philwelch

That's the law in Colorado, DC, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont, all of which are blue states.

Democrats opposed the Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003, and multiple blue states allow abortion at any point prior to birth.

If you’re a single-issue abortion voter, yes the US democrats tend to propose fetal viability (22 weeks or so) as the limit

No, the standard Democrat policy is to allow abortion on demand at any point prior to birth—40 weeks or so.

In Seattle you’re considered conservative if you’re not a Marxist.

If we're going to gatekeep the word "engineer", you're not in the most defensible position as a train designer. If you want to go back to the original definition, engineers were soldiers specialized in siege warfare, which has nothing to do with designing trains. Alternately, "engineer" can be broad enough to include someone driving a train, which presumably required some understanding of how the locomotive worked but was more of what we'd call a skilled technician.

“If the government pays for it, it’s free!”

The prosecution has the burden of proof to establish the basic accusation, and the defendant is always entitled to offer the negative defense of "I didn't do it". For instance, if I'm accused of killing Paul, I can always say "I didn't kill Paul" and the prosecution has the burden of proof to say that I did. On the other hand, if my defense is that I killed Paul in self defense, the burden of proof is on me to show that my actions satisfied the legal definition of self defense in my state.

Wise decision. If you did anything to the thief, odds are the cops would have cared.

The burden is never on the defendant to prove their innocence.

False. Look up "affirmative defense".

Anecdata is well known to be problematic.

Show me the data that backs that claim.

It's intentional on the part of the prosecutors, and the billionaire who funds their campaigns. I don't know what their actual motivations are--probably some combination of ideological derangement and ulterior motive. They just don't believe in prosecuting most ordinary criminals.

Licking asses to get grants has been the full time job of tenured faculty for decades. Peer review just means they lick each other’s asses.

Almost all of the YoY growth in the S&P500 is in a very small number of tech companies. If one of those fast-growing tech companies isn't in the S&P500, the index as a whole becomes obsolete.

Sure but it’s still more affordable than it was for the vast majority of our ancestors, and they still had kids, so it’s not an explanation for declining TFR in developed countries.

Life has never been more affordable than it is now. Virtually all of your ancestors were impoverished to a degree you can't even imagine.

Deregulation does benefit the people, at least if it's done in ways that lead to sustained economic growth.

No, I think AI actually gets us closer to the surgical team than before. The purpose of the surgical team is to maximize the value of a single individual contributor. Before AI, the only way to do that was to surround him with assistants, which is inherently hierarchical and never really caught on probably for that reason. The value wasn't in the surgical team being entirely human, it was in optimizing for the surgeon's output by offloading tasks that are less valuable for him to perform. Offloading those tasks to AI works just as well without offending our egalitarian sensibilities.

Yes and every AI-first development workflow worth its salt does exactly this, and it does it much more thoroughly than I’ve ever seen a team of meatbags do it.

My workflow, at a high level, is:

1. I write a high level spec. Not as high level as a single-sentence prompt, but high level enough to capture my top requirements.

2. I prompt the AI to interview me about the spec to clear up any ambiguity or open questions, then when I’m satisfied, the AI writes a longer spec, which I then review.

3. Then I prompt the AI to write an implementation plan based on the spec. I might just skim this, and by this point I might be asking the LLM more questions than it’s asking me.

4. Now I hand it off to the implementer agent.

This isn’t cowboy coding, it’s not even agile. It’s waterfall. The problem with doing waterfall was that it’s too slow, especially with the deserialization/serialization cost of routing all of this documentation through meatbrains. The LLM is doing just as much work, true, but faster.

The thing I found surprising was that, while LLM’s are still pretty awful at writing as an art form, they are better technical writers than I have the time to be, especially when writing for an audience of other LLM’s.

You’re reminding me a lot of those old assembly hackers who thought compilers were bullshit because they could hand-write better assembly. And I don’t mean that as an insult; those guys were probably right about their assembly code, just like an Amish craftsman will make better furniture than a factory in China. The problem is that the world needs more furniture and more software than skilled craftsmen can produce, and the skill gap between the craftsman and the mass production process is diminishing fast.

We’re still going to have handwritten software, just like we still have handwritten assembly. It just won’t be the norm.

As I recall, “No Silver Bullet” fundamentally rested on the assumption that the subroutine was the last word in abstractions to make programming more efficient, which probably wasn’t even defensible at the time because Lisp had already been invented, and is even less defensible after the past several decades of programming language research. Brooks was still onto something when it came to irreducible complexity, but offloading complexity an LLM can tackle to the LLM still saves time.

One of the lesser discussed Brooks essays is actually the best description of AI-first development: the “surgical team”. It just turns out the surgeon is the only human, and like many modern surgeries, the surgeon is controlling a robot instead of operating by hand.

It would be interesting to reread The Mythical Man-Month and see how each essay applies to AI-first development.

Normal, emotionally stable people do sometimes make decisions about what businesses to patronize based on the political leanings of the business owners.

Maybe with issues like abortion or racial discrimination, but not tariffs.

Why would someone make up such a banal rumor? I’m not saying it’s true, I’m saying who cares?

Normal, emotionally stable people don’t care if the creators of a programming language disagree with them about tariffs.

Also, if Zig itself doesn’t accept AI contributions, it’s probably NGMI unless somebody is willing to maintain that fork.

If the penalty for hiring too many people for the wrong job role is being barred from hiring people ever again even for a different job role, then companies are just not going to hire people in the first place.

Generally lawyers need to be involved to make sure any rejections are compliant. There's a whole cottage industry around this.

That's why most PERM job postings are advertised in the classified ads of the print edition of a newspaper, instead of anywhere that anybody actually looks for jobs in the 21st century. If nobody applies, nobody needs to be rejected.

Use/mention distinction

If it’s a natural language prompt, it’s not a hook.

It's a bit more complicated than I implied because many or most Taiwanese prior to the beginning of KMT rule were still ethnically Chinese; they just hadn't been part of "China" for 50 years (a period when there wasn't a stable, unified "China" anyway). "Occupation" is a controversial term for the period of Japanese rule and the Japanese weren't "hated" in Taiwan to the same degree they were in other occupied territories. The period of Japanese rule from 1895-1945 was a colonial government, but it was probably better than what was going on on the mainland at the time--domination by Western powers, the warlord era, the civil war, and a much more brutal Japanese occupation. The difference between Japan's treatment of Taiwan and mainland China is a big part of the difference in perspective towards the Japanese between the mainlanders and the Taiwanese.

Some of the main proponents of the "Japanese occupation" narrative are the KMT, who committed plenty of atrocities of their own after taking over Taiwan and, among many Taiwanese, ended up more hated than the Japanese. The KMT was also serious about their lost cause of retaking the mainland, at which point they expected Taiwan and China to remain unified under their rule, with the famous "One China Principle" representing not just the CCP's desire to control Taiwan, but the principle shared by the KMT that Taiwan is part of China and should be under the same government. In recent years, the KMT has pivoted towards cooperation with the CCP with an aim towards peaceful reunification, while the DPP favors explicit Taiwanese independence (Taiwan's official constitutional stance still being that it is the legitimate Republic of China).

To be fair to the KMT, they also ushered in Taiwanese democracy. When Chiang Kai-shek died, his son and successor Chiang Ching-kuo ended martial law, promised to be the last Chiang to rule Taiwan, and began the transition to democracy. His successor, Lee Teng-hui, was Taiwanese-born and finished the transition to democracy, winning the first democratic Taiwanese presidential election in 1996 before stepping down at the end of his term limit in 2000, at which point power transitioned to the DPP. Lee was also controversial with the hardliners in his own party for, among other things, his more sympathetic attitude towards Japan.

Interesting point. There are a lot of sports (football, basketball) where the cumulative rules end up requiring any player to have a humanoid form (references to elbows and knees and hands and feet, etc.), but even in ping pong it kind of seems like cheating to have a non-humanoid form factor.