I think this is a prodigious feat at any age. I remember trying to write Hello World in Malbolge as a teen, I think I was able to do "He".
468 karma · joined March 14, 2012
Does soc2 actually say this? IIRC their spec docs are proprietary so chumps like myself can’t actually read them. But a (imo great) SOC2 auditor I worked with previously allowed us to treat GitHub PRs as their own sufficient justification. We still used Jira for most, but for minor fixes, quick upgrades, no Jira necessary. A former coworker said they did the same at a previous job. I think, in this particular case, it isn’t SOC2’s fault, it is the fault of auditors who are afraid to not just do what everyone else does.
What Kant is saying is basically that categories like cause, and concepts like substance, are fundamentally bound up with the structure of our mind. We cannot "get outside" our own minds to know anything else, but there must be something beyond our perceptions, which Kant variously calls noumena, things-in-themselves, or transcendental object=X (there are minor differences between these notions that I cannot recall). Here IIRC his language kind of unfortunately but necessarily breaks down into metaphor. He can't quite say that the noumena are the source of phenomena since that would imply a causal relationship, and he's just argued that cause is a structure of the human mind.
Considering the "perspectives" you mention, e.g. that of the flat earther - a perspective is not a perception, nor is it a judgement, and it is these that Kant is primarily concerned with in the 1st critique. I'd say a perspective is more like an agglomeration of more or less (but not necessarily) coherent and self-reinforcing beliefs, attitudes and probably even non-propositional content like dispositions. Kant didn't have much to say specifically about that in any of his major writings that I can recall (maybe in the lectures on anthropology).
But his entire life work was devoted to how we can provide a solid foundation for claims of knowledge, morality, and aesthetics, so to say that "Nobody, ultimately, has any right to pronounce objective truths on anything" would quite a misinterpretation. You could argue "well but it isn't objective knowledge since the noumena are the real objects" but that would be begging the question against him, his whole argument is that concepts like "object" are part of the structure of our mind. Objective knowledge and the human mind go hand in hand.
- The point of the criticism is not that the neocortex is not a "layer" at all, but that it is not the case that if you were to remove the neocortex layer, you would essentially get the brain of a lower-order animal--but this is what is implied by the triune theory.
> The American founders put Cicero’s framework into practice, and they created the most successful mixed constitution in history, whereby the people would frequently elect representatives from among themselves to the House of Representatives.
By "the people" you mean the leaving aside the ~600,000 enslaved along with all the women and native people who could not vote.
Philosophers have debated various criteria for determining what constitutes a natural kind, which I think would have added some clarity to the article.
A related approach that could have added clarity (though I can’t recall whether it deals with natural kinds per se) is Hacking’s Social Construction of What? which lays out a sort of hierarchy for how socially constructed a given phenomenon is. It attempts to add rigor to our intuitions around how objective or subjective a given judgement is.
In this case, I'm thinking of natural kind terms (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-kinds/) and, less well known, Boyd's homeostatic property cluster theory. It is kind of amazing to me that this article has 310 comments and not a single person has raised the question natural kinds.
OTOH I am heartened that people are effectively doing philosophy in the wild without getting too concerned with "whether other people have already said this before" which can be paralyzing.
> And conversely, if the team is picking overly complicated tech stacks, over-engineered designs, piling on tons of tech debt, and rubber-stamping all pull-requests, we should expect to see the velocity drop. And that will not happen if we score tasks based on their accidental complexity.
As much as we (as developers) may not like it, our performance is (sometimes) going to be measured, and it is often going to be done under the guise complexity points, and this part of the argument does seem at least like an improvement to the way it is sometimes conducted.
I believe the Nacha rules stipulate that the originator must have obtained authorization for the debit (and there are rules governing this in more detail), but the practices around “validating” or “verifying” that it is permitted are done for risk management purposes rather than because the rules mandate them. It is hard to point to proof of this from the horse’s mouth because the operating rules are not freely available.
We have a data model like User has many Xs and Ys, both Xs and Ys have a foreign key to the User via user_id. The normalized version would be User has many Ys through Xs. We denormalize and store user_id on both for performance reasons. This seems like a) so common, b) so straightforward a refutation of this claim that I must be misunderstanding the author.
Do we just think that because it is probably impossible to conduct pure double-blind RCTs in human populations, it is therefore impossible to reasonably attribute causality to anything on a social scale, and our efforts to understand and maybe even shape social outcomes are thus inherently pointless?