nme01

This framework would be hard to apply to unknown unknowns. That's why in software engineering you'd apply canarying. Then the longer timeframe for potential negative effects, the slower the adoption of a new process should be.

Isn't it that Anthropic some time ago had a disagreement with the government and now government is just retaliating to cut down Anthropic's profit?

There are other countries in the world or even in the EU where salaries are lower than in Poland. Why don't they see the similar growth? I guess this is more nuanced than just lowered salaries can explain it. Surely, that's part of the equation but to develop highly innovative economy, one needs to start with something. That's how China started, how Korea started etc.

If they go after AI, they’ll for sure need power

I think the way to go is that you do such big backwards incompatible refactors gradually. Eg you want to make all the callers specify some additional parameter. So first you create a version of your API which populates this parameter with some reasonable default. Then old API is marked deprecated and is just calling new API with that default value, and then you inline everywhere the old api. After a while it’s possible to remove the old API.

That said you need of course some tooling to somehow discover all the callers reliably and do those migrations on a large scale.

Easier to do if all the code is owned by one org but harder if you can’t reliably tell who’s using your APIs.

However having centralized migrations is really saving a lot of work for the org.

Weren’t only the platforms that failed to register with the government banned? As I understand it, if they comply with the new regulations, they should be unblocked.

I also work for a FAANG company and so far most employees agree that while LLMs are good for writing docs, presentations or emails, they still lack a lot when it comes to writing a maintainable code (especially in Java, they supposedly do better in Go, don’t know why, not my opinion). Even simple refactorings need to be carefully checked. I really like them for doing stuff that I know nothing about though (eg write a script using a certain tool, tell me how to rewrite my code to use certain library etc) or for reviewing changes

Totally for it. Now it’s time for EU to ban TikTok but also Instagram, Facebook and other socials for the very same reasons US bans TikTok

This shows that values such as “freedom of speech” are only key words used to enforce US policy in other countries. For such a long time it was advocated that free speech is an important thing and good in and on itself. Now it turns out the free speech is good only as long as it’s US who dominates the information market.

Most of European citizens support Palestine yet European elites not so much.

I thought that only authoritarian regimes are blocking foreign medias and that’s a bad thing. At least that’s sth US was preaching. It seems freedom of press or free market is only good when it serves you.

Not really discovering anything new here. Just showing that countries only use values at their convenience.

I imagine that as with any covert operation it’s hard to prove who’s behind it. Blowing up a bridge is also not something that will cause a war easily.

There’s nothing controversial about it. Usually people get to know other people at university or at work. To meet someone outside of your everyday environment requires extra effort. I know it from my own experience as well (trying to find a girlfriend while studying CS).

Possible that I was using Spring in a wrong fashion but for me (project size around 300 KLOC) Spring dependency injection model with so much magic happening (all the auto configurations, guessing which classes to load etc.) was extremely hard to maintain and understand. I think I prefer Guice/Dagger style of defining dependencies which is much more explicit.

If you’re interested in what those who criticize people like the scholar mentioned in the article have to say, I can provide some background (I live in Poland).

Basically many Poles feel like they’re being framed as perpetrators (as a whole nation) instead of victims (6 million Poles were killed during WW2). There were many people who helped Jews during war. Among Righteous Among Nations Poles are the majority. Also some historians, like the one from the article, are considered to be biased by neglecting the majority of sacrifices of Poles while showing only wrong doings of some minor groups, which were never supported by Poland as a country.

At the same time they fail to mention the scale of collaboration among Polish Jews during WW2 and after, which very often was punished by death by the Polish Underground Government.

I’m quite disappointed that HN gets more and more political news here (which are not objective truths but are portrayed as such). Could we please keep it free of politics and more technology focused?

The problem with the scholar mentioned here is that a lot of his research is considered biased. This case is not so black and white.

The MP mentioned in the article is considered by most Poles a freak at best (and a foreign agent by many).

There was always some concept like this to shut people’s mouth (both for good and bad reasons). Throughout the ages it was called many names: taboo, blasphemy etc.

It’s now advised to failover to different region (vs zone in the same region).

You are pathetic.

That was unnecessary

I’m not from US but I’m curious what is the situation in other states? Are there situations like that occurring elsewhere (even if the bias is in the opposite political direction e.g. in California or somewhere) or is Florida a “lonely island” here with regard to free speech limitations on universities?

Isn’t the proposal simply saying that making libs more granular will solve the problem?

I don’t know what’s everyone else’s experience but I was updating dependencies due to either bugs identified in old versions, because I wanted a new feature or because the old version was not supported anymore. Setting dependency to a fixed version was not an option. Using in your code function with given version fixed seems to be problematic.

During updates the problem was to update all other dependencies as a result of the update. I can’t see how the proposed approach would solve it.

Another problem which I sometimes faced (less annoying) was the api change i.e. start using function B instead of function A which requires slightly different parameters. Those kind of automatic refactors could be supplied with library upgrades (some libs already come with automatic migration “scripts”)

From earths perspective, yes.

It’s just that time really passes quicker on Moon (not just an illusion).

Exactly what I had in mind. Just to make my point more understandable: if I own an apartment and I pursue my dream and sell it so that I can invest it in my startup, that’s risking it all. Does such strategy have a positive outcome in the long run (even if by outcome we only mean happiness however it’s measured)? I doubt that.

Bringing down risk taking to a simple “risk it all” is a trivia that is maybe inspiring but naive.

What’s worse, those kinds of strategies are appealing to people mostly because of survivorship bias: one hears inspiring stories from those who risked it all and made it to the top but rarely from those who loosed it all (those don’t sell too well).

I see a problem with risking everything that is if your goal is to either make it to the top or make it to the bottom, then risking it all is the way to go. Yet, that’s a poor long-term strategy. Eventually risk will realize and you’ll lose it all.

What if someone sees LGBT ideology as something resembling nazism and that’s their way of expressing this? If they truly believe so, they should get a chance to explain themselves.

I don’t want to take sides here but in general punishing people for hurting someone’s feelings is a bad thing in meritocracy (which I wish we had).

Good remark. Many people believe that Galileo was burned but it’s simply not true (I don’t even know where it comes from).

IIRC the most serious punishment he got was a home-arrest which he got after being rude to pope (which he was after he was forbidden to state his hypothesis as fact).

Also as a side note: Galileo didn’t form a hypothesis good enough as it predicted planets’ movements poorly. It was Kepler who formed much more accurate model and it got accepted by the Church.

There are also some other misbelieves about the Church like that they forbidden spreading the theory of evolution (while in fact they forbade priests to criticize it openly).

I don’t say they’re not spicing conversations by promoting provoking content. What I rather say is that all media companies do it and they don’t get a similar PR which they well deserve.

As an exercise one can watch today’s news and count how many news made them angry vs. how many were neutral/positive.

All of that recent fight against FB is driven by them “not censoring enough” and it’s a call for decreasing privacy and increasing censorship.

Facebook polarizes people? Sure thing. But which media doesn’t? Aren’t CNN, FoxNews etc. doing the same? Society could use some whistleblowers from those companies as well ;)

I’m not excusing FB. I just say that we should be careful not to ally now with those who have no public interest in mind

I guess it depends on how you define a goal of quotas. If it’s meant to increase women’s presence in certain areas just for the sake of having more women somewhere, then quotas might work. But if you apply quotas to fight the gender/sexuality/skin color bias then usually those policies are applied in a wrong place which creates yet another bias, just of a different direction.

Let’s get a promotion policies for example: if you say that at least 50% of board of directors should be women but 95% of all employees is man, then average woman in the company is 19 times more likely to be promoted than average man which seems extremely unfair.

The problem should be well understood first. That is: why do we have so few female employees. Then it might turn out that we are biased in our hiring process. If there’s no evidence for that, then maybe there’s a bias during university recruitment process etc.