Timon3

It's both fascinating and horrifying that fascist terminology seems to be a huge pull factor for some people.

I could see this working as long as it applies per-level & only takes into account direct siblings, e.g. every epic must have a unique priority, and every feature belonging to that epic must have a unique priority, etc.

I'm not condoning ideas like that of GP, but it literally is a way to force externalities to get priced in. If oil infrastructure kept getting destroyed, the price of refined oil would rise and the investments would shift to cheaper energy where possible.

The ring can record for 12-15 hours before it's empty. I'd guess it's incredibly rare that people throw away their phone before reaching 15h * 20 = 12.5 days of active screen time.

Doesn't that mean this was doubly effective? Since the electricity generation becomes greener over time, opening later means that the DC will cause less emissions over it's lifetime. And since DC chip TDP trends upwards, the total life span being unchanged means that newer & more power-hungry chips will be installed later, again leading to fewer emissions over the whole lifetime.

It's fine if that's your takeaway as long as you're aware of the full context. I'm just tired of people misrepresenting the situation as "the German Greens made Germany demolish their nuclear plants"! Large enough parts of the population were scared of nuclear accidents, so the conservative CDU used the nuclear exit as a way of garnering votes in the then-upcoming election.

You might argue that this fear is unfounded and dumb, and again, I won't disagree. But it's not the German Green's stupidity, it's the German population's stupidity. That's why I think it's important to mention this fact every time - otherwise it will be used to fearmonger about "environmentalists want to de-industrialize and go back to living in mud huts!"

That sounds very interesting, do you have any links or references on how you set it up?

Yeah, it's crazy how successful that particular piece of propaganda is. The conservative CDU is responsible for the decommissioning of nuclear plants, while the Greens extended the lifetime of the remaining plants. It's literally the other way around, but people don't question it - it feels too good to complain about the Greens, right?

I live in Germany, and you are completely wrong, friend. The Greens sure as hell didn't start deindustrializing anyone, and the idea that after almost 20 years of centrist governments, the thing that would save us would be the next centrist government is ludicrous.

Why are you thoughtlessly spamming climate denier talking points? Nobody said anything about all life being killed.

Could you explain why I "should" be celebrating that? There's no logical sequence leading from "caring about people & animals dying" to "one should think that previous mass extinctions were good".

"Winning the popular vote" doesn't mean "being elected by the majority". If Trump had received >50% of votes he'd have the majority of votes.

Isn't this objection itself completely meaningless? I'll assume GP wasn't referring to AI having conscious thoughts and deciding to "be here" for a specific purpose, but as technology introduced to achieve an effect.

For example: seat belts are here to help people (by reducing the severity of injuries & the likelihood of fatalities).

The current mass extinction was in no way inevitable, it is caused by humans. We can still have an unknowably large impact on the number of lives lost. I don't know why we should pretend otherwise.

Others are already forcing their beliefs on everyone else. The current state of laws isn't natural or god-given, it was constructed by humans. Leaving things as they are is not a neutral stance.

I think the mere fact that they resulted in comments like yours proves they were objectively not good.

And that makes it somehow okay? You just don't care about billions of deaths?

Like, do you think I'd argue that any of the previous mass extinctions were good?

You know, it would be interesting to apply this to the whole company. Want to vertically integrate everything? Sure, but be ready for any infraction to bring everything to a halt.

Do you know that strongly triggering these regions at the same time/repeatedly/in various patterns doesn't have any effect on your mood, wants, needs and so on due to experience in the field? Or why are you just discounting the idea?

IMO it's terrifying to imagine that adtech companies could plug this stuff into their optimizers and just run an experiment on broad swaths of the population to figure out if there's any effects.

It's a silly distinction. Unless we're wiped out by a virus or something similar, whatever ends us is likely to also take down a huge part of the biosphere as well - as is already happening.

"Burning something down" doesn't mean literally killing all life. But the unnecessary deaths of likely billions of animals in the long run should weigh enough to stop this nitpicking.

No, those positions aren't inherently contradictory. There are plenty of viewpoints that make them consistent.

While I'm not sure I agree that the quote is applicable here, it is generally an incredibly useful way to analyze systems.

Reality doesn't care what you're hoping to achieve with a system, the outcome won't change based on thoughts and ideas. Since reality tends to be fairly complicated, we usually won't design perfect systems on the first try - instead we have to analyze the outcome, and make changes to nudge the results into the direction we want.

But what if we don't do that? What if we stick with the initial approach even after we measure that the outcome doesn't align with our initial intentions, maybe even introduces unwanted side effects?

It would be fair to say "well, we tried our best" if nobody was able to have hidden intentions, but that's not the world we live in. People can be very, very happy about our systems not aligning with our intentions & introducing unwanted side effects because this misalignment advantages them in some way. These people can then block changes to the system to keep these advantages alive.

I believe a small fraction of decision makers is enough to keep most systems fixed in such a misaligned state, and we'd never do anything about it if we followed your logic.

They are much faster to internalize the time but slower to convert to numbers.

People keep saying that, but even after trying all my life, I still can't read analog clocks without mentally "decoding" the exact time. And I'm usually good at quickly building visual intuitions!

Though I think I experience what you're describing, just with digital clocks. For those it feels like I'm not reading 4 separate digits, as if the general "shape" is enough.

You say that as if inexperienced devs would naturally drift towards doing data validation without TS, but that hasn't been my experience. Instead what I used to see were lots of unnecessary/repeated checks spread throughout most source files (and which frequently didn't catch the actually problematic cases), which I've seen much less frequently in TS projects.

Even without TS, I'd be using zod (or a similar library). I haven't had any issues with zod's bundle size, and I don't see a good reason to write custom encoders/decoders everywhere.

How does TS make these situations worse? Seems to me that it helps a ton with identifying and fixing these issues. Either you can get away with just replacing the assertions with type guards, or you'll have to refactor some stuff (which is also much easier with types).

At worst, TS can only really be as bad as JS, no?

I don't think it's reasonable to expect the TS team to hold back the release until the ecosystem has caught up.

I've been really, really happy with oxlint. It has all the rules I usually need and the configs etc. tend to just work, whereas I don't know how much time I spent getting ESLint to work in slightly more complex repo setups.

That entirely depends on the layout and shape/size/feeling of each button. If they're sufficiently different I'd guess 3-5 buttons is reasonable.

Considering that you can’t fire people in Germany for taking an excessive number of sick days (even if you have good reason to believe they are faking it that doesn’t seem unreasonable)

This is not true, it is possible to fire people in these cases.

The two year limit doesn't apply if the company has an objective reason for making the role temporary, e.g. external dependencies.