1718627440

But it doesn't need to if you lock up the bulldozer maniacs.

There is no reason, why a newer version has less bugs, than an older version. Both are essentially an unknown number. The only thing you know, is that you likely know a higher percentage of bugs for the older than for the newer version.

I did skim it, when I made my first comment.

I didn't indicate, that I wouldn't consider this practice in the USA to be at least slightly racist.

But saying it never matters whether you are black or asian or whatever useful term is for the european-like mix in the USA, is actually going to disadvantage the very people this stance wants to protect, because it does ignore, that they are going to react differently to pathogens, food or medication.

You made a statement about the concept of races in general. Of course people can use races to be racist, yes. People can use sexes to be sexist too.

Depending on the trait you actually care about. If you care about bone geometry, you select some length of a bone, you want to measure. If you care about susceptibility for a certain sickness, you measure that.

It's not racist, because it doesn't say anything about the worth of the human or their rights. In fact, if you refuse to categorize and measure, because you consider this in itself to be evil, you can't actually cater to this specific person.

No racism is the (moral) judgement and using different assessments for different 'races'. You can call it ethnicities if you like, but it's not actually going to mean something different.

I write comments about what a function does and it's interface before, but comments about the implementation after. Also my pre- and post-conditions go there of course. (I'm mostly writing in C.)

You can start to write the commit message first in Git too. (And I do that.)

Recalling, recategorizing and expressing is still thinking?

Here teenagers say "Chattie said ..."

> Most people living in urban centres haven't ever experienced night vision. They can't, because there are too many lights around.

But surely a lot of apartments have some room or floor without windows? If you don't turn your internal lights on at night, sure that's not true darkness, but should be enough to experience night vision, no?

> You can totally walk around in the open without any extra lights.

The moon of course has the same brightness, as if you were in a city. This is the ability of your eyes, to see in the darkness, if there are no too bright other light sources.

> Rather, it is suggested that most people who vote affiliate themselves with a political party that appeals to their interpretation of morality

Well obviously, I rather have someone making decisions, that hurt me a bit, but are morally good, then someone who makes me a profit, but acts evil.

I mean that's the case with basically every fruit. The modern variants are larger, shelf-able for longer, while the older ones are smaller, but taste way better.

The term nature to me implies that it can't be fixed, because that IS their nature.

> You can't stay on iOS 26 and continue to receive security updates, you have to upgrade to iOS 27.

But then saying iOS 26 is still supported, would be a lie?

What about fallible, gullible, with full agency?

This is not a naive take. He doesn't say there can't be bad people/companies, he says the ethics of a company are the ethics of their constituents.

You can't have rules in a society, that are against the moral feeling of sizable chunk of the population. That's just going to be a source for conflict. At some point you do need a population with a moral compass or you get nowhere as a ruler, especially in participatory ruling systems like a democracy.

This just means, they are well raised.

12-year old soldiers exist too. (sadly)

Guys, your argument reads so weird. It outputs PLAUSIBLE text. It doesn't actually have a connection to causally correct information, although plausiblness often coincidents with causally correctness.

That's not caused by bureaucracy itself, but by the rules given. You can have the same with non-rule-based systems, except then you don't even know which rule is the fault, and neither fix it nor complain. That's absolutism and corruption. Bureaucracy is a huge improvement.

Yeah, it's a typo it should have said lossy.

Determinism is not incidental, it's the whole reason to invent formal systems and computing engines, including the current electronic ones.

I agree, which is why I don't understand why these are treated like magic tools by the laymen.

Accuracy, precision and determinism are completely different things. Lossless compression reduces precision, and by that also accuracy, but it doesn't become undeterministic.

And we started adding rules for the humans to follow, until we have complex bureaucracy. We invented tons of formal notations systems and error detecting and correction mechanisms. We invented deterministic machines. All because we are deeply unsatisfied with the non-determinism! Because it means you can never trust some process, optimize it away and stop thinking about it. You always need to check, and there is always something missing.

A lot of our manufacturing ability improvement during the last 200 years, as well as our engineering ability improvement during the last 500 years, is not just the raw power we unlocked, but that we made it deterministic, reliable and reproducible and hence automatable and automatic.

> The choice was made from someone else, and you just accepted it as normal

That behaviour in itself is believed to be morally wrong, and dystopian. That still doesn't answer the question why people just accept this. How can "we" deem ourself more moral than the Nazis, and literally do this.

I said "if it is", not that it would be.