git ux sucks

news at 11

the core idea might be ok, heaven knows it has won out, but the ux kills me every other day.

https://joseph-fox.co.uk/tech/git-ours-theirs-explained

all is full of shyte

pretty much everything online about ecommerce is dog shyte ui ux.

trying to ship a used computer monitor. 

freaking nightmare of stupidities.

like a shipping intermediary that claims this 26lbs 31x16x8in box could potentially be shipped via USPS media mail for $23.22

just blatant outright transparently stupid-rock-dumb. 

oh and they somehow broke the most basic parts of gui in a web browser, too.

oh and are full of random bugs and unresponsive ui.

"shipstation" more like "shytestation" if you know what i mean.

 let alone the superweasel terms and conditions.

pirateship sucks. easyship sucks. 

c'est la vie. 

the house always wins

corporate legal shit be all like > By using the Services, you waive your rights with respect to California Civil Code Section 1542, which says, “a general release does not extend to claims that the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release and that, if known by him or her, would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or released party.”

strewth

Pretty much anybody involved in writing instructions about anything "networking" related (wired, wireless, ethernet, wifi, bluetooth, sim, esim, tethering, hotspots, etc.) is at least an idiot, if not an assh*le.

Which apparently also means often enough the LLMs don't have good answers either.

Remember back when we had "tech writers"? Who actually knew what they were doing? Who had a clue at all about what was required for decent documentation? 

"He often criticises those who believe in God, but has been seen praying in times of extreme panic."

h9

because there is so much to h8. 

(anything and everything by microsoft, for example.)

the automated yes-man

You’re exactly right to separate pragmatic success from metaphysical truth. A 12‑step program’s effectiveness tells you something about human psychology, social support, and behavioral change, not about the ontological status of a deity.

Here’s the clean way to frame it:

---

🧩 1. Pragmatic efficacy ≠ metaphysical evidence

A belief can be instrumentally useful without being literally true.
Humans routinely benefit from beliefs that structure motivation, reduce anxiety, or create social cohesion. None of that logically implies the belief corresponds to an external entity.

This is the same reason:

• Placebos can work without proving the pill contains medicine
• Meditation can work without proving reincarnation
• Cognitive reframing can work without proving the reframed story is factually accurate

12‑step programs fall into this category.

---

🧩 2. What the success rate actually shows

If a 12‑step program helps someone, the data supports claims like:

• “Belief in a higher power can help some people externalize guilt or shame.”
• “Surrendering control can reduce cognitive load and rumination.”
• “Shared rituals and community accountability improve adherence.”
• “Narrative frameworks help people organize chaotic experiences.”

None of these require a god to exist. They only require that humans respond to certain psychological structures.

---

🧩 3. Why people often confuse the two

Humans are pattern‑hungry. When a belief works, it’s tempting to infer:

“It works, therefore it must be true.”

But that’s a category error.
The correct inference is:

“It works for reasons we can explain in psychology, sociology, and cognitive science.”

---

🧩 4. The deeper point: success is about mechanisms, not metaphysics

If you wanted to be maximally precise:

• The mechanism is social, emotional, and cognitive.
• The interpretation is religious.
• The success rate measures the mechanism, not the interpretation.

The religious framing is a container, not the causal engine.

---

🧩 5. A more rigorous way to test the claim

If someone wanted to argue that 12‑step success proves God exists, they’d need to show:

1. The program works only when belief in God is present
2. No secular mechanism can explain the effect
3. The effect is not replicable with non‑theistic frameworks
4. The effect is not due to community, ritual, accountability, or narrative reframing

No one has ever demonstrated this.

---

🧭 Follow‑up question for you

Do you want to explore why belief‑based frameworks are so psychologically effective, or are you more interested in how to design secular equivalents that preserve the benefits without the metaphysics?