There are also HOA regulations that empower the HOA board to reject builds. These boards tend to be conservative with building types. Many of these regulations are in place to keep the value of surrounding homes.
186 karma · joined September 4, 2013
I think this comment explains why software gets worse in many cases:
> Of course nowadays, this is legacy nonsense. Everything uses UTF-8 for "char", and what doesn't is broken and terrible anyway. But the old ways stayed with us, and the stupidity of it as well.
The problem is the "legacy nonsense" tends to accumulate over time & as people depend on it, takes a long time to finally remove.
> They are so hilariously misdesigned and insufficient, I can't even fathom how this shit was _standardized_.
They did their best given their circumstances & abilities. Now we must forever pay the price.
> Several decades later, the moronic standard committees noticed that this was (still is) kind of a bad situation. Instead of fixing the situation, they added more garbage on top of it. (Probably for the sake of "compatibility").
At least they tried...
> All in all, I believe this proves that software developers as a whole and as a culture produce worse results than drug addicted butt fucked monkeys randomly hacking on typewriters while inhaling the fumes of a radioactive dumpster fire fueled by chinese platsic toys for children and Elton John/Justin Bieber crossover CDs for all eternity.
Yeah! Time to get back to work...
Credit to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36626018 for pointing this out.
An explicit organizational structure with a chain of command, often involving taxes & a locus of governing power with titles.
> I think you're mistaking authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. Authoritarian regimes (such as Russia or China) seek to create an environment of depoliticization and disengagement, allowing them to go about their domestic business without any opposition. Totalitarian regimes do the opposite: extreme political mobilization of the population toward a particular aim. The difference is readily apparent when these two regime types institute a draft: disengaged people flee, mobilized people sign up to fight.
I tend to delineate a given prescriptive title from the descriptive attributes of action. With that in mind, the West & Democratic processes can be Totalitarian. A 51% of the vote to institute totaltiarianism is a Totalitarian government in my opinion. A bureaucratic rule by experts, prevalent in the west, often avoids Democratic processes anyways, leading to a fascist structure of public/private partnerships where corporations, franchised by the state, wield enormous political control over the lives of the people. The scientific process itself becomes corrupted to work within the framework of funding potential instead of inquiry for knowledge. With that said, personal autonomy, freedom, & liberty are key principles to uphold to avoid Totalitarianism. This includes the freedom not to be imposed on by others. The application of these principles change over time as there are no absolutes.
Pyramid structures are inherently unstable as the importance of necessary work is deincentivized in favor of power grabbing. An example of the consequences is how planned obselecence & profit seeking has diminished the combat capacity of the West. Russia is very successful in the Ukraine war against NATO despite having a fraction of the military budget of NATO. Another example is the dissonance between elites & the working class.
> Who has the monopoly on organized violence is the primary question answered by any political philosophy. My main criticism of anarchism is that it doesn't offer a solution to this problem, it merely punts. Power naturally accrues to those most willing to use it, so a diffusion of power is a vacuum, and nature abhors a vacuum.
My take is that Anarchism is a reaction to the political & social climate. The attractor is distribution of power & force rather than a monopoly. The problem with monopolies is that the locus of power attracts the Psychopaths & Sociopaths who will eventually take over the seats of power & leverage the concentrations of power. If the structures of power were more distributed, then Psychopaths & Sociopaths have less leverage & are more incentivized to do work that benefits their communities. Human nature does not change & people work within a framework of incentives. Centralized power incentivizes grabbing power due to the benefits of being at the top of the Pyramid scheme without having to do work that benefits the community...If the pyramid schemes were less powerful & overarching, there would be less incentive & impact to climb to the top of the pyramid & more incentive to provide value to the community.
Nature abhors a vacuum, but with distributed power, there would be no vacuum. Violence is used to consolidate power & is a net loss, so measures to disincentivize violence can be created within the community...including non-cooperation, ostricization, & even ganging up on an actor harming others. Ganging up on people happens today in the political realm, where some people are deemed "enemies of the State" & "domestic terrorists" despite not being violent. In that case, the principles have been corrupted to suit political ambition, rallying the apparatus of the state to commit violence against people with a different worldview & opinion.
> If that's the sort of society anarchists envision for individuals, I have to say they're not being very ambitious!
That's a reductionist take but ok...I'm not an anarchist & take a more pragmatic view to my own circumstances but I do appreciate the contributions that the various anarchist Philosophies to contribute.
For me, it's less about envisioning a new society but more about realizing the reality of what actually is...beneath the veneer that we call society is a regime enforced with violence & the imposition of a pyramid scheme on people whether or not they want to take part in it. The government does not make anything but only transfers resources at a loss. If some people gain resources at the expense of many others, then the people gaining the resources are happy while the others who are supporting the system are downtrodden. If the downtrodden stop participating in their own exploitation, violence is committed against them to accept their servitude. Effectively, you cannot have a pyramid scheme without some sort of colonialism or slavery. When the colonized realize they can remove the imposed yoke & organize in other ways, they do. What happens then?
Fwiw, Anarchists use the analogy of nations having anarchist relationships with other nations.
Why did it take so long to notify the community?
It is also an effective tool to blackmail willing & unwilling lawmakers, corporate heads, & officials to control policy.
I don't see how your point has been proven...when I stated that the climate always changes, with or without humans. It would change our stance to mitigation instead of a delusion that we can avoid these climatic impacts to any meaningful degree. Climate change is going to happen no matter how much CO2 we sequester & even if we block out the sun. Don't get me wrong, I expect the climate to drastically change as we are heading into a period of a grand solar minimum, which leads to erratic solar & terrestrial activity, given that the Magnetosphere is underpowered & Earth is less shielded from Cosmic Radiation & CMEs. The climate is changing, has always been changing, & always will be changing. The climate has never been static.
Sequestering too much CO2 could cause ecological damage, as plants rely on CO2 for food. As for blocking out the sun...well, I hope one does not need much imagination to grasp the impacts on life it would have. In short, interventions often have unintended consequences, particularly when the operating models are incorrect.
> Leading question; Of course not. > Making an open-source model means all the sociopaths get an open source AI you have no control over.
I'm operating under the assumption that Psychopaths & Sociopaths are attracted to positions of dominance, meaning Government, Political Influence, and large economic institutions such as Banks & Corporations.
Distributing power provides less leverage for psychopaths & sociopaths. Open Source AI provides choice & mitigation strategies while closed source & regulated AI leads to leveraged control which would be a focal point for the psychopaths & sociopaths to be attracted to & leverage. Given the atrocious state of political affairs & the extreme concentration of Psychopaths with political power, I don't see we can avoid an abusive regulatory regime with such a critical piece of technology. I would have no power over a regulatory process, but a regulatory process would have power over me & my ability to mitigate any dangers that can be caused by people abusing AI.
A long wolf in a basement will not have enough compute power to cause major problems using AI. A corporation or a government, in charge of the regulatory apparatus is far more likely to cause major problems.
If a lone wolf causes problems with AI, law enforcement will move in & shut down the operation. If a politically connected corporation, bank, or the government that controls the regulatory apparatus causes problems with AI, then there are no other options than to use the "approved" problematic AI systems or to "illegally" mitigate the problematic AI systems...
The climate changes with or without humans. That gigantic dynamo in the sky has cycles longer than recorded history. The climate models (many of which forecast doom in 20 years or so) fail to have predictive value. Economic growth has proven to be good for human health on a whole...assuming the wealth is distributed & not concentrated.
> 1. "we found 40,000 chemical weapons overnight by flipping a 'minimise harm' to 'maximise harm
Governments & Corporations have been harming humans for a long time. Positivist plausible deniability is a common meme..."it's not proven unsafe so that means it's safe" while often omitting data which proves something is unsafe.
The problems lie with governments & corporations that control the regulatory apparatus...not rogue actors.
> 2. Bing chat threatening it's users almost immediately
All the more reason to have open source options & freedom to choose another model.
> 3. All the stuff the red teams found so OpenAI could prevent them before chatGPT went live
Yet here they are wanting regulation...which conveniently would entrench their market position. If we demand that the companies which created the "harmful" ai nationalize their technology or open source their technology & data for public inspection, we would probably see these corporations change their positions on this issue.
> Conversely you don't need an AGI to exist for some idiot to be convinced of a bad idea that gets nukes launched anyway
These idiots already send radioactive munitions into combat areas via depleted Uranium. The lone madman is not the problem...governments & powerful corporations run by psychopaths is a far greater danger. Do we want to give these powerful psychopaths sole control over AI?
I've seen routing architectures that support HMR & runtime management of modules use an Object with methods that call `import('module-name')`. Would dynamic imports be sufficient to support the use case you described?
Re mocks, an ecosystem should not be held back solely due to an arcane edge case. The apps that use test doubles can be rearchitected to support test doubles to the programmers' satisfaction. Most people do not use test doubles & the benefits of ESM & not having to deal with CJS outweigh the downsides of losing some convenience in mocking modules.
This is something that will not be popular with clingers to CJS, but it is something that will benefit the wider ecosystem. The vocal minority which is holding back the ecosystem should start making plans to migrate because it is in the process of happening right now...
So I think the general resentment is having to do extra work to support CJS which is not standard across all JS platforms...and some legacy libraries are still written in CJS requiring an interop. So it would be great to not have to do this extra work to support the legacy CJS on Node.js when every other JS platform is using ESM. In this case, one person's convenience comes at a cost to everyone else & at some point, that one person is going to have to suck it up & do the work to support his use case...just as everyone else had to do the work to support the legacy CJS for years now.
Pleased to meet you! Isomorphic code bases are a case to use a single language, which before WASM, is Javascript & Typescript. I may prefer to use something different with WASM, which has even more interoperability than JS, becoming a bigger part of the ecosystem, but so far it would be Assemblyscript to more easily migrate my existing codebase. Assemblyscript has a Garbage Collector, so I may choose Rust or Zig if I don't want the GC. Rust probably has the most momentum, so despite the complexities, verbosity, & loss of productivity working with Rust, that may be a better choice when working with WASM. I would prefer Zig over Rust & Assemblyscript over both in cases of app development...but breadth & depth of the ecosystem matters.
I wouldn't touch PHP, Python, Ruby if I had a between using Typescript...as PHP, Python, & Ruby lack a decent static type system.
> Nobody wanted to work with JS, it was used to make snowflakes on your home page on Xmas at best.
I disagree. Javascript is a prototype based language, which provided opportunities for composition over inheritance. JS supported closures from it's beginning while other popular languages did not (well Ruby had limited support for closures). Inheritance & other OO concepts now considered harmful were prevalent with Java, C#, Ruby, Python, etc.
Sure, we could have used LISP instead, but for some reason LISP did not gain traction. JS was the closest programming to LISP which had popular appeal.
I suggest that JS changed the general programming ecosystem in profoundly positive ways & I, for one, preferred developing in JS over the other popular alternatives when I could.
To further bolster the case for JS, Typescript was built as an extension on top of JS, proving you can have the dynamic prototype based runtime with a powerful static type system.
What are the consequences of ignoring these notices?
The shareholders willingly take a financial risk in pursuit of wealth. The people in the public harmed by the corporate actions did not willingly accept the risk to their health. The public people harmed were victimized by the corporation & the people involved with the corporation. If the shareholders have skin in the game, they will be more motivated to ensure that the corporation does not endanger the public in any way. The officers' fiduciary duty becomes aligned with public safety as well.
If the shareholders are simply chasing the bottom line without regard to the consequences of the company they invested in, there is no incentive to maintain public safety. History has shown what happens...companies repeatedly harm the public with a relatively minor punishment which is less than the money they made off of harming the public, if the company is punished at all.
Corporations are chartered for the betterment of society. If a corporation is harmful to society, anyone involved with those actions should be aggressively removed from society under criminal statute, with even greater fervor then prosecuting a murderer, rapist, or any other criminal who impacts less people than corporate criminals.
A Chapter 11 would allow the same staff who caused the problems to join the new companies. Unless the people who caused the problems are personally & criminally held liable, nothing would change.
Besides...the CIA makes more money running illegal drugs.
I have my priors & you have yours. "Your priors" seems to be that funneling money to large institutions fixes our problems. My prior is that funneling money to large institutions creates corruption & misaligned incentives. History has shown that large institutions which have utopian ideals make dreadful mistakes often based on a silver bullet mentality. If only we kill all of the sparrows there will be more food. If only we remove CO2 from the air, we will achieve some sort of balance...which has yet to be defined.
> This is a very simple, mostly linear switch on top of very very very complex systems, ie CO2 concentration.
Given how little we know about the Sun's cyclic behavior & the inaccuracies the climate models have been in their predictions...I am skeptical of your "silver bullet" assertion.
> Your argument is basically "we broke it, but if we fix it it will be more broken" and there's just no evidence for that, just speculation.
Actually, my argument is that the climate always changes throughout Earth's history. We broke nothing except polluting local areas, which btw is not measured with CO2. In Earth's geological history, there's more evidence that CO2 lags increases in temperature...indicating that CO2 is a side effect of increased temperature. The anthropocene is different as there are emissions from humans, yet there have been periods of mass burning from cosmic sources, volcanic activity, etc. During these times the "runaway greenhouse effect" failed to materialize.
The temperature records have shown an increase after we left an ice age a little more than 200 years ago. I'm not surprised that temperatures increase at the end of an ice age.
> As long as other bad policy decisions aren't made because of the existence of CO2 sequestration there is absolutely no reason not to use it, but it's one out of perhaps 100 major initiatives that will be required to get us back to a good level.
Mao & his scientists also had "absolutely no reason" not to kill all of the Sparrows. Within their contextual worldview, it was logical...yet in reality it was dreadfully wrong. Bad things happen when people & institutions become arrogant in their assertions & approach broader systems with dogma instead of curiosity.
The Earth has gone through periods of significantly higher CO2 & yet life flourished. Plant growth benefits from CO2.
> get us back to a good level
What indicates what a good level is? CO2 on Earth has gone through large fluctuations.
> you're living in a man-made climate crisis
Earth has gone through some far greater climatic variability than we are seeing today. The climate models models are speculative & horrible at predicting what will occur within a few years span, let alone decades. If we are so concerned about man-made impacts on the environment, why not concentrate on pollution that damages ecosystems & people instead? If we are concerned about climate change which has always occurred in Earth's history & will continue to occur, why not focus on helping people adjust to the impacts. Spending vast amounts of money based on speculative & inaccurate models is a terrible idea & will probably have "unforseen impacts".
Luckily this is probably dead on arrival. People are more interested in their own well being than appeasing some sort of doomsday scenario based on models that have so far been useless in their predictive abilities.
Somehow, I get a sense that the governing bodies are going to cause far more harm to people than the climate change. Similar to how Mao ordered the mass killing of Sparrows in a misguided belief that since sparrows eat crops, killing sparrows will increase yields. Unfortunately, killing the sparrows meant a predator of bugs (which eat crops in a more destructive manner) was drastically reduced. The crop yields plummeted largely from the policy to kill sparrows, resulting in millions people dying of starvation.
Human institutions with their "brilliant" ideas of intervening with nature often make matters worse, especially when chasing a single metric & ignoring other aspects of a system.
bourbon.js it is?
There are other means, such as diplomacy, to solve conflicts, btw.
> The subducting slabs also carry deep-sea sediments piggyback into the Earth’s interior. These sediments can hold large quantities of water and CO2. But until now it was unclear just how much enters the transition zone in the form of more stable, hydrous minerals and carbonates – and it was therefore also unclear whether large quantities of water really are stored there.
> The answer has now been provided by an international study. The research team analyzed a diamond from Botswana, Africa. It originated at a depth of 660 kilometers, directly at the interface between the transition zone and the lower mantle, where the dominant mineral is ringwoodite. Diamonds from this location are very rare, even among the extremely rare diamonds of super-deep origin, which account for just 1% of all diamonds. The studies found that the stone had a high water content due to the presence of many ringwoodite inclusions. The study team was also able to establish the chemical composition of the stone.
https://scitechdaily.com/an-underground-ocean-scientists-dis...