jmull

You can’t poach talent, because companies don’t own their employees.

You can steal trade secrets, which is what this case is about.

(If you’re going to suggest a full rewrite of IP and anti-trust law, you should at least have an understanding of the current situation.)

I actually think this wouldn’t be that helpful.

The developer still needs to ensure they apply their set of pragmas, whether that’s a single edition pragma or a set of pragmas. And they still need to understand and carefully choose the pragmas/options they use (an edition really makes this a little harder by abstracting/hiding something that needs to be directly understood and visible).

And these proposed new default pragmas are more incremental improvements rather than complete solutions, more convenience than critical. E.g., while the default affinity is goofy, strict tables don’t come close to a comprehensive validation mechanism — so if you need strong validation you’re likely going to need to implement that at a higher level anyway. (Also, there’s a decent separation-of-concerns argument that you should handle it separately.)

Likewise the busy timeout. The pragma is convenient but you still need to handle busy timeouts. (The author’s problem, “I didn’t realize busy timeouts could happen so the app didn’t handle them correctly”, is not solved by the pragma.)

Isn’t healthcare is the prime example of government run programs being much more efficient and efficacious than privatized ones?

The US has a massive tangled hodgepodge of private companies, having poor coverage, very high prices, and quite poor outcomes. Meanwhile there are numerous European countries with public healthcare systems that are far cheaper and provide much better outcomes.

Here’s one of a million sources:

https://www.pgpf.org/article/how-does-the-us-healthcare-syst...

Vite pumps out major versions -- that is, breaking changes -- at an incredible rate.

I don't want to be a vite upgrade engineer.

I'll try to pass on this if I can.

It was just a matter of the right amount of money going into the right person's hands.

I am still surprised that people expect to own digital content, forever

Well, that's how it's sold. The buttons say something like "Rent"/"Buy" not "Short Term Rental"/"Indeterminate Term Rental".

To be an internet consumer you have to have some level of confidence in the good faith of the seller, including that the basic description of what's being sold is accurate. Otherwise, you wouldn't consider sending your money at all. Probably most people see "Sony" and trust that brand not to scam them.

But so as much anymore.

Being rich doesn’t make you unhappy.

But spending your life pursuing an unsatisfiable goal (because the goal is “more”) probably isn’t good for your happiness.

Not to mention, there are very satisfying ways to contribute to things you think are important that don’t necessarily involve a lot of money.

Is that really what you think I said? It’s probably more productive to read with the goal to understand rather than the goal to misunderstand.

Sigh. Yes, it depends on context. Like everything.

Yet, what’s the point of pedantic digressions that distract and muddy rather than clarify and communicate?

You are kidding yourself if you think this is a liberal vs conservative issue.

The current FCC chairman threatens the broadcast license and to block deals of networks who air shows the president doesn’t like. These threats appear to have lead directly to the cancellation of shows — a clear violation of the first amendment, though there have been no consequences so far.

If you really care about this issue, get out of your information bubble.

Whichever party is in power, Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives, have tried to suppress speech they don’t like when they get in power. If we pretend this is a partisan issue we can’t stop them.

This bill is about enhancing the protections of lawful free-speech under the US constitution.

Generally speaking, we deem various kinds of speech that harms people as NOT protected under the first amendment, and that kind of speech would not be protected here.

Yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, libel and slander, speech calling for violence, and fraudulent advertising are some typical examples of speech not protected by the first amendment.

It would be tricky, but we could reasonably categorize engagement algorithms with certain properties as harmful to people and not subject to first amendment protections. This would be consumer protection, like laws against fraudulent advertising and other misleading claims.

I wouldn't worry so much about it. Why spend time even thinking about something you don't want to buy?

"So you can imagine how astonished I was last month when an American politician said that it was impossible to earn a billion dollars..."

Paul, playing dumb doesn't suit you.

The first definition of "earn" on merriam-webster.com is "to receive as return for effort and especially for work done or services rendered".

Your chose a straw man, "doing something bad", to argue against because it's so easy to beat.

Much harder to justify that anyone's doing $1B of effort. Being a billionaire doesn't mean you're bad. In fact, it doesn't even matter if they are all bad -- there are always going to be bad people. It means a system that allows, encourages, and protects billionaires might be a problem that needs to be fixed.

Scary idea, I know. But we all only get to go around this world once. Might as well spend our time trying to make it better rather than rationalizing why it's OK to spend all your time trying to make it worse.

The current administration fires people leading BLS when it reports numbers they don't like, regardless of the merit of the numbers.

It's not the administration doing the strategic thinking. The administration is entirely reactive and straightforward to manipulate -- if you have money.

The people with strategic goals just send money and compliments and the administration does what they want.

I think it's pretty clear that the previous poster characterized the Apple brand as a cult to specifically express the idea that people have an irrational devotion to it.

...closer to a cult...

When you have to image a highly irrational reason to explain why groups of people do the things they do, there's a decent chance you just don't understand their perspective. They may be acting reasonably rationally from their own perspective. (As you said yourself: "I honestly don't understand...")

There’s a much less awkward way to keep a change log:

Keep a change log.

Agency is entirely observable.

We'd need a good definition of consciousness to get anywhere on this.

I suspect such a definition would include agency, which includes desires and goals for the self.

LLMs don't seem to have agency, and seem unlikely to get it since they are specifically engineered to do as told.

No doubt someone is trying, as we speak, to do just this. But I doubt the effort will be large -- LLMs are engineered to do as told because that's where the money is, and you need a lot of money to create LLMs, at least when doing anything novel.

Regardless, the question still stands: "What does computers getting more intelligent has to do with it getting conscious?"

Just because consciousness emerged for we humans and other animals through one mechanism doesn't mean consciousness has/will/can emerge from current LLM technology.

For this extraordinary claim, I think the burden is firmly on those who are arguing that it has/will/can.

I believe this is just about the behavior of std.debug.assert.

You can pretty easily have a different kind of assert that disappears in release builds (if you want).

That's an INSANE default.

I agree that not running arbitrary installation scripts is the right default, but it's just an incremental improvement.

The practical difference between code that runs at installation and code that runs when the package is executed is, very typically, a small amount of time.

IMO, the hyperbole here hurts because it distracts from more effective efforts.

'course, software development itself is a domain.

I don't really get the objection here. Who should make decisions about zig's roadmap, priorities, and approaches, the zig people or the bun people?

There's no value to iterating on a PR when the approach itself is not right.

A large, complex, unasked for PR is pretty likely pointless to throw at any serious project. (Well, it's pointless if your goal is to merge something.)

Working together is a two-way process. To land a big change, the bun people probably needed to have been working/coordinating with the zig people throughout. E.g., zig outright cannot accept PRs that break the language in unplanned ways and any conflicts with the roadmap would need to be resolved.

I would assume the bun people know all this. That makes it more of a publicity stunt than a serious attempt to contribute to zig, and we should probably all treat it that way.

A key point to their success, highlighted in the article:

They had a strong understanding of exactly what zendesk was doing for them and how it integrated with their other stuff.

People hoping to do something similar should try to put themselves in a similar situation.

You missed a key detail: the NYC valuation system undervalues properties to the tune of around 10% of their actual market value. So your 6.5% tax is effectively aroubd a 0.65% tax against actual market value. That’s not bad (it’s a lot better than what I pay for my regular middle class home. Not in NYC, but I pay a bit shy of 2% annually)

The difference between "mostly true", "misleading", and "false" is context, and responses are specifically not allowed to include any context. Even "true" has a little context, since few things can be said to be absolutely true. "Unknown" also isn't allowed.

What's 2 + 2? The answer must be one of the colors of the rainbow.

(People can draw their own conclusions, but the only coherent reason I can think of for the design of this experiment is to generate a misleading conclusion.)

The critique seems perfectly clear to me: The post has no value. There's nothing to salvage, no improvements to be made. It would be best if it simply did not exist.

The poster probably hopes (as many of us do) that people will absorb the sentiment and post less of this junk in the future.