Attrecomet

Funny how your mayer example is actually proprietary closed-source software. So being an open source project carried by a large community doesn't seem to be an actual drawback -- if at all, a Solarwinds-like attack is far more improbably to succeed in a popular and well run open source project than in the darkness of closed source.

What a bad analogy, acting as if the extra security could only be an all-in.

The email simile someone else used here is pretty good: image the NYT would have gotten access to all emails stored and processed by gmail. That's a pretty invasive court order!

There are different levels of privacy. I can expect data I share with a company for a specific use case to not be public knowledge, yes.

It's not like we expect any newspaper in the world to get access to all of our emails, same with these chat logs: we should expect them to be private in this context.

Even before SEPA, we didn't use checks in the EU -- or at least in Germany -- because bank transfers were a thing and just worked.

> can just press ctrl+shift+enter and it just magically finishes up everything and put my caret at the correct place, instead of me trying to write ]}]})) in the correct order.

I think here you are talking about a different thing -- completion of already started parentheses/"/whatever with content in-between, not the pre-application of paired braces or quotation marks, as the author did, no?

What's implied in the previous comment is that reading a comment takes a few seconds, while listening to an album, or even really enjoying it, takes a higher investment.

Or, to use a different metaphor, these comments are mentally nutritional Doritos, not a nicely prepared restaurant meal. If your restaurant only serves Dorito-level food, I won't go there even if I do consume chips quite often at home.

>Perhaps you do not understand it, but many software engineers do understand.

No, they do not. LLMs are by nature a black box problem solving system. This is not true about all the other machines we have, which may be difficult to understand for specific or even most humans, but allow specialists to understand WHY something is happening. This question is unanswerable for an LLM, no matter how good you are at Python or the math behind neural networks.

If that is true, Israel would now actually, literally be persuing the exact same politics Nazi Germany did until they escalated their attempted genocide by making it intolerable to genocide by industrial scale murder. Not a good look for Israel, at all.

I have to wonder how you envision a small community building nucular when the state has already failed them. That's the real neat thing, that cooperations smaller than the entire territory of Puerto Rico can take action and help themselves, and even take away pressure from the rest of the grid doing it!

> Only nuclear power plants can prevent blackouts. That sentence is so maximal that it is trivially maximally wrong. Clearly, other tech can do that too. Like, blindingly obviously.

It does read like a teenage anarchist (edit: sorry, anarcho-capitalist, which is worse by far) just discovered that medieval Europe was decentralized and spun a wild fanatasy about how that was actually anarchist around it, yes.

>Was society decentralized during the so-called "dark ages" of europe? Sure. But it was also decentralized during the Roman era and pretty much all eras before high speed communications. It sorta had to be for society to work.

In a way you are not wrong, state capacity has been far higher for quite a while now than the Romans or ancient Chinese could ever hope to reach, but in a way that detracts from how much more decentrantralized Europe during the Middle Ages was. The collapse of urbanisation and bureaucracy, and the rise of fortified manors meant that power really fractured.

It's mainly really, really bad history

> Each lord had a veto power over the king and over each other law (I will use the term “lord” for those landed free men. Even the serfs could not be denied their right without adjudication. Land was not held as a favor from the king; title was allodial. A man’s home truly was his castle.

This is so bad it's basically a total lie. Let's start with how he does not discern between free, landholding men, minor nobility and great aristocrats, three classes of men who would have absolutely no problem realizing that their lives, political power and the law that actually was applied to them were very different from each other.

The vast majority of men living in the middle ages did NOT actually have a fortified private manor aka castle, but a hovel that was protected from violation by other people most probably by the local lord or gentry, who as it happens was the biggest danger to your freedom as well as the judge over what rights you had.

>It seems, instead of the pinnacle of governance and protection of liberty, the constitutional form represents a significant step back from the liberties afforded to even the lowliest members of early mediaeval society.

That's not a point, that's straight up pure fantasy. The lowliest member of mediaeval society, unfree people, had more rights than we do now the same way that chattel slaves in the American South had more freedom then than as black people today, shoulders brutally weighed down with responsibility for their own life instead of a simple pleasure of having a master take on that dastardly responsibility.

The author has cherry picked data points, badly misunderstood concepts used in those cherry picked points, and then wildly conflated vaguely related things to create a utopian version of his entirely unhistorical mediaeval heaven.

Vlaada Chvatil games just tickle something for me. Space Alert is hugely fun, probably best due to the chaos and also the fact that at least we can see the inevitable failure that's coming together, and nobody is the lonely runt, but so is Galaxy Trucker, Dungeon Lords, and as a quick social game, Codenames.

Imagine having to tell the economy it can only grow as fast as a specific rare metal is mined for money to continue to make sense. The gold standard was a system breaking up by its inherent contradictions, as another poster has phrased it, when Nixon went off it.

Is it really that clear that Google has more power here? Whom would users blame if suddenly half their pages are falsely accused of being "untrusted"? Probably the browser, not LE, right?

It's not horribly unusual for a system that can be called democratic with every right to exclude those that have repeatedly stated, and shown in action, that they would not actually abide by any result that goes against them. It's the paradox of intolerance right there -- it's not those defending the rules of democracy that are damaging it.

We could adapt the comparison and imagine Kodak realizing the digital business just enough to adapt a bit, but never shift their focus: Just enable digital photography to make the business case for any newcomer unviable, so they'll run out of money before they start to turn a profit, but not innovate enough to create the digital photography age we have today -- it would stay a niche market, for people for whom traditional film really wouldn't work, just like it was in the years leading up to the shift.

And then let's strain the comparison, when even overcoming a genius general like Hannibal is no longer enough, and you shift from a strategy of "who cares how many losses it takes, Rome has more men" to the crisis of the third century, and barbarian coalitions coalescing into what would become the huge tribes and proto-states of the Migration Period, when that strategy wasn't even viable for any day-to-day conflict, given the severe military manpower constraints Rome faced, and destroying your enemy in an attritional battle made way for hurting them just enough that they were amenable to a tolerable negotiated settlement. One could imagine the widespread adoption of smartphones as the point where the original market strategy of ignoring digital photography as much as economically feasible would end, and the digital photography era would finally start.

Oh, you can, generally, it's just not fine to poison the whole region's water supply doing it, which less rich countries care less about, and which makes it expensive.

The technical information on the cv/resume is, in my opinion, at most half of the process. And that's assuming that the person is honest, and already has the cv-only knowledge of exactly how much to overstate and brag about their ability and to get through screens.

Presenting soft skills is entirely random, anyway, so the only marker you can have on a cv is "the person is able to write whatever we deem well-written [$LANGUAGE] for our profession and knows exactly which meaningless phrases to include that we want to see".

So I guess I was a bit strong on the low information content, but you better have a very, very strong resume if you don't know the unspoken rules of phrasing, formatting and bragging that are required to get through to an actual interview. For those of us stuck in the masses, this means we get better results by adding information that we basically only get by already being part of the in-group, not by any technical or even interpersonal expertise.

Edit: If I constrain my argument to CVs only, I think my statement holds: They test an ability to send in acceptably written text, and apart from that, literally only in-group markers.

I'm not sure that is actually a bad thing. Being a competent employee and writing a professional-looking resume are two almost entirely distinct skill sets held together only by "professional-looking" being a rather costly marker of being in the in-group for your profession.

No, the whole process is revealed to be meaningless busywork. But that step has been taken for a long time, as soon as automated systems and barely qualified hacks were employed to filter applications. I mean, they're trying to solve a hard and real problem, but those solutions are just bad at it.

A riot including violence and attempts to murder opposition or perceived opposition officials is hardly "peaceful", so yeah, "rEaLiTy ChEcK"...

I DECLARED responsibility!

Overturning Chevron was specifically a giant step INTO techno-feudalism, since it means the oligarchs can only be reigned in if Congress, full of (at best generalist) career politicians, understand a technical or regulatory problem deeply enough to specifically craft legislation that literally gets it right on its own.

Chevron never was the problem.

Where do you find these low monthly cost options? Using Office is considerably more expensive than it ever was for a business, and the profit margins are huge.

And if anyone could sustain an office suite until it runs profitably in these circumstances, it must surely be Google...

"Making up your own rules" is literally what mathematics is, though. Using that as a counterargument to using a specific set of axioms tells me you don't understand mathematics.

"Just never develop software in a medium or large company" is a take, I'll give you that. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of software developed is vastly more productive than Instagram, and tied to real world processes that need coordination. Your 5 people team will do fuck all to program the control software for a crane arm activator, because they'll never get even close, and if they were actually given access, you would have to coordinate with hardware people and actual engineers (the ones with detailed plans and calculations before building anything, I mean, not us software "engineers"), you would have to figure out what the construction companies using it actually need from your software. A similar story could be told for most any area of software development - it generally is tied to other areas, and unicorn examples of how wonderfully easy the world is if you develop a time wasting app for phones is not applicable to the majority of us.

I totally agree with you last point. Not the least for the egoistical reason of higher chance of better products for me, that way :)

What I don't understand is why you demand that C++ evolution be halted in a clearly suboptimal position so you don't need to change your processes. Just use the version of C++ that meets your needs, you clearly don't want nor need new developments. You are fine with being locked into bad designs for hash maps and unique ptr due to the (newly invented, in 2011/13) ABI stability being made inviolable, you clearly need no new developments in usability and security.

So why not be honest and just use C++01, or 11, or whatever it is that works for you, and let the rest of the ecosystem actually evolve and keep the language we invested so much effort into as a viable alternative? There's zero benefit, except to MS who want to sell this year's Visual Studio to all the companies with 80's-era C++...

It's a post about getting your software recognized and used. For that, you actually need to get other people on board, yes. If you don't care about that, why are you even working in software development? It sounds tedious to just build things nobody cares about.