wakawaka28

Not really. That's like saying a design document should be pulled out of commit messages. There are a few reasons I can think of why this would be a bad idea. Maybe the biggest is that commit messages should be quickly readable and only explain the changes in the commit. To truly explain the reasons a path was chosen by a LLM you need at least a summary of what was asked for, and related discussions or "don't do" instructions. I've heard of people wanting to commit the entire chat logs as files before, but that is noisy and might only get you halfway there as far as explanations go. I certainly don't want this data bloat, snooping, etc. I would rather for important details to be curated. I can see why maximum details could be helpful sometimes but I don't want to bloat the repo with that.

Everything you're saying is reasonable but the ultimate conclusion of such views is that disagreement with "expert consensus" is not allowed. Your entire thread with me has been disparaging people and insulting their intelligence based on nothing but knowing that they don't want to take some vaccine. Some of the people you're smearing are actual doctors, PhDs, and people who have knowledge of their own physiology that nobody else can possibly know. Yet they get shouted down by smug jerks for various reasons.

Speaking of unscientific takes, the 6 foot distance standard and the mask mandates are both not supported with scientific evidence. The actual evidence for these is inconclusive at best. The primary justification is apriori reasoning. You might say "Oh it's better than nothing" but that is not guaranteed, and businesses went bankrupt, kids didn't learn in school, and people were let out of PRISON based on these mandates. So-called scientists set in motion extreme paranoia and tyranny upon all of us and I will never forget that.

Yes, anti-vaxers are inherently irrational. Overwhelming benefits do not change their opinion because being anti-vaccine is a core part of their identity.

There are people like this but you can say the same about anything. Pro-pharma vax promoters definitely make "trust the science, don't do research or question anything from authorities" part of their identity too.

I'm not free to take it, anymore. As you said, it's been taken off the market for most people.

Well, I meant that you should be free to take it if there is a reasonable argument that taking it is better than not taking it. There are multiple reasons why it isn't offered anymore.

No, I like shunning people who are wrong and dumb.

People who refused the vaccine are not wrong or dumb. It is too laborious to explain it to you though. I think no matter how much I explain or provide contrary evidence, your mind is made up. What happened to "My body, my choice"? Do you seriously think that people would refuse the vaccine if the benefits were so overwhelming? If the virus and the vaccine were what they said, you wouldn't need to try to mandate shit. You'd have to break up fights as people fell all over each other to get the damn vaccine.

I'm not the guy you responded to, but I just wanted to say I think you misunderstood him. He wasn't prescribing a solution. He was describing a situation. If good people leave all institutions because of corruption, then only corrupt people will be left. There will most likely always be some corruption. We need to keep corruption and violations of rights from getting out of control because nobody wants to live through a war to restore order.

The US has been leaning toward the worse for years. I think it can be traced back to the JFK assassination or earlier. The Church Committee found out a lot and ultimately changed very little. We certainly have a theocratic influence but I think the Christians are played off the leftists masterfully to subvert the nation. If people weren't at each other's throats over random issues, they might start to think about where all the tax money goes.

It is pure arrogance to think that the US can essentially rule the world forever. Being in this position and having the reserve currency is why we seem superficially rich as all the production goes abroad. Instead of factory jobs, kids get to drive for DoorDash and stuff like that. If this trend is not reversed soon, we won't produce enough of anything to defend the country. We may already be in that position IMO.

Where does it go? I think we are in for a rude awakening. We might see severe economic turbulence and war, hopefully followed by peace and preservation of our individual and national sovereignty. I would count anything past this as a bonus.

That depends very much on what kind of software you are writing and how good you are at it. I do not think math makes as much sense as CS for general software jobs. It might not count against you very much, but I wouldn't go so far as to say you're on the same footing as someone who dedicated their entire studies to CS. There are way worse backgrounds you could have besides math IMO. I would not want to be an English graduate who switched to software engineering. I've heard of some of those people.

Software engineering is unique among engineering fields in that it accepts people without the right credentials, and sometimes without any credentials. Other engineering fields not only require matching credentials but also have professional certifications. I don't think I would enjoy taking those very much, but after seeing some of the crap that people get away with I have fantasized about having such a process to filter people out.

If they're not swappable, that supports my claim about scarcity even more. But I also have people here saying that you can swap in anybody vaguely technical, sometimes without credentials at all, to fill these roles even at FAANG.

I happen to think workers with minimum qualifications like a CS degree can be fairly swappable, at least more than FAANG types would have us believe. But they're very elitist when it comes to hiring. I have practically given up on being hired at FAANG companies, and these days I think their jobs are overrated too. Sign up to bust your ass 50 hours per week with backstabbing snobs, till you get laid off unceremoniously. I'd rather not.

We can both "yeah, but" this to death. You make some valid points but I think my observation generally holds. The supply of workers is not so elastic, at least if you have real standards for the workers such as college degrees and so on.

You may be right but it's not high pay alone that draws in people from other industries. Standards must be relaxed to accept people from unconventional backgrounds. When conditions tighten, many of these people are simply not competitive enough to get another job. When it comes to aerospace, defense, academia, etc., opportunities are more scarce in those fields than in software the past few years also. It is this, not just the pay, that drives people to software.

I'm not saying people with odd backgrounds can't ever make it. But let's be clear, these are not usually hot shots who can simply get any vaguely technical job they want. They get into software because it is traditionally very accepting of uncredentialled or non-mainstream individuals. The framing you put forward makes it sound like the people committed to software are chumps who have to take what they're given, and these interlopers are the real geniuses who leave for greener pastures with ease. That simply isn't true.

That might be true but how many of these people are there, really? I'm not convinced that many companies are hiring these barely-qualified people.

Of course the judgement about whether people overhired is subjective on a per-company basis. My point is, you can't hire people who don't exist, and the ways to get people into the industry are limited. All other things equal, we would expect massive overhiring to be matched with very low unemployment in the industry, and the correction should not go below some baseline.

It is no doubt a campaign or at least a meme. It seems basically impossible for everyone to have overhired, for the simple reason that qualified workers do not appear and disappear from nowhere. There is a population of qualified workers in the software sector, and only new grads and retirement can move the needle significantly. So, if someone overhired then someone else must have done without, all things considered. The only ways out of the pool are basically retirement, career change, and death.

I know there are complications with this argument. For example, unemployment could double by basically doubling the average time to find a job. That kind of thing could support an overhiring thesis if the unemployment rate in tech got very low. To really test the "everybody overhired" thesis, I think you need to do a full accounting of early careers people, unemployed, retired, etc. I'm not gonna attempt that...

There are also targets with fluorescent backgrounds and special black paint that flakes off near the holes. There is a limit to how many holes you can see in the target but it is way better than plain paper.

Sounds like communist gobbledygook. This is not "destroying labor theory" any more than outsourcing did. Call me when we don't even need to prompt the shit ever again or validate results, and when the stuff runs unlimited without scarce resources as input.

I think you should consider a third option:

3. After years of refusing to learn git and making excuses for their hate, the goobers finally buckle down and read the manual for a tool that coincidentally does stuff a little different from git. They leap at the opportunity to further blame git for their difficulties rather than themselves.

If there is a way git can be made to appease these people without making it horrible, then we should try to do it. But I still think these people would be better served by buckling down for a few hours to learn git as it was designed, because it is designed very well.

That is an absurd straw man. The point is, rebase workflow is ergonomic enough for the amount of splitting or rewording anyone realistically needs. Furthermore, knowing rebase is essential for things that these new tools can't do. It's best for people to use one familiar tool for everything IMO.

I think this is cluttering git with a bunch of special-case commands when rebase is all you need. Next thing you know, people will say we need to drop git because there are 5 ways to do everything.

It's very widely remarked that the Git CLI is pretty miserable, and as soon as a better (so I hear) alternative comes along they suddenly realise and start improving it... This happens all the time in software.

I don't think these claims have merit, for the most part. More often than not, people just don't take any time to learn git, then get on a soapbox about it.

If you think these commands are worthwhile, by all means use them. I happen to think git rebase is all you need. Giving people crutches to avoid using it just delays their enlightenment. But not everyone reaches enlightenment, it's true.

I don't think jj adds anything compelling over git either. But different strokes for different folks...

If this is meant to be a dig, you should keep in mind how much jj owes to git.

There are many cases where the EV busses have been abandoned. Busses typically do not do their route and stop, so getting a significant amount of charging for any busses requires extra busses that can be rotated on/off duty. If you design the system to depend on that charging then you need extra busses and you're effectively stuck with a sparse schedule. That is not a constraint to consider with petrol-powered busses. They can run nonstop as much as needed.

There is another thing cities should consider in all this: EV busses are totally unsuitable in emergencies. They cannot be charged fast enough, especially in extreme weather. You should consider this before buying an EV as well. At least, have a plan to arrange alternate transport with a reliable petrol vehicle.

Station batteries are an additional toxic inextinguishable fire hazard and expense to consider. I wonder what is the efficiency loss in charging one battery to turn around and charge another too. But you are generally right: stationary batteries do not need to be lightweight like the ones in cars.

Are there any real examples of a government entity in the US competing with a private enterprise in which it genuinely would have been better for the government entity not to compete?

Probably everything the government touches outside of keeping the peace and helping businesses function. Government schools suck. Government insurance sucks. Law enforcement often leaves a lot to be desired. I think one could make an argument that we'd be better off with a toll road system too, but for the convenience and privacy of not having to pay tolls.

It's easier to argue for government management when a service involves practically monopolizing space, such as a road, or if the project is especially dangerous or expensive (such as utilities or the military). But the fundamental forces of competition are still beneficial even in huge and monolithic projects. Even in cases of projects commonly run by governments, the competition emerges as being between governments instead of being between companies.

contractors complain when the military fixes their own gear, and this is asinine

I agree, it sucks. I am very pro-market but I think the government should lay down the law in these cases and say that it won't tolerate abusive prices and it demands all the technical data necessary for routine maintenance, if not the entire product.

It could just be incompetence. I read the construction contract. If I were a contractor, I would not have agreed to the fixed price and the steep late completion penalties without charging two arms and a leg and quoting a very long timeframe.

If credible businesses are putting in lower bids and they get passed up for a stupidly expensive alternative, that reeks of corruption. But there could be requirements or assurances that we don't know about. That's up to you to find out if you are interested in that case.

Two different issues... On one hand, government should not compete with private enterprise because it has many unfair advantages. Imagine paying taxes to subsidize your competition, who is also exempt from regulations that apply to you. That is the kind of corruption that comes from government-run businesses.

As for this one:

I’m currently watching an 8-figure park remodeling project happening near home. Instead of hiring one or two competent construction managers for a few hundred thousand dollars, the city seems to be spending several million dollars for outside management to oversee this one project.

Every time the government touches any money, there is an opportunity for corruption. I'm betting that there are kickbacks, nepotism, or some other bullshit involved in the case you mention here. There are countless fraud schemes. California is trying to pass a law against people like Nick Shirley investigating and reporting on widespread fraud, because they know where their bread is buttered.

Are you kidding? Republicans never cut anything meaningfully. They are only a shade more fiscally responsible than Democrats. Your comment totally blames Republicans and does not put any blame on Democrats who are at least 50% responsible for where we are today.

Not everything. Specifically things where the government is involved. That includes government-subsidized private enterprise.

coming in and saying "A is better in these other circumstances" isn't saying anything that people aren't already aware of.

Oh so you're a psychic now too? I think all kinds of people read these threads. Most of them probably aren't as aware as you're claiming, even the ones actively commenting on the topic.

Doubtful you will find life safety and automation equipment on the shelves of your local retailer.

Nevertheless most of this gear is made overseas. When it is made in the US it depends heavily on foreign components.

USA excels at manufacturing complex solutions versus simple ones. Well for now, since number of US States are pushing for de-education.

I don't think this is true. But we as a society have royally fucked up by funding so many useless degrees. Most educated people know nothing that could contribute to anything we actually need urgently.

I do look at the labels and check where products are manufactured. Anything from Texas and Florida are put back on the shelves because I choose not fund those politically corrupt states and support treating immigrants and sub human.

Oh, so you're one of those people who thinks enforcing the law and resisting the destruction of US society and culture is morally wrong. Perhaps you deserve to have your society die around you, but the rest of us are fighting to keep it together anyway. And we won't let you run away from this mess either.

There are many concrete disadvantages to writing things in Rust too, not to mention rewriting. But you are right, these are different solutions and they thus have different characteristics.

As for your "as if it disproves their point" stuff is wrong. The fact is, the reply to a comment in a thread is not a reply to a different one. You are implicitly setting up a straw man like "See, you are saying there are NO advantages to using Rust over Fil-C" and I never said that at any point. I also didn't say that you said that there was no advantage to using Fil-C.

That's actually not a bad idea, since apparently it can be used for whole operating systems. But certainly, if you started doing that, any code using the exception would need to be exclusive to Fil-C to benefit from that.

They do wear out...