> Notably, the lack of legalised marriage is not because the population is too conservative. Rather, it is because the US forced a constitution on Japan which enshrines heterosexual marriage as constitutional law, and changing the constitution is significantly more difficult than changing a normal law.
Beyond the fact that they could easily get around this with civil unions, this feels like a massive misrepresentation of the status quo inside the LDP politicians that ultimately get to decide whether progress is made on this.
The current prime minister, in her previous attempt to campaign to be the head of the party (back in ... 2022 I think?), declared her opposition to married couples opting out of sharing a last name[0]. In the 21st century, strong opposition to the idea that somebody might want to keep their own family name after marriage. Something so small and unimportant. Still very far away from civil unions for non-hetero couples.
The Japanese ruling class is so far away from acceptance of anything beyond a very specific notion of married couples, even if the general population thinks differently. These things can change quickly but just in terms of policy delta between Japan and most other members of the OECD the gap is quit huge. Legal rights for one's spouse starts is important, and right now there's really nothing.
(There are some logistical things around the family register that mean that such a change would require some changes to that format. This is not a good enough reason to prevent this!)
[0]: In Japan if two Japanese people get married then they have to unify on their last name. In practice this usually means the woman throwing away their last name. In a funny twist of fate you actually have more flexibiltiy in an international marriage. If a Japanese person marries a foreigner they _don't_ have to do this (and can even go with a hyphenated last name!).
While there is no national civil union law, and it would of course be great if there were, enough prefectures and municipalities have implemented civil unions such that >90% of people live in areas covered by them, so the legal status quo isn't horrendous.
> Something so small and unimportant. Still very far away from civil unions for non-hetero couples.
Your framing of this issue is a bit misleading. You suppose that this name change issue is a prerequisite step for support for civil unions because in your perception it is more trivial. But actually, support for same-sex marriage is more popular than support for different surnames in marriage. Although even then, a supermajority also support different surnames, and even a majority of LDP supporters support both too.
Do the locality-based civil unions actually provide necessary rights for spouses when it comes to things like property rights and the like? Maybe it does.
You’re right to point out public support (I didn’t realize the name thing had less support than same-sex marriage!)
I mainly wanted to highlight that the politicians are not there yet (or rather the ones that end up making the decision, even if supporters and the rank and file support it). But maybe we’ll get same-sex marriage before the name thing!
I could totally be misreading what the state of things on the ground is.
The municipal/prefectural civil unions aren't fully legally equivalent to marriage unfortunately, they do offer tangible benefits but there is still room to improve. It's not nothing, at least.
One thing I would like to note is that Takaichi doesn't necessarily get to make the decision. Japan does not have a presidential system and the PM does not have veto power. As PM she does obviously hold significant influence in the party, but the LDP is a broad tent with multiple factions, and those factions could potentially pressure her given the LDP is losing ground and opposition to same-sex rights is unpopular even with the party's supporters. Due to the constitutional law issue, I'm not optimistic about same-sex marriage in the near-term, but I do think things are trending in the correct direction, that it's likely that more legal rights will continue to be enshrined in the short-term even if full marriage recognition isn't, and that Western media creating a panic about Takaichi and Japan's supposed trend towards ultraconservatism is more oriented towards garnering engagement than accurate reporting.
It is kinda interesting how like every company seems to go through this flow of highlighting that something is an ad (usually even with some differing background color like what Google used to do!), and then they just pull back differentiators more and more until it really is the smallest minimal marker possible
I think a big difference between Japan and many smaller markets is you are going to have local competitors in almost every sector that have some sort of buy in.
Even if you win on a feature matrix in theory (and is your feature matrix actually tailored to a local market!), the general sort of "well, local companies will be more responsive to our needs" is going to be very present.
Obviously people use Microsoft products for example but Microsoft has a _huge_ presence in Japan to support that. I have been on the receiving end of SaaS's trying to roll out their Japan sales strategy, and all the ones that got a nice and strong footing basically hired loads of local sales talent to do it.
Obviously Europe has a lot of fragmented business process things, but I think that many smaller European companies will be pretty habituated to buying services from outside the country because... well, there's no Salesforce Dot Com alternative based in Italy for example
(There are several SFDC alternatives in Japan)
Anyways the short thing is "buying services from abroad" is a perceived risk for Japanese enterprises because they will often not have to confront that issue, because the local market is "healthy"[0].
[0]: People will whine about the Japanese options being worse, but the options are at least there.
Not to argue too much against what you're saying but I thought that some EU gov't entities had moved off of Windows a while ago.
I know at least one university that doesn't put Windows on its machines either. While Uni requirements are not the same as "enterprise" requirements, it does feel close-ish.
Having said all this, I am very primed to believe that they have a Group Policy-sized hole in their systems. Just thinking they are doing ... something.
While Rust doesn't have C coverage, it has (by my last check) better coverage than something like CPython currently does.
The big thing though is Rust is honest about their tiers of support, whereas for many projects "supported platform" for minor platforms often mean "it still compiles (at least we think it does, when the maintainer tries it and it fails they will fix it)"
Not to be too glib though, there are obviously tools out there that have as much or more rigor than Rust and cover more platforms. Just... "supported platforms" means different things in different contexts.
All too common (not just with compilers) for someone to port the subset they care about and declare it done. Rust's decision to create standards of compliance and be conscious about which platforms are viable targets and which ones don't meet their needs is a completely valid way to ensure that whole classes of trouble never come. I think it's a completely valid approach, despite complaints from some.
now sometimes that's 4 hours, but I've had plenty of times where I'm "racing" people using LLMs and I basically get the coding done before them. Once I debugged an issue before the robot was done `ls`-ing the codebase!
The shape of the problem is super important in considering the results here
You have the upper hand with familiarity of the code base. Any "domain expert" also necessarily has a head start knowing which parts of a bespoke complex system need adjustment when making changes.
On the other hand, a highly skilled worker who just joined the team won't have any of that tribal knowledge. There is a significant lag time getting ramped up, no matter how intelligent they are due to sheer scale (and complexity doesn't help).
A general purpose model is more like the latter than the former. It would be interesting to compare how a model fine tuned on the specific shape of your code base and problem domain performs.
Yeah totally, for unknown codebases it can help kick you off in the right direction (though it can send you down a totally wrong path as well... projects with good docs tend to be ones where I've found LLMs be worse at their job on this ironically).
But well.. when working with coworkers on known projects it's a different story, right?
My stance is these tools are, of course, useful, but humans can most definitely be faster than the current iteration of these tools in a good number of tasks, and some form of debugging tasks are like that for me. The ones I've tried have been too prone to meandering and trying too many "top results on Google"-style fixes.
But hey maybe I'm just holding it wrong! Just seems like some of my coworkers are too
While in some sense it's interesting to store the prompts people might use, I feel like that might only accentuate the "try to tweak prompts over and over to pray for the result you want"-style workflows that I am seeing so many people around me work in.
People need to remember how good it feels to do precise work when the time comes!
I'm a nushell user but like... job control in nushell is pretty miserable still unfortunately.
Nushell is definitely my fav of the set (xonsh is a neat experiment but ultimately is missing pipeline programming that nushell gives....), and I write personal shell scripts for myself mostly in nu.
Aside: for shell scripts, my preference is something like nu, then python + stdlib, giving me argparser etc, then just zsh/bash/whatever. Seriously annoying how POSIX shells do not give good argument parsing, tho I get it's a hard problem
Is there any good faith read of this that people can lend credence to? The one I could maybe come up with (with their mention of stability) is "we want OSes derived from AOSP to be stable, instead of following main too closely". They mention third party devs working off of stable too... so maybe they're like "instead of dealing with outside contributors messing around with our 'wip' stuff, we'll sign up for integration work".
Almost all device run on the initial android release (QPR0), and never shipped any of quarterly updates. Even less so using _main_ as a baseline so that point is moot.
With android 16 introducing "mid releases" (QPR2), they expect OEMs to start shipping those as well, QCOM already has a QPR2 BSP release, and Samsung is expected to release QPR2 based builds soon.
As far as contributions go, google usually wanted patches to apply to main, I don't think that ever changed.
And even there now that AOSP development is fully closed, it's even easier as partners will likely just upload patches against internal main instead. Less integration work there as well.
There really isn't a good explanation as to why they want to do move code drop cadence, other than they can and want to avoid wasting time releasing QPR1/3 that no OEM ever shipped (expect Pixels that is)
Android's foundation has been mostly stable for years now, with fairly minor changes between releases. So I guess they just don't want to deal with too many versions to document and support, given that device vendors are generally awful.
Also for a long time they were doing yearly (or longer) release, afaiu it's only the past two years that they switched to quarterly (with the QPR release).
So the source code will be released in a kind of FreeBSD releases? These pieces work together, base things off them, don't mess with (or even see) any WIP stuff.
In other words, the result is still open, but the development process is not.
I don't work on Android, but I suspect it's a whole lot less work for both confidentiality and maintenance to not have to worry about daily/weekly OSS releases. That's probably worth more to the decisionmakers than the value of random contributions from people who aren't already inside the partner tent.
[edit] based on the other comments, I surmise that public pushes were already infrequent.
Sure. Development at Google is glacially slow because nobody does any work, and so they're only publishing releases bi-annually because there aren't enough substantive changes to make quarterly releases seem important. This will also allow the teams to move to biannual OKRs instead of quarterly, which lets ICs and line managers do half as much work while giving executives justification for why they need twice as much headcount.
When it comes to large bureaucracies, always assume laziness over malice or strategic competence.
At least with DMCA you so get a notice and you can somewhat challenge it. With Italy's Piracy Shield you have no notice and there's no public record of which IPs/websited have been blocked, so it's hard to even challenge it in court.
Beyond the fact that they could easily get around this with civil unions, this feels like a massive misrepresentation of the status quo inside the LDP politicians that ultimately get to decide whether progress is made on this.
The current prime minister, in her previous attempt to campaign to be the head of the party (back in ... 2022 I think?), declared her opposition to married couples opting out of sharing a last name[0]. In the 21st century, strong opposition to the idea that somebody might want to keep their own family name after marriage. Something so small and unimportant. Still very far away from civil unions for non-hetero couples.
The Japanese ruling class is so far away from acceptance of anything beyond a very specific notion of married couples, even if the general population thinks differently. These things can change quickly but just in terms of policy delta between Japan and most other members of the OECD the gap is quit huge. Legal rights for one's spouse starts is important, and right now there's really nothing.
(There are some logistical things around the family register that mean that such a change would require some changes to that format. This is not a good enough reason to prevent this!)
[0]: In Japan if two Japanese people get married then they have to unify on their last name. In practice this usually means the woman throwing away their last name. In a funny twist of fate you actually have more flexibiltiy in an international marriage. If a Japanese person marries a foreigner they _don't_ have to do this (and can even go with a hyphenated last name!).
reply