Finally did it. Quit my job.

The full story:
Just came back from vacation to find out that pretty much all the work I put at place has been either destroyed by "temporary fixes" or wiped clean in favour of buggy older versions. The reason, and this is a direct quote "Ari left the code riddled with bugs prior to leaving".

Oh no. Oh no I did not you fucker.

Some background:

My boss wrote a piece of major software with another coder (over the course of month and a balf). This software was very fragile as its intention was to demo specific features we want to adopt for a version 2 of it.

I was then handed over this software (which was vanilajs with angular) and was told to "clean it up" introduce a typing system, introduce a build system, add webpack for better module and dependency management, learn cordova (because its essential and I had no idea of how it works). As well as fix the billion of issues with data storage in the software. Add a webgui and setup multiple databses for data exports from the app. Ensure that transmission of the data is clean and valid.

What else. This software had ZERO documentation. And I had to sit my boss for a solid 3hrs plus some occasional questions as I was developing to get a clear idea of whats going on.

Took a bit over 3 weeks. But I had the damn thing ported over. Cleaned up. And partially documented.

During this period, I was suppose to work with another 2 other coders "my team". But they were always pulled into other things by my Boss.

During this period, I kept asking for code reviews (as I was handling a very large code base on my own).

During this period, I was asking for help from my boss to make sure that the visual aspect of the software meets the requirements (there are LOTS of windows, screens, panels etc, which I just could not possibly get to checking on my own).

At the end of this period. I went on vacation (booked by my brothers for my bday <3 ).

I come back. My work is null. The Boss only looked at it on the friday night leading up to my return. And decided to go back to v1 and fix whatever he didnt like there.

So this guy calls me. Calls me on a friggin SUNDAY. I like just got off the plane. Was heading to dinner with my family.
He and another coder have basically nuked my work. And in an extremely hacky way tied some things together to sort of work. Moreever, the webguis that I setup for the database viewing. They were EDITED ON THE PRODUCTION SERVER without git tracking!!

So monday. I get bombarded with over 20 emails. Claiming that I left things in an usuable state with no documentation. As well as I get yelled at by my boss for introducing "unnecessary complicated shit".

For fuck sakes. I was the one to bring the word documentation into the vocabulary of this company. There are literally ZERO documentated projects here. While all of mine are at least partially documented (due to lack of time).

For fuck sakes, during my time here I have been basically begging to pull the coder who made the admin views for our software and clean up some of the views so that no one will ever have to touch any database directly.

To say this story is the only reason I am done is so not true.

I dedicated over a year to this company. During this time I saw aspects of this behaviour attacking other coders as well as me. But never to this level.

I am so friggin happy that I quit. Never gonna look back.

--- HTTP/3 is coming! And it won't use TCP! ---

A recent announcement reveals that HTTP - the protocol used by browsers to communicate with web servers - will get a major change in version 3!

Before, the HTTP protocols (version 1.0, 1.1 and 2.2) were all layered on top of TCP (Transmission Control Protocol).
TCP provides reliable, ordered, and error-checked delivery of data over an IP network.
It can handle hardware failures, timeouts, etc. and makes sure the data is received in the order it was transmitted in.
Also you can easily detect if any corruption during transmission has occurred.
All these features are necessary for a protocol such as HTTP, but TCP wasn't originally designed for HTTP!
It's a "one-size-fits-all" solution, suitable for *any* application that needs this kind of reliability.
TCP does a lot of round trips between the client and the server to make sure everybody receives their data. Especially if you're using SSL. This results in a high network latency.
So if we had a protocol which is basically designed for HTTP, it could help a lot at fixing all these problems.
This is the idea behind "QUIC", an experimental network protocol, originally created by Google, using UDP.

Now we all know how unreliable UDP is: You don't know if the data you sent was received nor does the receiver know if there is anything missing. Also, data is unordered, so if anything takes longer to send, it will most likely mix up with the other pieces of data. The only good part of UDP is its simplicity.
So why use this crappy thing for such an important protocol as HTTP?
Well, QUIC fixes all these problems UDP has, and provides the reliability of TCP but without introducing lots of round trips and a high latency! (How cool is that?)

The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has been working (or is still working) on a standardized version of QUIC, although it's very different from Google's original proposal.
The IETF also wants to create a version of HTTP that uses QUIC, previously referred to as HTTP-over-QUIC. HTTP-over-QUIC isn't, however, HTTP/2 over QUIC.
It's a new, updated version of HTTP built for QUIC.

Now, the chairman of both the HTTP working group and the QUIC working group for IETF, Mark Nottingham, wanted to rename HTTP-over-QUIC to HTTP/3, and it seems like his proposal got accepted!
So version 3 of HTTP will have QUIC as an essential, integral feature, and we can expect that it no longer uses TCP as its network protocol.

We will see how it turns out in the end, but I'm sure we will have to wait a couple more years for HTTP/3, when it has been thoroughly tested and integrated.

Thank you for reading!

Boss hands over to me an old security audit report and tells me "Go through this and check if all the problems mentioned have been resolved". Quick glance through the report shows all expected issues - SQLi, plaintext transmission and storage etc. I tell him that I need access to the application both from admin and a user with restricted privileges.
He hands me the admin credentials and tells me, "After you login in, just go the "Users" tab. You'll find the profiles of all the users there. You can get the emails and passwords of any user you want from there."
I had to hold back a chuckle. There's nothing to verify. If they haven't resolved storing plain text passwords in the database (AND displaying it IN PLAIN TEXT in the website itself (which to my surprise wasn't mentioned in the audit)), they probably haven't even looked at the report.

Long long ago there was a man who discovered if he scratched certain patterns onto a rock he could use them to remind him about things he would otherwise forgot.

Over time the scratching were refined and this great secret of eternal memory were taught to his children, and they taught it to their children.

Soon mankind had discovered a way to preserve through the ages his thoughts and memories and further discovered that if he wrote down these symbols he could transfer information over distances by simply recording these symbols in a portable medium.

Writing exploded it allowed a genius in one place to communicate the information he had recorded across time and space.

Thousands of years passed, writing continued to be refined and more and more vital. Eventually a humble man by the name of Johannes Gutenberg seeking to make the divine word of God accessible to the people created the printing press allowing the written word to be copied and circulated with great ease expanding vastly the works available to mankind and the number of people who could understand this arcane art of writing.

But mankind never satiated in his desire to know all there is to know demanded more information, demanded it faster, demanded it better. So the greatest minds of 200 years, Marconi, Maxwell, Bohr, Von Nueman, Turing and a host of others working with each other, standing on the shoulders of their brobdinangian predecessors, brought forth a way to send these signals, transfer this writing upon beams of light, by manipulating the very fabric of the cosmos, mankind had reach the ultimate limits of transmission of information. Man has conquered time, and space itself in preserving and transmitting information, we are as the gods!

My point is this, that your insistence upon having a meeting to ask a question, with 10 people that could've been answered with a 2 sentence email, is not only an affront to me for wasting my time, but also serves as an affront to the greatest minds of the 19th and 20th centuries, it is an insult to your ancestors who first sacrificed and labored to master the art of writing, it is in fact offensive to all of humanity up to this point.

In short by requiring a meeting to be held, not only are you ensuring the information is delayed because we all now need to find a time that all of us are available, not only are you now eliminating the ability to have a first hand permanent record of what need to be communicated, you are actively working against progress, you are dragging humanity collectively backwards. You join the esteemed ranks of organizations such as the oppressive Catholic church that sought to silence Galialio and Copernicus, you are among the august crowd that burned witches at Salem, the Soviet secret police that silenced "bourgeoisie" science, you join the side of thousands of years of daft ignorance.

If it were not for you people we would have flying cars, we would have nanobots capable of building things on a whim, we would all be programming in lisp. But because of you and people like you we are trapped in this world, where the greatest minds are trapped in meetings that never end, where mistruth and ignorance run rampant, a world where JavaScript is the de facto language of choice every where because it runs everywhere, and ruins everywhere.

So please remember, next time you want to have a meeting ask yourself first. "Could this be an email?" "Do I enjoy burning witches?" if you do this you might make the world a little bit of a less terrible place to be.

I've seen new sets of tired go for a like $400.

Fuck that shit man. And that's if you're lucky. What if it's some transmission shit? Then you're mad hurt.

Programming Languages are Like Cars:

Assembler: A formula I race car. Very fast but difficult to drive and maintain.

FORTRAN II: A Model T Ford. Once it was the king of the road.

FORTRAN IV: A Model A Ford.

FORTRAN 77: a six-cylinder Ford Fairlane with standard transmission and no seat belts.

COBOL: A delivery van. It's bulky and ugly but it does the work.

BASIC: A second-hand Rambler with a rebuilt engine and patched upholstery. Your dad bought it for you to learn to drive. You'll ditch it as soon as you can afford a new one.

PL/I: A Cadillac convertible with automatic transmission, a two-tone paint job, white-wall tires, chrome exhaust pipes, and fuzzy dice hanging in the windshield.

C++: A black Firebird, the all macho car. Comes with optional seatbelt (lint) and optional fuzz buster (escape to assembler).

ALGOL 60: An Austin Mini. Boy that's a small car.

ALGOL 68: An Aston Martin. An impressive car but not just anyone can drive it.

Pascal: A Volkswagon Beetle. It's small but sturdy. Was once popular with intellectual types.

liSP: An electric car. It's simple but slow. Seat belts are not available.

PROLOG/LUCID: Prototype concept cars.

FORTH: A go-cart.

LOGO: A kiddie's replica of a Rolls Royce. Comes with a real engine and a working horn.

APL: A double-decker bus. It takes rows and columns of passengers to the same place all at the same time but it drives only in reverse and is instrumented in Greek.
Ada: An army-green Mercedes-Benz staff car. Power steering, power brakes, and automatic transmission are standard. No other colors or options are available. If it's good enough for generals, it's good enough for you.

Java: All-terrain very slow vehicle.

iPhones are ridiculously picky when it comes to finding a mate- um charger. And knowing why doesn't really make it any easier to understand why. If anything it baffles me more.

So, let's start with appliances that are not phones. Think Bluetooth headsets, keyboards, earbuds, whatever. Those are simple devices. They see 5V on the VCC line and 0V on ground, and they will charge at whatever current they are meant to. Usually it will not exceed 200mA, and the USB 2.0 spec allows for up to 500mA from any USB outlet. So that's perfectly reasonable to be done without any fuss whatsoever.

Phones on the other hand are smarter.. some might say too smart for their own good. In this case I will only cover Android phones, because while they are smarter than they perhaps should be, they are still reasonable.

So if you connect an Android phone to the same 5V VCC and 0V ground, while leaving the data lines floating, the phone will charge at 500mA. This is exactly to be within USB 2.0 spec, as mentioned earlier. Without the data lines, the phone has no way to tell whether it *can* pull more, without *actually* trying to pull more (potentially frying a charger that's not rated for it). Now in an Android phone you can tell it to pull more, in a fairly straightforward way. You just short the data lines together, and the phone will recognize this as a simple charger that it can pull 1A from. Note that shorting data lines is not a bad thing, we do it all the time. It is just another term for making a connection between 2 points. Android does this right. Also note that shorted data lines cannot be used to send data. They are inherently pulled to the same voltage level, probably 0V but not sure.

And then the iPhones come in, Thinking Different. The iPhones require you to pull the data lines to some very specific voltage levels. And of course it's terribly documented because iSheep just trying to use their Apple original white nugget charger overseas and shit like that. I do not know which voltage levels they are (please let me know!), but it is certainly not a regular short. Now you connect the iPhone to, say, a laptop or something to charge. An Android phone would just charge while keeping data transmission disabled (because they can be left floating or shorted). This is for security reasons mostly, preventing e.g. a malicious computer from messing with it. An iPhone needs to be unlocked to just charge the damn thing. I'm fairly sure that that's because the data lines need to be pulled up, which could in theory enable a malicious computer to still get some information in or out of it. USB data transmission works at at least 200mV difference between the data lines. It could be more than that. So you need to unlock it.

Apple, how about you just short your goddamn data lines too like everyone else? And while you're at it, get rid of this Lightning connector. I get it, micro USB was too hard for your users. I guess they are blind pigs after all. But USB-C solved all of that and more. The only difference I can think of is that the Lightning connector can be a single board with pads on either side on the connector, while in USB-C that could be at the socket end (socket being less common to be replaced). And at the end of the day, that really doesn't matter with all the other things that will break first.

Think Different. Think Retarded. Such tiny batteries and you can't even fucking charge them properly.

Stop calling people by their old occupation titles. .
Please address them by using their new titles accordingly
and they will like it their job more.

OLD: *Garden Boy*
NEW: *Landscape Executive and Animal Nutritionist*

OLD: *Petrol attendant*
NEW: *Fuel transmission engineer*

OLD: *Receptionist*
NEW: *Front Desk Controller*

OLD: *Typist*
NEW: *Printed Document Handler*

OLD: *Messenger*
NEW: *Business Communication Conveyer*

OLD: *Window Cleaner*
NEW: *Transparent Wall Technician*

OLD: *Temporary Teacher*
NEW: *Associate Teacher*

OLD: *Tea Boy*
NEW: *Refreshment Director*

OLD: *Garbage Collector*
NEW: *Environmental Sanitation Technician*

OLD: *Guard*
NEW: *Security Enforcement Director*

OLD: *Prostitute*
NEW: *Practical Sexual Relations Officer*

OLD: *Thief*
NEW: *Wealth Relocation Officer*

OLD: *Driver*
NEW: *Automobile Propulsion Specialist*

OLD: *Maid*
NEW: *Domestics Managing Director*

OLD: *Cook*
NEW: *Food Chemist*

OLD: *Gossip*
NEW: *Oral Research and Evaluation Director*

Which one got you more?

IT Crowd... Automobile edition.

I was driving 80/mph when my car’s transmission locked up and wouldn’t change gears. It was scary, my kids were in the car. I solemnly had to admit that turning off my car, and starting it again fixed it.

Updated goal in regards to my road to machine learning mastery.

Status: new found motivation

Motivational case: bring humanity closer to having 2B become a real thing.

Reason: big booty droids should be a right to humanity.

End of transmission.

On another note, the sony xperia compact is a real nice device, so is the note 8. I would prob go with the note for power but the size of the xperia is more convenient for my taste.

AT&T: "there is an excessive use cap on your unlimited mobile data plan but you'll never hit it"

Me: BEGIN TRANSMISSION

Got an assignment in school to make an easy project in c for embedded real time processors with a free complexity level (it was really early in the course and many had never been programming before).

Since I've been working a few years in development I decided to create an own transmitter and receiver for an own protocol between processors (we had just spent a week to understand how to use existing protocols, but I made my own).

The protocol used only 1 line to communicate with half-duplex and we're self adjusting the syncing frequency during the transmission. I managed to transmit data up to 1 kbps after tweaking it a bit (the only holdback was the processors clock frequency).

Then I got the feedback from our teacher, which basically said:
"Your protocol looks like any other protocol out there. Have you considered using an UART?"

Like yeah, I see the car you built there looks like any other car out there, have you considered using a Volvo instead?

How lawyers fuck up technology!

I rented a car today, given that I don't want to go by train currently. That was some VW Golf, and it had a lane assist which can't decide whether to be helpful or obnoxious:

Either I kept the steering wheel and still steered myself, in which case the lane assist's actions made the steering feel somewhat wobbly. Initially, I suspected a worn out control arm bearing, but that's a long term damage in aging cars, not in new ones.

Or I just rested my hands on my upper legs, as I usually do (palms facing upwards and holding the wheel lightly), then the lane assist worked by itself. It was even smart enough to deactivate itself upon blinking before changing lanes.

However, it complained after about 15 seconds that I didn't steer. I said, shut up and do your job. The warning intensified, and I said, fuck you. Then it initiated some stutter braking to wake me up. Annoying like a reincarnation of Clippy.

I ended up giving the steering wheel a slight tip to the right every 15, 20 seconds just to let the lane assist know I was still there, relying on the lane assist to correct it again. On a long trip, I would have had to deactivate that crap.

Obviously, the VW engineers did their job, but the legal department feared law suits should anything go wrong and ruined the feature!

What was also annoying is that there is no real hand brake anymore in many modern cars. Sucks when pulling off against a hill. Plus that at red traffic lights, I usually put the gear out (manual transmission) and pull the hand brake instead of keeping my foot on the clutch. That's not the same with this pseudo hand brake!

(In case you wonder why anyone would do that:
it's an anachronism that avoids lengthening the clutch wires, decades after cars switched to hydraulics.)

You know, I agree with the opinion that everyone uses the tools they know can get the job done.
However, sometimes I just wish people wouldn't just pick the first tool for the job that comes up in Google's search results. People should look at more tools and then decide which tool is going to suit their use case best.
I can't for the life of me figure out why some people prefer using ad-ridden tools over ad-free, even open-source ones that work better in every way. The best example for this is people using μTorrent or BitTorrent® for the BitTorrent protocol instead of Deluge, Transmission, qBittorrent, and some others. They just typed in "how2download torrent for free uwu" and downloaded the objectively worst tool.

Pick your tools wisely, not by letting some search algorithm recommend you the worst one.

About to start my real first Java project to learn the language in-depth: a virtual ATM featuring a GUI and a networking system for the transmission of banking data to and from a server. Since I particularly care about security this will surely help me get a better understanding of everything involved. Wish me luck.

A couple of days ago, an individual attempted to convince me that the National Security Agency is capable of cracking Rijndael encryption; as a response, I informed the individual of the infeasible nature of the factoring of extremely large semiprimes; however, my attempts were futile, as the individual believes that NSA possesses sufficient power to crack this encryption without intercepting the transmission of the corresponding private key.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is real; although this individual tends to be logically-minded, there does exist an exception to this good behaviour.

"It is easier to square a circle than get 'round a mathematician."

its been there since many years, but:

When did we turned the wrong way and made it acceptable that Windows can blantly say in my face that i cannot deactivate the transmission of data unless i have the "Business" Variant of their Software. Its called Windows 10 PROFESSIONAL. Why are there no international Laws against that? Where was the molotov throwing mob when this became the norm?

Additonally. that cute telemetry service consumes a considerable amount of cpu and disk power from time to time.

and no, Linux is not an alternative. It never was. There is proprietary software and driver sets used for lab equipment and machines that cannot run under linux, noone will ever have the time to tool something for it and the user base is too specific to hope for any community solution.

sidenote: even Level 0 STILL transmits data. I want mode -1

I love software. Seriously, I love it. /s

Transmission is given a bad torrent (which, given that it's a torrent service, you'd expect it handles quite robustly) and completely fucks up. Like, really badly. It doesn't respond to RPC anymore, systemd has to resort to sending it a SIGKILL to get it off the process tree, and the web interface.. yeah. Nothing.

It doesn't log by default, so fine I'll add that to the systemd unit and restart it with debugging options enabled.

# systemctl daemon-reload && systemctl daemon-reexec

Turns out that /var/log/transmission.log can't be written to by my Transmission user. Well shit. Change that to /home/condor/transmission.log.

# systemctl daemon-reload && systemctl daemon-reexec
# systemctl restart transmission-daemon

*blood starts to reach its boiling point*

Still logs in the wrong fucking location. Systemd, I told you to log over there. I did everything I could to make you steaming pile of shit reload that fucking config. What's the fucking problem!?

*about 15 minutes of fighting systemd*
Finally! It spits out a log in the right location! Thank you Transmission and systemd for finally doing your fucking jobs. So a bad torrent it is, hmm...

*removes torrent from .config/transmission/torrents*
Transmission: *still fucking shits itself on that ostensibly removed torrent*

That's it. BEGONE!!!

Oh and don't get me started on the fact that apparently a service needs some 400MB of memory. Channeling your inner Chrome Transmission?

We can hide messages in images via steganography (or ZIP sewing), we can hide messages in sound via either sound-based transmission (like Morse) or waveform-based transmission (think oscilloscope art videos), we can transmit it in videos in like 300 different fucking combined forms...

Encryption isn't the ONLY way, yo. Social engineering and being a cheeky shithead can get it done too.

Command: "Infantry unit, this is Command. The enemy is approaching, what's your status?"

Infantry Unit: "Command, this is Infantry unit. Just a quick note, my pronouns are they/them. Can we please use that in all communications going forward?"

Command: "Infantry unit, the enemy is upon you and you're worried about pronouns?"

Infantry Unit: "Command, this is Infantry unit. It's not just about me, it's about respect and inclusivity"

Command: "Infantry unit, you're about to be inclusively dead. Defend yourselves!"

Infantry Unit: "Command, this is Infantry unit. Wait, what? Oh s***."

(End of transmission)

Months on this project and it STILL doesn’t work. Way too many links in the communication chain and everything is getting lost in transmission and in translation because of foreign language barriers.

All of this will be my fault when it fails, even when it’s provably actually not. The joys of being the single wringable neck.

So, apparently that another kickstarted IoT chip dev team forgot to bind reset button to anything, so it is just sitting there as a fidget toy and they also messed up with usb-to-serial connection so it is working only in transmission mode. I am just sitting here with bricked chip with no adequate possibilities to unbrick it.

Python Meta-classes.

O.o
What is this soccery!

Oi windows, your highly intelligent "transmission optimization process" is not really helping me by hogging the whole bandwidth while I'm downloading something.

Error free date transmission

Would you like a Raspberry Pi ? If yes, what kind of project would you like to do with ?

I hate that I love electronics. You can be an absolute god in the technical world but on the other hand its like whose fault is it? The hardwares or the softwares???
Been debugging a DRA818v for 3 days now and havent found any answers towards why there is no transmission just noise and stuff.
FFS JUST GIVE ME AN ANSWER!
Also if you just happen to get one thing wrong, you just fried 5$ worth of components. (Which cant really happen to a software dev)

Yep we are all remote workers, but we all go in to the office every morning to clock in, and then back at 5:30 to clock out. I see a potential problem with transmission at these 2 points in the day. Plus the office is an hour away for most people and we all use public transport.

I've been on a new project since last week.
After 3 days of knowledge transmission and really nothing else, the PM walked in and ask me when the project will be finished...
Really?! Jumping in a totally new project, with tools and functionals aspect I've never seen and then this.

:thumbs up: everything gonna be ok

Anyone with good understanding of hardware and/or an operating systems network protocols please assist me. I have questions

When using socket api I know it’s not the actual sockets sending the data but the socket api tells the network protocol to send, receive, listen, connect, etc well what I want to know is how that networking protocol works within the operating system

My second question is more an extension of the first. After the operating system knows what the socket api wants to do and wants to do it how does the transmission and receiving work on the physical layer within the hardware

Idk if what I’m asking makes sense. But if anyone also has any resources or a link that’ll help me on the subject I’d appreciate it. I haven’t found anything on the subjects myself

Hi everyone, I have a question about VPN and hosting.

I have rpi which runs ubuntu where I have several things running like nextcloud, transmission, minidlna, samba etc.

I want to use a VPN due to torrenting via transmission on the pi. I had used private internet access(PIA) before and I'm thinking to go back to them as I had issue only once with them.

Question is if I had installed their client and connected to VPN, would I still be able to access to my services over the internet? As per my understanding only the outgoing and incoming generated from outgoing should follow the VPN tunnel, therefore interacting with my pi with it's public IP should still be possible, am I right?

I'm a newb when it comes to web stuff so any help is appreciated, also you can recommend other VPN providers if you think PIA sucks for any reason.

The Turing Test, a concept introduced by Alan Turing in 1950, has been a foundation concept for evaluating a machine's ability to exhibit human-like intelligence. But as we edge closer to the singularity—the point where artificial intelligence surpasses human intelligence—a new, perhaps unsettling question comes to the fore: Are we humans ready for the Turing Test's inverse? Unlike Turing's original proposition where machines strive to become indistinguishable from humans, the Inverse Turing Test ponders whether the complex, multi-dimensional realities generated by AI can be rendered palatable or even comprehensible to human cognition. This discourse goes beyond mere philosophical debate; it directly impacts the future trajectory of human-machine symbiosis.

Artificial intelligence has been advancing at an exponential pace, far outstripping Moore's Law. From Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) that create life-like images to quantum computing that solve problems unfathomable to classical computers, the AI universe is a sprawling expanse of complexity. What's more compelling is that these machine-constructed worlds aren't confined to academic circles. They permeate every facet of our lives—be it medicine, finance, or even social dynamics. And so, an existential conundrum arises: Will there come a point where these AI-created outputs become so labyrinthine that they are beyond the cognitive reach of the average human?

The Human-AI Cognitive Disconnection

As we look closer into the interplay between humans and AI-created realities, the phenomenon of cognitive disconnection becomes increasingly salient, perhaps even a bit uncomfortable. This disconnection is not confined to esoteric, high-level computational processes; it's pervasive in our everyday life. Take, for instance, the experience of driving a car. Most people can operate a vehicle without understanding the intricacies of its internal combustion engine, transmission mechanics, or even its embedded software. Similarly, when boarding an airplane, passengers trust that they'll arrive at their destination safely, yet most have little to no understanding of aerodynamics, jet propulsion, or air traffic control systems. In both scenarios, individuals navigate a reality facilitated by complex systems they don't fully understand. Simply put, we just enjoy the ride.

However, this is emblematic of a larger issue—the uncritical trust we place in machines and algorithms, often without understanding the implications or mechanics. Imagine if, in the future, these systems become exponentially more complex, driven by AI algorithms that even experts struggle to comprehend. Where does that leave the average individual? In such a future, not only are we passengers in cars or planes, but we also become passengers in a reality steered by artificial intelligence—a reality we may neither fully grasp nor control. This raises serious questions about agency, autonomy, and oversight, especially as AI technologies continue to weave themselves into the fabric of our existence.

The Illusion of Reality

To adequately explore the intricate issue of human-AI cognitive disconnection, let's journey through the corridors of metaphysics and epistemology, where the concept of reality itself is under scrutiny. Humans have always been limited by their biological faculties—our senses can only perceive a sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum, our ears can hear only a fraction of the vibrations in the air, and our cognitive powers are constrained by the limitations of our neural architecture. In this context, what we term "reality" is in essence a constructed narrative, meticulously assembled by our senses and brain as a way to make sense of the world around us. Philosophers have argued that our perception of reality is akin to a "user interface," evolved to guide us through the complexities of the world, rather than to reveal its ultimate nature. But now, we find ourselves in a new (contrived) techno-reality.

Artificial intelligence brings forth the potential for a new layer of reality, one that is stitched together not by biological neurons but by algorithms and silicon chips. As AI starts to create complex simulations, predictive models, or even whole virtual worlds, one has to ask: Are these AI-constructed realities an extension of the "grand illusion" that we're already living in? Or do they represent a departure, an entirely new plane of existence that demands its own set of sensory and cognitive tools for comprehension? The metaphorical veil between humans and the universe has historically been made of biological fabric, so to speak.