righttoolforjob

If we assume the hypothesis that the current officials are russian plants, then since F.B.I already is being taken over and diverting resources away from foreign threats then this action can be either made to A) make it appear as if control is still in the interest of the US or B) avoiding additional paper trails regarding the importance of jobs/functions, since those are anyway being reshaped.

Framing it as a power struggle seems really shallow.

Scrum is moronic and has proven itself worse and worse over the past 20 years. It started out with good intent but today it is either merely not-in-the-way or horribly dysfunctional. There is a small, small percentage of projects where it might be suitable. It's very small though.

Perhaps? But unless I'd report directly to Elon, I might not want to work in his organizations. Amazon is clearly a whack place for many and there is no shortage of horrible stories from Elon's companies. Elon is clearly a kid who got rich early in life through luck and then sort of stayed a kid, with lots of money and power.

simple: there is no such set.

I think you meant "separate".

What do you mean? That's the entire point of talking about things.

Well, take a car as an example.

The question is not what you use a car for, but rather how the car is built.

I've used it for about 25 years and still love it. Wish you would port it to Windows as well!

They're likely irrelevant anyway. We're all shouting into the void.

This is nothing like a nuclear bomb. A nuclear bomb doesn't choose to explode itself, nor can it replicate itself.

That's besides the point. The argument still holds. We don't want to find ourselves with our foot on an exploding mine before we stop walking across the minefield. At that point it is too late.

What is the limit of intelligence? What limits the human intelligence? How many more times intelligent would an AGI have to be to have the capacity to take over the world?

Nobody says that it necessarily follows, but it's a quite trivial step once you have the AGI, hence pointless that you bring up it as an argument.

Who said it followed? That's a strawman. To dumb it down even further for you, I guess...

There are brains, therefore there can be created an artificial super-brain. Artificial super-brain might have goals which don't align with human brain and we will have no way to understand or control the situation.

Two unrelated facts, which together mean that we should be careful with experimenting with the science working towards super-brains. Just a single super-brain could end us.

Nothing hand-wavy about it. The article that this thread is based on provides the evidence, and you are refuting it. I am refuting your refutation. My experience aligns exactly with the article, that nothing really got better, and especially not the light in my rooms.

What a horrible argument from this guy, whoever he is. And ending with a whataboutism just for the sake of it. I hope nobody regards him as some authority, because he is quite unintelligent and seemingly unable to form proper arguments.

I can't find a flaw in this argument. That is a bit scary actually.

> It's not exactly built-in obsolescence, so much as being built to cost.

How do you know this? Seems completely implausible. Source please.

The regular consumer, like us, don't give a rats ass about the technology behind the light, we just want them to work well. The light is much, much worse than incandescents for the typical consumer. That's what the article is about. Your comment if anything is the weird one.

Hi, also European here. Everything the article complains about is true. The light from LEDs is significantly worse, even in Europe.

> The only thing you need here is knowledge about how the primitives work and how they compose. That's really the only challenge.

> I can explain by comparing it to art. Artistry is hard and artistry is basically the same thing as design but harder.

So you agree it is kind of hard, requires a lot of knowledge about components and how they can best be composed.

Q.E.D.

I can't argue with your points about not having evidence, but I refuse to brush it off as "merely anecdotal" as well.

> I think of system design as something that is tediously hard. It's not something that requires a massive amount of skill. But it does take a lot of time to come up with a design.

Well, zoom out a bit, and imagine that this tedious and hard work where you are documenting and explaining things with arrows and boxes actually takes up most of your time. That's the birth of the explicit role.

I am also sure you can imagine people you have worked with that you would never want to have above yourself in such a role when you are in an IC-role, because they for example always come up with crazy ideas that won't work, or don't come up with ideas at all, or just brush over everything with simple arrows and boxes and assume someone else will figure the hard details of the overall picture out, and in fact in doing so will find no use for the arrows and boxes they got handed other than being some picassoesque requirements input from which you have to make real investigations and conclusions.

That's the people that aren't mature enough for such a role and I claimed many never will be.

But yes, I resonate with a lot of what you are saying.

Even though there isn't a formal theory, there definitely is a big difference between a person capable of doing good system design and one who isn't. I don't think all people are capable of becoming a systems designer or architect. It is not always required for projects, but when it is necessary it can make a great difference, putting a project on the right track from the beginning and keeping it on track, making sure it all becomes something good in the end.

I've done it enough to know that I couldn't do it while keeping my IC-type role as well. For me, personally, I approach systems design in a sort of breadth first search for a solution to the entire problem space, whilst deep-diving into particular areas where I am less certain. For other parts my experience lets me brush over details quite quickly.

However, that is quite different from an IC-type role, where you'll typically run into a multitude of practical engineering issues that can be frustrating and take a lot of time. Tool issues, cloud issues, bug hunting, smoking out every little detail, write unit tests, review others code, etc. That would completely throw your mental cycles in the wrong bucket.

I don't think you should do system design without having plenty of experience from IC-type roles though. You have to have understood so many different aspects; capabilities of the people at hand, the organization at large, tools, frameworks, technologies, etc, and be very, very willing to communicate the picture over and over again and take in feedback as the project progresses. It's technical leadership at one of the hardest levels.

But realise at the same time that even software development itself doesn't have anything resembling a universal theory, common processes or frameworks. It's all changing, being reinvented, and rediscovered on a continuous basis. It is equally true that many things even in medicine or construction aren't based on any solid science.

You've misunderstood the quoted paragraph. They are saying that services that aren't on the corporate network behind the VPN or PEP should not require being routed through the corporate network to access, ideally.

Except, you can combine VPNs with other tech. There is nothing exclusionary about it. It's defense-in-depth which, tada, NIST recommends.

It is definitely in line with US foreign policy to lessen their dependence on Russia.

Consuming is the worst. The Internet is a toxic cesspool, for the most part. Having an account and interacting with friends would be one of the few exceptions, and maybe learning some stuff now and then.

Corruption? Scam? I don't know which universal theory of law you are talking about, but if you are actively lying or hiding information to further your own interests then that surely could and should be illegal. You'll have to construct this theory of yours yourself though.

Slightly related. The Reddit subforum for Bitcoin is managed by people supporting the scam and they very actively promote it and will ban any opposition. I think that should be illegal.

Clearly not written by anyone familiar with the topic :)