PKop

Obama "Dear Collegue Letter"[0] policy threatened civil rights enforcement if schools disciplined more black and latino students than white students, assuming that disparities of the rate of discipline implied injustice, rather than matching up with disparities in the rate of behavior meriting punishment.

This was a disaster for schools; many students who would have been expelled were kept around disrupting teachers and students who had to bear their presence in classrooms, hallways, fighting each other, bullying students and teachers.

For about 5 years after this went into effect, my local school district that also allowed open enrollment around this time got an influx of students with bad behavior from previous schools enrolling and not being expelled for fighting and other repeated misbehavior and disruptions. There was huge wave of teachers and families leaving and enrolling in the rural school close by so both could actually do teaching and learning without interference. The schoolboard had a lot turnover until the now head got elected promising to drastically curtail open enrollment and apply whatever discipline policy they could get away with to revoke open enrollment rights from non-residents due to bad behavior.

Here is a great account [1] from a teacher about her experience in schools where discipline was severely limited and prevented expulsion of disruptive and violent students, and the obvious consequences to the degraded learning environment that resulted.

[0] https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/offices/list/ocr/let...

[1] https://quillette.com/2019/02/10/public-educations-dirty-sec...

> which are deeply unpopular with just about everyone.

Speak for yourself. Plenty of people support them. The technological progress and economic benefits they bring are good for our country. But are you always an opponent of democracy, or only when you pretend everyone is on your side on an issue?

There's a section linking to a more in depth article:

"The Shop app, which is regularly at the top of the list in the shopping category in the app stores, is the first to be migrated. Assisted by AI, the team was able to go from a proof of concept to a fully rebuilt native app published in the app stores in just 12 weeks. We’ve written about this migration in depth here [0].

The migration of the Shopify app (our biggest with 300+ screens, home & lockscreen widgets, Apple Watch app, complications, Siri Shortcuts, etc.), is also underway and will ship later this year. The rest of our apps will be migrated soon."

[0] Migrating Shop app from React Native to native https://shopify.engineering/shop-app-migration

Yea it is

> children of immigrants

No. Here's your breakdown.

https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/2093832541161550111

Your insides are different from your outsides. Your skin has a different microbiome than your gut. Hyper cleanliness on your skin kills beneficial microbes that maintain an equilibrium when they're alive.

Oh I don't care about that, I want a well functioning search engine that doesn't have ads and Kagi is that and it works well. You can pay for it with Bitcoin which is nice. Which search engine do you use instead?

Web3 was used simply as a way to get money for development that gave some control to users about which ads they would see and isn't enabled by default. Origin avoids all of this and charges the user directly for the product, like Kagi seems like great motivation in my mind what issues do you have with it?

Who do you trust to fight the good fight against Google? Mozilla, who get $400 million per year from Google? Makes no sense. Brave has a great built in ad blocker that is configurable with lists and works great. What's the problem?

They crypto payments for ads mechanism isn't enabled by default. Charging money directly is a way to avoid all of this so should be supported by people seeking "ethical" ways to fund development. What is lower quality about Brave's experience? Their built in ad blocker is great, certainly not low quality.

Google pays Mozilla something like $400 million a year. So what browser do you use that you claim is ethical, and what exactly is the ethical method to fund development which you haven't actually defined? Origin, like Kagi, seems the best way to do it imo.

It's not their "vision for the web" it's just an attempt at funding development of the browser given they aren't an ad-network behemoth like Google. Like Kagi charging for their search engine, a company charging money directly for the product is a good idea all things considered. How do you expect them to pay their developers?

He's not CEO anymore

The comment on the YouTube video is accurate:

"Soul-less slop for people who don't understand art nor craft".

Cutting corners no doubt has appeal to some people in the industry making things, but this says nothing about the appeal to audiences that are supposedly going to want to pay to watch entire movies containing this nonsense. The end result shown in this video and on your website https://getartcraft.com/ just doesn't look good, at all.

> There are two films coming out in theaters this year that use ArtCraft.

Which ones? Like the internet itself, if movies start filling up with more and more slop, it's just going to be another instance of enshitification.

Kagi is comparable to pre-semantic, no-ad Google. Because they don't have ads you just pay for the product. It's great.

I don't think they need to be voluntary to be pessimistic about the implication of the departures. It can be argued just as easily that so may high level execs being fired because of underperformance means OpenAI isn't achieving their goals. Revenue targets not being met is a large part of AI bubble promoters' thesis.

@SangLee you compare it to RVI, which went to 77, 3.5x in 2 months. Why would that not be a comparison that screams "buy" and to sell the pump?

@twalichiewicz, why do you use a fake AI generated pfp across all of your online accounts?

> If I told you to your face

That's not even the extent of it. Saying something in private face to face at least keeps it between 2 people. He posted it publicly for the world to see, so it's a massively bigger "attack".

Either the fear of the consequences of breaking the law, or that the most effective way to reduce crime is to remove criminals from the population so over time these people being in jail or worse decreases the crime rate. They don't have to care about breaking laws in the abstract for the law, properly enforced, to reduce crime.

> but that doesn't mean that every instance of creativity should be a venue for profit

This guy doesn't know what profit means.

No one is "profiting" off one-off donations on blogs, obviously these mechanisms are simply to allow some sustainability in volunteer efforts, below break-even at best.

> is not a rounding error. It is

Who said it was?

> Pull out the napkin. This matters.

The article wouldn't exist if you didn't think it mattered, just tell us why.

> the question is not whether they got a good deal. The question is

Who said that was the question?

> This Is Not One Company's Problem

Who said it was?

Stop telling us what thing aren't, just speak like a normal human and convey your own thoughts. It's an insult to your audience to throw constant AI slop at them.

> thousands of companies have woven AI subscriptions deep into their operations. Marketing teams draft copy through ChatGPT Plus.

Yea I bet you do..

AI slop

> Shipping software is in perennial tension between getting it perfect and getting it out the door.

First do no harm. Changing functionality that works is not in tension with getting regressions out the door. Assure it is working before shipping by hiring testers that use the product to the level or extent of most users.

> We do use Photoshop (though not to the level or extent of most users) and noticed the regressions.

Is there something you want to tell us about management? This is crazy, if what you mean is you know you broke this for power users but shipped it anyways, or that you don't have power-users on payroll to constantly test your product that you can call "part of the team".

> the people who make Photoshop

Obviously they should have a few power users on payroll that find these obvious regressions quickly, and we can call them part of the team who make Photoshop. I'm not sure why this, and what the lead scientist said is valid justification. Just hire "people that use Photoshop". If they already do this, then the people that make Photoshop use Photoshop to a sufficient degree.

But moreover, if one has developed Photoshop for 15 years, I'm pretty sure they are aware of power user table-stakes features.

And then one more point:

> Why?

Because that's what it takes to develop high quality software tools. This shouldn't even be up for debate when charging money for software.

What was the point of this upgrade? Do you not actually use Photoshop yourself, or have people on your team that use Photoshop? Aside from the mea culpa and assurance it will be fixed, user deserve an explanation for why this basic, obvious buggy functionality wasn't discovered immediately during development? Like seriously, you should explain yourself.

The use of fossil fuels equates directly to higher standard of living, military power, wealth, prosperity, and advanced economies. As well, transportation is heavily dependent on fossil fuels. "Exiting" fossil fuels means either nothing, or it means impoverishing your people.

Or, even if they 100% expected to be acquired before Bun touches 1.0, you could see how they might not care about this type of tech debt.

No I think it's made up, there is no policy, and the lawyers couldn't care less, it's just something people do to massage their own ego.

Exactly. There is no scenario where we should expect some random anon to be speaking for Google. When that is the case a disclaimer is warranted, not the common case of speaking for oneself. He can write it once in his profile if he's so worried about it, not every other comment like he does. It's just inflated self importance

Why would they be speaking on behalf of their employer? That is what would need a disclaimer not the common case. Besides, he can put it one time in his profile, not over and over again in every comment like he does. There is no expectation that some random employee is a spokesperson for Google on tech message board comment threads. It's just a way to brag.