Skgqie1

Hiw does "woke" pose a threat to national security?

What exactly do you mean by "wokeness"?

While the economic output per person has indeed increased 4-5x, the inflation adjusted median household income has only increased by 50% (1.5x). Government spending is not the issue here.

The things you mentioned are always a problem because even the far left in America is incredibly right-wing.

Billionaires generally do not have a knaxj for value creation. What they do generally have is an egregious amount of greed and a total lack of empathy which enables an incredible amount of exploitation.

> I frequently see people underestimate the danger of LLMs to humanity in the long term

My experience with people making claims about the inherent danger has been along the lines of this later quote:

> this is presented self-evidently, no one ever feels the need to back this up

Your comment reminded me of an old short story: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLIT_(short_story)

Yes, having eyes is incredibly dangerous. It allows people to select a target from anything they can see.

> Practically, I don't think Jews really had another place to go - remember, most of the Jews of Israel were either fleeing Europe before the Holocaust, or were the survivors of the Holocaust, or were ethnically cleansed from surrounding Arab countries. It's not like they had anywhere else to go.

Not true. One proposal was the Kimberly plan, which received strong push back from proponents of Zionism that simply refused to settle for anything less than Palestine. Theresa very real case to be made that had there been stronger support from Jewish community as a whole that this may well have actually ended up being the outcome.

> This is very wrong. For one thing, you're ignoring the 20% of Israelis that are Arabs/Palestinians, but I'll assume you meant the Jewish ones. There has been continuous Jewish habitation of Palestine for literally 2,000, since the Jews were forced out

Not the person you're responding to, but personally I'd say that's largely irrelevant. Any perceived connection to a land that anyone has is something learnt from cultural context. There's nothing that empirically literary connects people to an arbitrarily divided portion of land. Countries are an abstractional fiction. Religions and cultures build stories upon these abstractions with varying levels of historic accuracy. Through exposure to these stories people develop a perceived connection with essentially no direct physical basis in reality. More succinctly - a person's perceived connection to the land depends almost entirely upon their exposure to certain cultural stories.

A small portion of the perceived connection to an area is obviously related to literal experience and exposure to said area. The fact that the is often mentally tied to back to an abstraction like a "country" implies that these experiences are secondary to the broader cultural stories.

In terms of immediate (non-cultural) connection, it seems pretty accurate to say that immigration and conflict is going to be a significant factor for everyone currently in Israel. Be they the descendants of immigrants, direct immigrants, or the descendants of people historically living in that area (having ancestors that lived there doesn't historically doesn't preclude them or their parents from being impacted by the creation of modern day Israel)

I vaguely recall hearing something similar, with the reasoning being that there was a fear of future hostility enabled by Emperor driven fanaticism. That said, I've also heard that there wasn't really enough time given for a response after the first bomb, and that it was largely a political move to claim they'd offered an initial surrender - and that the goal was always to drop two bombs, partly because they wanted to test out different aspects of their designs.

Yes - unfortunately we have a lot of leftover usages of asbestos.

Historically, it was used a lot. My father even remembers playing around in the bush as a kid, and using asbestos for chalk a bunch of time to mark stuff on trees. My friends dad also remembers coming home covered in asbestos after work a bunch of times too.

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment about seeing asbestos in nice neighbourhoods. It depends how you define nice.

Asbestos was banned in 2003,but hasn't been used in housing since the 80s, so it's only going to be in older developments that you'll really encounter it.

Your wording regarding "plenty of Aussies" is also unclear to me. The numbers as a percentage are going to be very low, but it undoubtedly is a thing.

Asbestos has been completely banned in Australia since 2003.

Sorry, I will try to make it more clear.

NAND is more complex than AND, in the sense that it is more expressive than AND (having functional completeness which AND does not).

Similarly, it can be built from other less complex operators (AND and NAND).

If you're taking "One thing" to the extreme, in terms of the granularity or complexity of that "one thing", NAND is not as granular or simple as AND - and therefore isn't taking it to as far "to the extreme".

Not the person you asked, but the initial point was taking that idea to the extreme. The concept of "one thing" in the NAND case is more extreme (in terms of granularity). No need to be sorry, it's ok.

I think the background noise the old guy has to listen to (I can kind of see it relating to brown noise)

The self-assessment is less to do with how efficient I was, and more based on the fact I get things done sooner, because I don't fuck around and get distracted every few minutes. Completing a task significantly sooner/earlier, because I managed to stay on task has a real impact on the energy and time I have to spend on other tasks.

If I only get 80% of the stuff I need to get done before bedtime, there's no chance for me to do other. If I get the stuff I need to get done well before bedtime, there's time left for other things. Skewed self-assessment isn't really a factor in that.

I believe it was 30mg (10mg, 3x a day) that I started on. Dosage was adjusted after about a year, when I began to notice the dosage wasn't really having the same effect. Was upped to my current dose that I've been on since then.

I always find that portion of ADHD somewhat amusing. Getting fixated on a task and unable to context switch is a big thing, which I think is surprising for many people.

For me, I've been on dexamphetamine sulphate for about five years. I had to have my dose adjusted after about a year, because I experienced what you mentioned (decreased efficacy). Once the dose was increased, the effect became pretty stable though (I'm currently on 45mg a day). I wouldn't say it completely negates my ADHD, but it definitely makes things a lot more manageable.

I disagree with this. For me, the energy is because I have to use less energy doing basic day to day shit. Unmedicated, it takes far more effort and work, and leaves less energy for later tasks.

I was diagnosed with ADHD when I was about 27-28. I've been on medication since then, and the impact has been amazing. It makes me wish my condition was diagnosed much earlier. So much unnecessary difficulty (Especially in school) that could potentially have been avoided.

> I gave examples

I think they meant specific examples (as opposed to hypothetical or vague examples)

> I’m pretty sure they’ll be affect by their channel getting suspended ;)

Unless I'm misunderstanding the other guy incorrectly, what they're proposing is additive.

If I understand right, you're essentially saying "But people without manual moderation might be unfairly impacted by automation".

But it's a bigger problem without the custom moderation the other guy is suggesting?

> In my experience the people who claim “zero downsides” are the last people who should be making business decisions.

Fortunately, it sounds like the other guy isn't making any business decisions in this specific context. So why not just stick to addressing the (de)merits of their suggestion, and leave the veiled insults out?

> Every design has a trade off and all too often there are unforeseen consequences too.

Stating a self-apparent truism doesn't bring much value either. Even if someone here wasn't aware of this idea, stating it as an abstract doesn't really help the discussion much, and seems like a bad faith comment to make.

> If you honestly believe there are zero downsides then you haven’t spent long enough in the industry at the level of seniority required to understand the the consequences.

Attacking the guys seniority doesn't add any value and is a fallacy. If you seriously believe there are downsides, why not state them instead of insulting the dude?

> Sorry if this sounds condescending but I’ve worked with so many engineers who have believed they shit gold only for them to discover they knew far less about the job then they believed they did.

My dude, this doesn't just sound condescending, it is condescending. This trailing comment borders on outright gaslighting.

The fact you're aware it is condescending but decide to say it anyway means you're not sorry either - otherwise you wouldn't have said it in the first place?

I'll spare you a self-righteous diatribe about bitter, unempathetic co-workers, since I'm sure you'll agree it's not relevant.

America wants freedom for America above everything else. It's why they engage in subversive and potentially destabilising operations abroad (in order to "protect" their own freedom).

Internally, the situation is not much different (at least from an outsiders perspective). The elite and wealthy effectively using their resources to further the gap between themselves and the lower rungs in the name of profit.

Externally, the propaganda is aimed at distracting from how disruptive they are in other countries affairs (most notable in recent history being the Middle East). Internally, it seems like it's indoctrination into the belief of the inherent superiority of capitalism, and the construction of strawmen to distract from real issues.

That sounds very close to a "No True Scotsman" type fallacy. I've done a fair bit of consulting in the past working with Scala, and my experience closely matches the one described in the grandparent post - the issues happened with veterans more than newbies in my experience (Although that's a function of mostly working with veterans and few newbies)

Interestingly, he's also generally viewed as one of the greatest prime ministers, and did insanely well by most metrics. He served both the longest period of any prime minister in Australia (18 years), and has the longest consecutive time as prime minister too (16 years iirc).

He was also a central figure for one of the two major parties (Liberal - basically our closest equivalent to the American Republican party).

It would be fascinating to hear his opinion on where the Liberal party is today. That said, I think both major parties are generally shit (Broadly speaking, one works in the best interests of corporations, and the other just doesn't do much of anything)

The big "wtf" for me was learning that the US has, by far, the highest public healthcare expenditure of any country in the world.

Looking at this data, it seems like it pays almost 50% more than the next highest country (over 9k per capita, vs just under 6k).

People are dependent on government anyway. Your life is very much in the hands of whichever entity wields the most power. Sometimes this power is direct and immediate (like a tyrannical despot). Other times it's less direct but no less powerful (democracies controlled by corporations).

On using healthcare as a tool for coercion - whilst it's a debatably bad outcome, it's generally still better than healthcare locked behind money (the latter resulting a continuous, persistent denial of healthcare to some portion of the population - the former being a once off, or possibly intermittent, denial of healthcare).

Of course healthcare isn't free. The worst case, of course, is when healthcare is both paid for via taxation and then subsequent billing by non-government entities.

That's actually a terrifying and seemingly feasible dystopian future

It only interoperates with Java in a trivial sense. Using Hibernate for example is a real pain in the ass in Scala, because of its insistence on using its own collections.

Although quite different, this made me think of how COBOL is largely in maintenance at many places, but pays premium rates for developers.

Yup, pretty much. However, the implications of veneer can be significant.

Providing a single unified interface which provides granular, unified querying of disparate types has several benefits. In particular, it can simplify logic in the consuming application, and reduce network load (both in terms of the number of requests, and especially in the amount of data returned).

For example, a pet website backed by a traditional REST architecture, may have separate endpoints for say `/pets`, `/owners`, and `/purchases `. In this context, the front-end may need to make calls to all three of these endpoints, retrieving the full payload for each - only to discard most of the fields, and keep 2 or 3 relevant ones from each entity.

By comparisons, a GraphQL based approach would allow a single consolidate query for just those specific fields (from all entities).

Of course this isn't relevant in every use case, and there's no silver bullet - and in many cases, a REST based approach may well be better.

Interesting, I'm surprised that they don't have to provide you with the tools needed to do your job!

In Australia, the emp is generally responsible for providing any necessary tools or equipment needed to do the job (contractors are another matter though)