tomlockwood

> Most industries cannot simply just spin up new factories at the turn of a switch.

Particularly given how wild this administration is. Who knows what the situation will be tomorrow, even! America is increasingly perceived as a wildly unreliable partner.

Does it work in the back of a van? Let me know!

> Where do you draw the line

The converse question is also valid - when do we accept that the system is so unjust and broken that people need to take justice into their own hands? Where do YOU draw the line?

Luigi taught us things about the world! https://lockwood.dev/ceos/2025/01/16/ceos-should-do-good.htm...

Bemoans America potentially "embracing socialism", in an article about how good China is.

Hm.

I kind of love working on a legacy project, its like reading a love letter from past devs, their hopes and dreams, classes describing an abstraction that was never used. It's like reading hate mail from past devs, towards their bosses, towards ways of doing things they didn't like. It's like uncovering a stack of newspapers from a time before agile, when people had eldritch and archaic ways of naming tables and variables and methods, when they spoke of things we've forgotten.

Sometimes it is a pleasure and sometimes it feels distant and alien and frustrating.

This is just "reds under the bed" bullshit again. Reconsider.

What's the "unimaginable waste" OP mentions?

All I'm asking for is evidence of the problem you're saying exists.

What was the impact?

What's the "unimaginable waste"? Can you put a comparative number on it?

Isn't the elephant in the room here the massive overspending on the US military which Trump and Elon and Satya and Bezos and Altman don't seem to care about?

What does this prove?

Do you have any verifiable numbers to back up the impact?

Yeah my bad I missed that and edited OP.

This doesn't look like a responsible disclosure, at all.

ed: I was wrong!

I think there's a big difference between something being a law and there being anyone around to implement that law, and indeed, there being a government department or regulator checking the law is being followed.

There won't be anyone doing any of that.

You got a single verifiable example of this?

I don't think you read the original comment.

I don't really get what you're trying to say here.

I think the idea of a "college-educated class" speaks to another fundamental problem with the American project - that a college education is now seen as some upper-class bauble. It is only seen as such a luxury because it is such a slog and expense. Y'all should fix that problem too!

He's not obligated to do anything, man, but I can point at what he does and call it fascism.

I know you may struggle with this because the American education system is awful, but if you pay a tiny fraction of attention to what American senators are like, you'll come to know that in a fistfight or a battle of the wits there is a non-zero number of senators that Biden could beat. This is not a Red vs Blue issue, as simple as that might be for you.

You're claiming America is "turning away from fascism" because of free-er speech. Citation needed. The Christian right is famously book-ban happy, my friend.

Is it fascist to vilify immigrants? Is the republican party full of bright young twenty year olds? Can you post "cis" on twitter?

Philosophy postgrad and now long time programmer here!

This article makes a revelation of the pretty trivially true claim that philosophy is an undercurrent of thought. If you ask, why do we do science, the answer is philosophical.

But the mistake many philosophers make is extrapolating philosophy being a discipline that reveals itself when fundamental questions about an activity are asked, into a belief that philosophy, as a discipline, is necessary to that activity.

AI doesn't require an understanding of philosophy any more than science does. Philosophers may argue that people always wonder about philosophical things, like, as the article says, teleology, epistemology and ontology, but that relation doesn't require an understanding of the theory. A scientist doesn't need to know any of those words to do science. Arguably, a scientist ought to know, but they don't have to.

The article implies that AI leaders are currently ignoring philosophy, but it isn't clear to me what ignoring the all-pervasive substratum of thought would look like. What would it look like for a person not to think about the meaning of it all, at least once at 3am at a glass outdoor set in a backyard? And, the article doesn't really stick the landing on why bringing those thoughts to the forefront would mean philsophy will "eat" AI. No argument from me against philosophy though, I think a sprinkling of it is useful, but a lack of philosophy theory is not an obstacle to action, programming, creating systems that evaluate things, see: almost everyone.

You understand as well as anyone that something is either a definition of a term, or it isn't. I'm simply pointing to someone who says "This is a concise definition," and then pointing out that, no, if the definition isn't complete, it isn't a concise definition. And that's fine, we just need to acknowledge that the way people use "woke" is a shorthand for something else, in this case I'd characterize it as the pseudointellectual wet fish flopping of a billionaire struggling to blame someone, anyone, for the world being bad, when he's had outsized control and influence over it for the entirety of his career.

But I acknowledge people may disagree with this.

Paul Graham is a billionaire frantically trying to fingerpoint and blame other people when his ilk have had an outsized influence on politics and business for years and we're no better off.

It either has a concise definition that actually defines the term or it doesn't. I leave it to the anti-woke to tell me which it is, and I'm still waiting.

"It has a concise definition!"

moments later

"It took a whole article to explain!!!"

Also entertaining - the idea that racism has an uncontested definition.

So on the one hand "it varies" and to conservatives it means one very specific thing. Interesting. Which is correct?

So, not such a "concise definition".

That's a pretty subjective definition. We're back where we started.