it doesn't care about readability. So ... have fun trying to optimise, let alone debug this. My condolences to your sanity. More often than not the only way is to run the algorithm again (prompt the AI?), possibly tweak the criteria a bit (“engineer” the propmt?) and hope that you were right this time around.

So yeah, I’m sorry vibe-coders but me and quite a lot of people from my generation have done your “magic trick” before it was “free, cool and in” (good lord, I really am a fossil X3). Back then it was resource-heavy, hard to use for complex tasks and absolute nightmare to tweak. And we knew quite well what we wanted to achieve. Your “circus number” is even more resource heavy, also hard to use for complex tasks (if it’s usable at all) and also an absolute nightmare to work with. And as a cherry on top, you have no idea what you want.

So sorry, vibe-coders, you’ve been deprecated before you even became cool >:3

R.R.A.

First thing’s first, what prompted me to write this down aside from my general distaste towards this piece of tech? Funnily enough, it’s the one thing where this is actually useful; reducing the wear on the charging port. Funny that I’m writing this at the time when this isn’t an issue anymore since my close to EOL Edge 30 Ultra has been succeeded by Graphene-powered “Husky” :3 (Pixel 8 Pro). But it’s true that the USB-C port on my E30U has indeed got to a point where the wear is significant enough (partly due to me being a little bit harsh on it occasionally) that the cable can easily slide out of it. This put an idea into my head that maybe I could give “wireless” charging a chance. Quite some time has passed so there was development done, right? Well, yes and no. Sure, there have been engineering solutions to its usability but you can’t just engineer yourself out of physics. What do I mean by that? Well …

Exhibit A: The lack of “wireless” in wireless

Yup, “wireless” charging isn’t wireless at all. Because you need to get the electricity into the charging pad/dock/cradle somehow. And how do you do it? You guessed it, by a wire. That same exact wire which you could move few centimetres and plug it directly into the phone. So congratulations, your “wireless” charging saved you a tiny move while blocking space on your desk/nightstand permanently. Although in the case of the latter it’s not that big of deal.

“But I don’t need to search for the cable” … Neither do I because that cables is ALWAYS in the same spot. And seriously, just having to “fish it out” is a gigantic first world problem. Or are you telling me your desk is in such a disorganised state that you have to conduct a formal investigation to find the right cable? Because this woof has quite a lot of experience when it comes to searching for the correct cables. Years of networking left permanent scars OwO.

“But I you can damage the port if you need to quickly grab the phone!” … Wow, no shit, Sherlock. Of course you can because USB-C isn’t designed to be yanked. Trust me, I did that occasionally which of course contributed to the wear on my previous phone (mind you this started being a little bit of a problem after almost 4 years of use). Long story short, don’t be a dick to your tech and it’ll last.

“But I have a dedicated charging spot” … So do I. It’s where the cable from the charging brick rests and surprise surprise, it’s always roughly in the same spot. And you know what’s even funnier? I actually have a charging stand with a port that I slot the phone into.

“But cables are ugly” … Then make sure your cable management doesn’t look like a pile of spaghetti thrown down the stairs. See the part about needing the cable to put into the pad. You still need to “manage” that one.

“But the pad can be as small as a puck” … Which is still bigger than the cable. The only difference then is that instead of pluging the connector “in” you “stick” the connector to the back. Which can’t be metallic because physics (more on that in a bit).

So yeah, now that I’ve torn down the “practical impracticality” of this “solution” let’s get into the meaty part which is …

Exhibit B: The comical level of inefficiency

This is where physics comes in and basically takes a massive shit all over your “cool tech”. But first, a quick rundown of how this works. The transfer of energy between the charger and the device is done via electromagnetic induction. In short, there’s a coil in the charger which is always powered and the coil in your phone which is normally innert only “powers on” when in vicinity of the charger or in this case a direct contact with the pad. In essence, the pair of coils creates a 1:1 transformer to transfer the energy from the charger coil into the phone coil and from there to the battery. You’ll also notice a distinct lack of conductive “core” in this ad-hoc transformer so the transfer comes through just air between the two.

Note that I’ve mentioned that the core in an actual transformer is conductive. Part of that is to minimise the losses in the transfer between the two circuits. But in this case, we have no core at all and air is a really, really bad conductor. Otherwise we’d be getting shocks all the time and part of why the actual wireless transfer of electricity is so difficult (unless you want to cosplay Red Alert Soviet Union and make Tesla coils to “defend your land”).

How does this relate to “wireless” charging? It’s the reason why it’s so massively inefficent. Seriously, the amount of power you need to put into the chager is ~2 times the amount you get into the recipient’s coil. Yup, the air and all the insulating materials between the coils eat almost half of the power you’re putting in. And where do the losses go? You guessed it, heat. The same heat the lithium cells in your battery really don’t like.

To pour salt into the wound, the coils can’t just be “somewhere close by”. Oh no, they need to be properly aligned. Most of that is that they have to fully overlap one another so you don’t have part of the coil “shooting” electricity into the air around or part of the phone’s body where it does nothing useful. And no, this can’t be solved by having multiple coils because you can’t selectively power parts of the coils that are “in contact“. So if you try this, you end up with a charger that wastes even more energy.

“But MagSafe/Qi2” … Oh my sweet summer child, I’m ready for this one. Yes, making the coil from a magnetic material or adding a magnetic ring to the back of your phone solves the alignment issue. You know what else solves this issue? And it ironically comes from the very same company that created the “new MagSafe”? And that “old” thing WAS CALLED MagSafe? AND IT’S STILL BEING USED BY THE VERY SAME COMPANY?! Yes, a cable which can magnetically snap into the charging slot. And you know what’s even better about that? The cable can be small and doesn’t need to “slot in” deep so it also solves the “yanking” problem.

If you feel like your brain is now buffering, don’t worry. You’ve just been faced with the reality that Apple ALREADY has probably the best approach to charging and didn’t manage to use it’s industry leverage (which it already had quite a lot of) to make sure it’s THE charging standard. Because not only it “looks better”, it’s more practical than USB-C for everything (hell, this could be used for data transfers too) AND has a “built-in” intrusion prevention because there’s no “hole” to get dust, sand or water into. The only thing you need to protect are the contacts which, since they’re easily reachable can even be cleaned from corrosion over time. Seriously, if you have a Macbook, look at the power adapter port and you’ll see what I mean.

So yeah, in the end, the “wireless” charging is, pardon my language, a crippled version of an already awesome piece of engineering. And before you ask about the “MagSafe accessories” … That could’ve been a thing even without this. Even better, we could still have phones with metallic back which you can’t have with “wireless” charging because a certain guy called Michael Faraday once built this thing called “Faraday cage” to demonstrate that the electricity travels on the surface of conductive materials so anything you put in that cage is isolated from any EM radiation (not ionising one) as long as it’s not in a direct contact with the cage.

In conclusion, “wireless” charging is really not a good piece of tech. And the true wireless charging would make the world really dangerous place to be in because I highly doubt you want to be anywhere near something that’s effectively a Tesla coil.

R.R.A.

Example 1: Facebook pages … aka putting promo posters behind locked doors

Let’s start with something a little older than one of my favourite pet peeves (don’t worry, I’ll get to that one soon >:3). Years ago, I’d hazard to say it’s been more than a decade and a half these days when Meta wasn’t even Meta, Facebook added the ability to create pages for “non-living” entities by which I mean companies, products, brands etc. Taken at face value, it’s not a necessarily a bad idea; you get a way to promote and inform about your product AND you get a more direct contact with your customer base with all the benefits and risks involved.

However, there’s a catch. You need to have an account there. This results in a strange situation where you’re promoting your brand or product or whatever else in a place where you need a key to enter. It’s kind of like putting the posters into your house’s hallway and letting in everyone who has a key to that hallway. But isn’t that a little bit counter-intuitive? Think about it. You want to reach as wide of an audience as possible but at the same time you restrict your own visibility.

You could argue that it’s so wide-spread that you can “tank” the cost of the people who don’t see it. You could also argue that there’s no infrastructure cost. To both which I can easily answer: “For now”. How long until that free space becomes a “paid space” because your traffic is “putting a lot of strain on the infrastructure”? Or what if you’re promoting something that doesn’t align with the “platform owner”? The latter should be something to worry you because you don’t “own” the space. And if you’re only visible in these places, you don’t even own whatever you’re promoting because it can be made invisible with a single decision you can’t appeal (and forget about legal fights because: “Rules not enforced = rules non-existent”).

So what’s the answer? Your own site with all the needed infrastructure? Honestly, a bit of both. Having a social platform presence is not a bad thing BUT it must not be your only presence. Your own site AND social platform complement one another. Relying solely on the latter not only falls into the category “using the wrong tools” but also puts you in danger of losing all you have.

Example 2: Discord (and to some degree IMs in general) … The tool of social everything and nothing

Alright, now let’s get into the meaty stuff. This one’s my personal favourite, especially in the tech field, because it’s one of the strongest examples of “tech-bro” mindset EVEN in FOSS. Long story short, if your project has Discord as the support and contact channel AND it’s your only contact, you don’t provide a support channel, period.

“But nobody uses forums these days” … FALSE!!! Shut up, sit down and let this fledgling network veteran talk. First, especially if you’re using Linux, look at every major distro. Fedora? Check. Arch? Those are mildly infamous but check. Debian? Check. Hell, even in mobile space; GrapheneOS, LineageOS, … For fucks sake, EVEN some big corps have searchable and indexable forums that are accessible to the public!!!

“But what’s the point of forums when chat is immediate?” … Archiving, my dear. Archiving and indexing. Yes, forum posts can and are indexed by search engines so you can use your favourite search provides to look for those. And in quite a few cases, the forums allow a read-only search too. Which means no account to remember login credentials to, not to mention lower digital footprint.

Then there’s the ownership part too. If you do something against the platform’s “Terms of Service”, your support place goes poof and with it EVERYTHING that was there. You know what that means? Your project got effectively shot in the head and left to bleed out. Because without support, your work will inevitably deteriorate.

“But then I need to think about storage, backup, handling people …” Congratulations! You discovered that you need to “CARE” and have the responsibility for what you’re doing and/or providing. And you will be held accountable for any fuck-up. Sure, putting up with all that stuff isn’t exactly easy but here’s a charming solution: you don’t have to do this alone. There are many hands which can help you. And if you’re not a total dick, they’ll be more than willing to have a part in your ideas.

Anyway, I’m getting side-tracked. The reason Discord (and similar) is a bad tool for the job (and in many cases an absolutely horrible one) is because it’s being used for everything. Chat, forums, file-sharing (ffs, this is probably one of the stupidest use-cases), VCs etc. And to be honest, even for the stuff it’s been designed for primarily it’s rather or at least has become over the course of time kind of not-so-great.

“So what, am I supposed to use all the things separately?” … Yes, yes you are. Chat for stuff that’s either specific to a person (DMs) and anything that is ephemeral and doesn’t need to be saved for long periods of time. If you need something that’s supposed to be saved, then it’s your responsibility to do so. And if it’s something to be shared, that’s what forums are for. Or wikis if it’s more intended to be consumed rather than having active participation. Voice chats? Ever heard of Mumble? TeamSpeak? Believe it or not, these are having a bit of a renaissance moment. Streaming? Yeah, that one’s a more difficult thing but tbh, video-streaming in general is such a colossal clusterfuck in today’s internet that the only way to make it right is to scorch everything we have and start over properly. File-sharing? Umm, ever heard of share links? That way the file not only stays in the space YOU control but also doesn’t end up needlessly replicated in whatever security breach inevitably happens.

Example 3: Microblogging platforms … except you forgot the “micro” along the way

Ok, I’ll admit I’m occasionally guilty of this one too but then again I’m also aware it’s not the right way to use things like Mastodon for long-form content (unlike some *glares at GrapheneOS with mild contempt*, but they’ve now taken steps to not do it … UNLIKE SOME *glares at pluralistic with greater contempt*). And no, just because the platform can display threads properly doesn’t make it suitable. Seriously, you have a longer thought? put it on a blog AND use the short-form platform to “tease” and promote the longer version as well as give it the reach.

And no, your blog doesn’t need to be fancy. C’mon, just look at me, using probably the simplest blogging platform I can think of and being really satisfied (not and ad, just a fan ;3). Keep the short-form platforms for “thoughts of the moment” things, use it as a fancier RSS-feed (while having an actual RSS at the same time for convenience). Trust me when I tell it’ll make you look more “professional” when you look like you have at least some idea about what you’re doing. And remember it’s coming from me who’s about as organised as a dog with ADHD (wait, I’m part German shepherd who are basically “ADHD on four legs”).

Conclusion: You have an entire toolbox and it’s high time it’s being used fully.

So yeah, when it comes to digital tools, we’re absolutely horrible. Part of that is on us, techies, being horrible teachers and sometimes bad examples ourselves which should be a major wake-up call to action to seriously start fixing this mess. Be there for the people, offer help and support when needed (and I mean actual support as much as it is mundane), educate and lead towards independence (if your “student” is dependent on you, you’re a bad teacher but that’s a topic for another time), lead by example when you can, showing the proper deployments and use of the tools and how to make sure all of the pieces talk to each other nicely. If you have shareable knowledge, make it easy to access. Trust me, your pet project isn’t something that needs “strategic nuclear weapons” level of secrecy. You’re not likely to revolutionise the field like Ada Lovelace or Alan Turing. And let’s be honest, they would be going over their heads to share their knowledge with as many people as possible. You know, like actual scientists.

So yeah, the “old internet” didn’t die. It’s just a little bit quiet. Let’s have it shine again.

R.R.A.

Anyone who dabbled at least a little bit into coding or gamedev has heard terms like “machine learning” or AI. Hell, the behaviour of non-player actors in games is colloquially referred to as AI despite it being something completely different. When you look under the hood, you can see the “magic” behind; decision trees, neural networks, all the maths that would fry one’s brain for a while. And yet, none of this is anywhere remotely close to intelligence. It’s not even close to learning. This is not the fault of the algorithms or the tools but a fault of those who defined the technical term. How come? Well, first of …

Accumulating knowledge isn’t learning

How many times have you been told in school to “study” a certain subject only to memorise it and then repeat it when being asked about it during a small exam? Were you given an explanation? Have you sought reasons? If the answer to any of the latter two is “no” then you didn’t learn. You at best accumulated knowledge. It’s as if you got a book only to put it into a bookshelf without ever reading it by which I don’t just mean going through the pages but actually reading the book start to end, pondering the thoughts of the author.

Machine learning operates on this exact principle. You take knowledge and cram it into the machine without explanation or any reasoning. You’re effectively doing “Here, study this and the recite it word for word. Points down for any inaccuracy.” If that sentence made your blood boil, I’m sorry that you experienced having some shitty teachers (as we all did).

“But unsupervised learning …”; Yes, unsupervised learning is a thing. It’s effectively supposed to be an analogy of self-learning. But it still isn’t learning. Why? Exactly because the “why” is missing. Humans are naturally curious. Kids even more because they’re not jaded yet. Machine is not because it doesn’t understand the concept of curiosity. It won’t seek reasoning. And without reasoning, there can be no improvement because you can’t identify the mistakes to learn from. To quote Vesemir from the prologue of Witcher 3 (can’t believe I’m actually doing this): “Don’t practice alone. It’ll only embed your errors.” How does this quote apply? Because you don’t know you’re making a mistake. And once you find out, it’ll take ages to unlearn AND relearn the skill. To give you an idea, it takes roughly the same amount of time to unlearn a mistake as it takes to learn the skill to the current level you’re on with the mistake embedded in.

“But backpropagation, weight adjustments, …” let me stop you right here with all the fancy words. None of these are even remotely close to reasoning. Why? Because …

Intelligence isn’t purely statistical

Human brain doesn’t operate on statistics. Sure, thinking has the concept of uncertainty and probability but the mathematical equivalent of that is an approximation of those. And we don’t use these two as primary tools. They come into play if we’re dealing with something not previously observed. Otherwise we go for tools which are far more deterministic.

“Oh, so like associative memory. A cache …” technically yes. Except you’re not replacing items in the cache but always expanding it AND adjusting the mechanism which did the initial decision-making process. And the latter you need to do WITHOUT impacting anything unrelated unintentionally. Human brain can do that. Artificial “brain”? That’s a different story.

Now, to make matters worse, all of the above was about analytical ML; the kind of machine learning which intended to be fed a massive pile of data to give you a rough idea about what’s in there and make the pile into smaller piles which are easier to work with later. When we enter the space of generative ML the things crumble even more spectacularly because …

There can be no creation without intention

This simple sentence is basically the nail in the coffin of generative ML/AI and THE REASON why creative work is irreplaceable; by which I mean writers, visual artists, engineers etc. Machine learning doesn’t act with intention. It doesn’t act off of its own will for it has none. It acts without understanding. That AI-generated image with 6 fingers on one hand? That’s because AI doesn’t know it’s a human hand. And it’ll never learn that it’s supposed to be a human hand. The underlying model might “know” what human hand is. It might be full of references of different poses, shapes, sizes, etc. And yet it’ll still produce errors. Because the WHY isn’t there.

Same applies to text. Why is AI-generated text so “painful” to read? Because there’s no intention behind the words. It’s pretty much “math turned into words” which in itself is horrendous to read (if you ever read anything written by a mathematician, you know the pain). It’s void of intent, distilled into pure, rigid description. And the level of rigidity is so high that it doesn’t even work for spaces where precision is needed because then it fails due to loss of broader scope. Long story short, AI doesn’t understand that words have meaning and one formulates a thought in a certain way because there’s an intention behind it. Yes, even the seemingly boring scientific article is written the way it is intentionally.

And that intention is something that’s not possible to simulate. Not even agentic systems operate with intention. They’re autonomous and operate mostly without constant supervision but they don’t start doing anything without external stimulus. They still need a list of tasks. In the context of coding, they can at best implement a feature but not come up with a new one. So if someone tells you they use “AI” for brainstorming, then they don’t understand that they’re already doing that and they don’t need AI in the first place. In that case AI is literally doing nothing because it’s by definition incapable of doing so.

AI will never learn

In the end, Artificial “Intelligence” will never become intelligent. Why? Exactly because the WHY will never be there. It’ll never be capable of understanding the subject at hand, no matter how specialised it’ll be. It’ll never be more capable than its user for the user will ALWAYS be the limitation. And that limitation is irremovable because the user is the ONLY way to provide the model with some form of reasoning which is still very inaccurate and it’ll need constant adjustment because the retention of that reasoning is impossible. In the end, AI never learns. Even the most stubborn person in the universe will eventually learn (unless they intentionally refuse to but then again, there’s the intention).

So yeah, I “hate” to say it, universal AI is by definition impossible because your definition of learning doesn’t match the actual process of learning.

R.R.A.

As you’ve probably caught from the intro, I don’t like “AI”. I personally refuse to call present day’s “bullshit generator” AI because that stuff isn’t even remotely intelligent. Tbh, it’s barely knowledgeable. AI generated imagery makes me roll my eyes, AI generated memes make me want to pull the spine out of the “creator’s” arsehole (yeah, nice job, self-titled “liberator”/”democracy defender”) and whenever someone mentions words “AI summary”, I have the utmost urge to summarily grind their face into a paste with the heaviest book I can find. Being a creative person as my hobby, it makes my blood boil to even use the term “content creator”. But I’m not here to talk about this. I’m here to talk about my “work” field or at least part of it; coding and the involvement of AI in it. And whoo boy do we need to talk because the level of flippant shit-flinging in this field is like watching a RW-nutjobs meeting “for better XYZ”.

AI-assisted coding != Vibe-coding

This. This right here is something everyone in this discussion should drill into their skull. These two, while related, are very distinct things. How? AI-assisted coding means you’re using an AI tool to help you put the pieces of code together with you, the programmer, providing the competence to the tool. You’re essentially turning the AI tool of your choice into a second pair of hands; a really dumb and massively energy inefficient pair of hands which you have to constantly watch and guide so it doesn’t do anything stupid. And to make matters worse, it won’t even learn anything because guess what, it doesn’t know how to learn (but guess who would actually learn something *looks at many undergrads/juniors*). No, pouring a bucket of knowledge into a machine isn’t learning. It needs understand why and when. And no, statistics aren’t the solution.

Vibe-coding (I’m seriously going to find whoever coined the term and fix their vibes by cracking their nuts, if they have any) on the other hand is prompting the AI tool until it produces something that looks like you want (spoiler alert, it’s absolutely nothing like what you want) without a sliver of an idea what the fuck are you doing. Like, in the case of the former there’s at least a somewhat competent person using an incompetent tool. In this case … You know the so-many-times-repeated story of “if you close a crowd of monkeys into a room and let them randomly type, one of them will eventually type a Shakespeare’s play”, right? Well, congratulations. You’re exactly that; a monkey randomly typing. Except you have no idea what a typewriter is or who Shakespeare is or why are you even in that room in the first place.

Now, why am I making this distinction? Because people tend to conflate these two together. This results in rather flippant and reactionary (sounds familiar?) environment surrounding the field where instead of trying to find some way out of this mess, people are too busy throwing shit at one another (sounds familiar?). Should you stay clear of vibe-coded projects? Absolutely because the person behind them has no idea what they’re doing. Should you be wary of a project which allows AI-assisted contributions? Absolutely because doing so puts a HUGE competence requirement on the maintainers of the project. This jump is so massive that the competence needed will very likely exceed the capabilities of the maintainers which can either result in the team spiraling further down into the vibe-coding hole (then it’s time to jump ship) or the team seriously re-evaluating the AI strategy and making sure there are strict guardrails and competence development going along with the tool assessment (I know this sounds corporate as shit but if you adopt corporate tools, you’re going to need corporate-level procedures). And the reason is …

AI is a power amplifier

It’s been a while since I stumbled upon some articles discussing the effects of AI on “productivity” and from these two thoughts stuck to my mind; “The workers who use AI burn out way quicker.” and the other being the name of this section “AI is a power amplifier.” And if you think about it, AI is indeed exactly that. It doesn’t make your work faster, it makes it more intense. And this amplification applies to everything; there suddenly more to do, more to keep an eye on, more to evaluate. More, more, more. But human mind can’t handle more. Not without expenses in other areas. Which then leads to, you guessed it, burnout.

The increase in cognitive requirement is absolutely gigantic and will easily exceed one’s cognitive abilities. In terms of code, this increase means you have to put more effort into making sure the code you’re working with is competently made because you need to account for both your margin for error and the margin of error of the AI tool. On the reviewer side, you need to put more effort into the actual review because there’s an increased chance of dealing with a code that was made not by someone who probably has some holes in their knowledge (at which point it’s up to you to be their mentor for a bit) but by someone who probably has no idea what they did and you have to teach them or at least lead them to the relevant knowledge. Notice how I’m not saying to keep them away from the AI toolchain and you’re probably wondering why it’s not a solution. The answer to that is simple:

Sloppy code is sloppy code. Period.

So, let’s have a situation like this. A maintainer of a project rejects a contribution as they don’t accept anything AI-assisted but they extend the “grace” to have the code redone by the contributor without using any AI tools. The contributor comes back after some time, providing a human-written code only to have it rejected again because it doesn’t meet the required standards.

What’s the problem? The contributor learnt nothing. Partly because they don’t know any better (the previous AI venture didn’t provide them with the knowledge required to handle the task properly) AND they weren’t provided any guidance. The latter is however a fault of the maintainer for not giving the contributor any direction. I’m not saying you’re supposed to mentor the contributor all the time. But if the will to learn is there, giving them at least some guidelines will do a lot of good in the long run. Just to give an idea, this is what I learnt years ago from my coach:

• If you know and have the time, educate
• If you know but don’t have the time to educate, provide guidelines for self-study
• If you don’t know or aren’t confident but know someone who could provide the knowledge, refer to them

Shunning the person away without giving them directions hurts both sides. It hurts the project because it gives away hostile environment and the sloppy coder will stay a sloppy coder.

Correct code is correct code, no matter how it’s made

Let’s take a look on something different. Let’s have piece of code that’s integrated into a project. The project then passes all validation with no issues and to top it up, it even satisfies any formal verification rules. Now, after you have all the results, you find out the code was AI-assisted. And yes, AI-assisted NOT vibe-coded. Should the code be rejected? Think about the chain of events; the piece of code went through a review WITHOUT being recognised or declared as AI-assisted, it was seamlessly integrated into the project which then passed all validation and verification criteria, including formal verification. There are three layers of proof speaking against rejection. Would rejection of the code be a correct approach?

One valid argument you could say is AI-assisted is recognisable. I’d disagree on the ground of the mechanism which “powers” programming languages; the formal languages. Programming languages, unlike natural languages, have much more rigid structure when it comes to syntax and semantics. There’s no hidden or secondary meaning that can be derived from context. And guess what operates well within a rigid structure of rules? Algorithms. Even algorithms which are heavily influenced by statistics like those used in machine-learning. Sure, you can reach a different result when it comes to optimising the solution for a given task but if that rule set is properly specified to the AI tool, with this guidance it’ll very likely reach the same solution as if a competent and experienced programmer would reach. Remember the “power amplifier” thing? In this specific use case the AI is indeed a cognitive amplifier in a sense that it allows you to “search” through the set of possible solutions quicker. At the same time however it increases the cognitive load of you having the ability to properly evaluate the proposed solution because it may be something you wouldn’t come up with in the first place. Not to mention the solution can have caveats, such as not being portable (if you know about genetic algorithms and their use in programmable HW design, then you might be familiar with some of them). But if one can’t distinguish between AI-assisted and fully human-made code when they both achieve the solution within given constraints, then either the review process is weak or the possible solutions are equivalent regardless of the approach.

So … what now?

That’s a good question. At the present time, the AI tools are so horribly inefficient for what they can do that I personally can’t justify their use, especially when the increased cognitive load is taken into account as well. It’s simply not within people’s mental capacity to handle the requirements and throwing more AI at the problem will only make it worse. And let’s be honest, when you think about the potential uses what do you end up with? You either get a second pair of hands which you have to constantly babysit, or you get a huge kick in the face showing you how utterly inept you are at the task you want to do, or a tool to do things you don’t even want to do in the first place at which point why are you even considering doing them?

But what to do now when so many people just don’t accept the problems? Well, let me at least try and propose the following when encountering a project which uses AI:

• Is the project vibe-coded? Don’t touch that with a kilometre long pole because the creator has no idea what they’re doing. And if they have the knowledge, they don’t have the necessary resources to handle the project, be it personal or managerial.
• Is the project lenient towards AI-assisted contributions? Hold them to the same standard as if they were human-made. The approval process stays the same and if set right, it’ll result in rejection of the sloppy code pieces because, as established above, sloppy code will be sloppy no matter if made with AI or just with general lack of competence.
• Is the project sensitive to security and is allowing AI-assisted contributions? In that case hold the proverbial knife to the neck of both the contributor AND the maintainers. You’re probably already doing the latter so extending it to the former shouldn’t be a big deal. Security stuff is no joke and if the people involved think they have the cognitive skills to handle the AI and human contributors? Then hold them to that words to the highest scrutiny and they fuck up, make it hurt.

There we go. This is, at least in my eyes, the nearest road to navigate the messed up landscape of tech people grossly overestimating their mental abilities only to end up face first in the meatgrinder. Trust me, we techies are idiots who have a master class in denial and absolute ultra elite class in lack of interpersonal skills (btw, that lack is deliberate). On the bright side, both can be fixed. The former by actually sitting down and exchanging knowledge and the latter by sticking our heads out of our dungeons and, you know, talking to people. Trust me, you might find out that the amount of stupid people is way lower than everyone is trying to tell you, including your “comrades”. And believe me, the social issues are a way bigger troublemaker than any technical issues in our pet projects going industrial scale.

R.R.A.