namose

I've found estimations helpful when it's really about breaking down parts of a task that aren't independently deliverable, but still independently estimatable. When working with a sufficiently technical manager, it gives them the best idea of your confidence function. It also helps junior members of the team understand more of your process and get some problem-solving practice without years of experience.

That sounds like the estimation process was screwed up, not that all estimation is a waste of time

You speak as if this is a bad thing. If the U.S. funded research that caused the covid outbreak, the international community should lose trust in us, especially since public officials dismissed (perhaps unfairly) theories that would have put the U.S. at fault. Obviously, this goes doubly for China.

Increasing safeguards relies on us knowing what the vectors of outbreak are. It matters if this was caused by an underpaid lab assistant selling animals that were meant to be contained, or a random person catching animals to sell, or a researcher that didn't quarantine after being bit. The safeguards should be different.

> There are any number of other labs around the world working on similarly dangerous research that could get released on accident.

And you don't see a problem with this?

You seem to assume the lab-leak hypothesis assumes malicious intent in creating the virus, but most people are actually concerned about negligence and/or a malicious coverup of the origin.

A definitive answer to the origin of covid could help answer the following questions:

- How much do I trust U.S. public health institutions?

- How much do I trust Chinese public health institutions?

- Should gain-of-function and other high-risk virus research be conducted? And what should the safety standards be of such research?

- Is there a problem of forced consensus/centralization in the broader scientific community?

Same reason black-hat security research exists. By developing a virus in a contained environment, you can study it, model it, potentially develop mitigations or cures.

Yeah, I think the query-able knowledge engine is the key here, although I think it’s maybe more like “we haven’t figured out how to generalize conceptual learning”. The computer not only has to be able to query images on the internet, but also know how/what to query, which includes a bunch of actions computers are currently incapable of. In some cases, we might complete a drawing task by traveling to a new place, or taking an action (throw an egg at concrete) not querying the internet.

Good, we both agree that no one in this thread suggested terragrunt is developed by hashicorp?

I feel like we kinda do this already it’s just that both servers are owned by GitHub and you can’t tell that it’s happening.

Gain of function research can either be outlawed or not outlawed. We don’t get to try both because viruses are global issues.

Fauci directly said masks don’t work at the start of covid

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-fauci-outdated-...

Stop doing revisionist history. Fauci said directly that masks don’t work.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-fauci-outdated-...

It’s fine to be wrong, that’s what science is all about, but at least admit it and explain the reasoning behind the change.

It seems pretty clear to me that regarding the origin of the virus specifically, there has been bad-faith dismissal of the lab leak theory due to the politicization of GoF research.

> The most popular tool in HashiCorp's ecosystem that wasn't written by them was written by a consulting firm who hated HashiCorp's UX

This is the initial comment about Terragrunt, which doesn't say that

I think the thing that’s missing is that the AI can’t train itself. If you were asked to draw a realistic x ray of a horse’s ribcage, you’d probably google image search, do some research about horse anatomy, etc, before putting pen to paper. This thing is being trained exactly once, and can’t learn dynamically. That’ll be the next step I think.

I think pop media will continue to decline while the long tail will become better and better (this has already happened to music, film, tv, etc). If you use google and billboard charts as a discovery engine you’re gonna have a bad time, but people who seek out quality will have more options than ever.

Maybe, but it hasn’t worked that way for software. I think people might see the opportunity to inject bespoke art in a lot of places it wasn’t previously. College students who could only afford movie posters previously will have art commissioned, every building will have a mural, etc etc.

I think the apprentice model will still exist, they’ll just use AI to aid them. Only the very experienced, talented artists will know when AI is hindering them. Same way a really good programmer will understand when not to use a web framework or whatever, but an inexperienced programmer who knows how to make a crud app with django or whatever is still valuable.

I wonder if subtitles could be used, so rather than describing the video, you just write a script and it generates video for you. I'm certainly no expert, but it does seem like there's a lot more data there.

Most businesses want CRUD apps, and people don’t particularly like coding them. Technology where you can pump out a CRUD app with little to no effort would be a blessing, freeing people to work on more interesting problems.

No, it’s like claiming the internet is centralized because google exists, except the alternative to things like coinbase is way more difficult to use than alternatives to big search engines. It’s a pretty valid argument

Ok, so indentured servitude then

It’s about 7 years too late for this article

It’s important for audit ability and security that people can’t change commit ids from under you. If you run a security review of commit A and decide it’s safe to automatically deploy on your production systems, you’re only doing that because you know commit A can’t be changed.

The problem is that most use-cases for blockchain require being beholden to a central authority anyway, because a chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link, and it’s either impossible or prohibitively inefficient to also run distributed applications that interact with the blockchain.

I think anyone who’s trying to achieve trustlessness by introducing more complexity into software is running a fools’ errand. Make simple, auditable systems.

I sort of agree, but then why play sports or fantasy at all? Why not just turn to a hobby that inherently rewards creativity and boldness (most contemporary arts)?

Alternatively, in competetive environments, things that have stock trading or market mechanics mean that as soon as something becomes “common sense” it’s probably not the correct move anymore.

AWS services are usually based on standards anyway. If you use an architecturally sound approach to AWS you could learn to develop for GCP or Azure pretty easily.

I do also remember in one of the recent AWS outages, the google cloud compute service had lower availability due to failovers hitting all at once

Although tbh I’ve never seen accessible public transit in the US.

With a great public transit system, it feels like you are beholden to nothing. You feel like going to a restaurant and you just start walking. In NYC you can even get to hiking trails by transit. It’s wonderful. Not to mention no DDs

What happens if, instead of making $100M, the kid just takes the money, slacks off, and refuses to work? Can he be sued for breaching fiduciary duty?

Or, what happens if he/she works really hard, but never makes it, and their investor decides to sue for their money back? Often times, legal representation costs 10s, even 100s of thousands.

You’re really just legalizing either fraud or indentured servitude here. In real life, magic oracles don’t exist.