commit bbc40dbe19c1ff1214d6158b0231d01c694a99c8
parent bf1b2d7502136d8615dfe0cd4ea6fdd3c7a96173
Author: Eamon Caddigan <eamon.caddigan@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2025 15:31:03 -0700
Add weeknote for 2025-W12
Diffstat:
1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/content/posts/weeknotes/2025-w12/index.md b/content/posts/weeknotes/2025-w12/index.md
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+---
+title: "Weeknote for 2025-W12"
+description: "R on Codeberg, types of AI skeptics, and fed news"
+date: 2025-03-17T08:59:00-07:00
+draft: false
+categories:
+- Weeknotes
+tags:
+- R
+- Git
+- LLMs
+---
+
+## How to move R projects to Codeberg
+
+[Last week]({{< ref
+"/posts/weeknotes/2025-w11/index.md#workflows-for-collaborating-with-git" >}})
+I shared a link collaborating with [Git]({{< ref "/tags/git" >}}) and no code
+forge, but now I want to share a new (to me) resource for doing [R]({{< ref
+"/tags/r" >}}) on Codeberg, "a democratic community-driven, non-profit software
+development platform." I have yet to use Codeberg, but if I ever develop an R
+package outside of work, that's where I'd host the project.
+
+[Resources and tools for developing R packages on codeberg](https://codeberg.org/r-codeberg)
+
+## An ontology of AI skeptics
+
+I posted a quick update to [an older entry about LLM-base "coding
+assistants"]({{< ref "/posts/coding-assistants/" >}}), which reminded me of
+this (non-definitive) guide to AI skepticism. I certainly don't follow this
+world as closely as Riley, but this seems like a fair-handed account of the
+terrain.
+
+I just wish this had addressed the environmentalist critique of LLMs (and large
+"foundation models" generally); it strikes me as the most urgent and
+consequential issue facing the development of this technology.
+
+[Who and What comprise AI
+Skepticism?](https://buildcognitiveresonance.substack.com/p/who-and-what-comprises-ai-skepticism)
+
+## What's new in the federal government
+
+Last week, workers at my agency received an urgent directive to remove any
+pronouns from our email signatures. As a human being with a conscience, I'm
+distressed and saddened by this expression of a dangerous (and frankly evil)
+ideology. But also? As a person with relatively uncommon name, I'm annoyed that
+it's become more difficult to indicate to strangers that I use masculine
+pronouns[^pronouns]. I've complied with the order by removing my email
+signature, and will just refer to people using gender neutral pronouns in my
+correspondences except when I know to do otherwise.
+
+Friday was also the deadline to accept a voluntary severance offer that was
+sent to employees in my (still unnamed) agency. Many of my colleagues and I
+were later told we were ineligible, which is supposed to be a good sign?
+
+[^pronouns]: I'm not offended when people use gender-neutral pronouns to refer
+ to me, but my preference is for _he/him_. Everybody should be free to
+communicate such preferences.
