> A thief would be excited to eat the food they stole
I don't concede that the act of sharing this code is stealing, of course. The act of helping one's fellow man is a good thing. You've made your stance clear, and the very cogent and fairly conclusive arguments people have made against your stance don't seem to land, and I have no interest in repeating that exercise (and neither do you, I'm sure).
But this phrase stood out to me, and in particular that you would choose food as an example. You could've used any other example, like a new hat, or a baseball bat, a tricycle, a mirror, and so on. But you chose food, something people need to survive. Is the case of stealing food not at all morally ambiguous to you? What about the case of a young mother stealing diapers she can't afford?
>Is the case of stealing food not at all morally ambiguous to you?
It is not ambiguous in the least. To me part of being human is being able to ignore one's natural instincts and make one's own actions. If someone is stealing food either they are no better than an animal, so they should be locked up like one, or they are antisocial and want to commit malicious acts in which they should be punished.
>What about the case of a young mother stealing diapers she can't afford?
To me this clearly is also wrong. Either the father needs to be working more so they can afford them, or the mother should create them herself instead of resulting to stealing them. The age of the mother makes no difference as basic harmful behavior like stealing is taught and understood at a very young age.
Yes all the time actually, especially when making system migrations. Uncle Bob writes about this in Clean Code. It is actually extremely common since it's the most apparent course of action to look at hard-coded values in maintenance and backport it as specs to new system.
I’m using Opus 4.6 and I’m so confused! Maybe I should try Opus 4.7, which is almost twice as expensive to get some clarity (but not too much, I need to save money for Opus 4.8)?
That's what the article is about - overcoming problems with AI cooding tools using specs in Yaml. If we've got that far, it might be better to write specs in a proper programming language instead and skip the AI layer altogether
Think the idea is to still get monumental acceleration between fancy YAML specs (bullet points with some indentation that an intelligent technical manager could write) and production ready code.
I have yet to see the monumental acceleration tbh. For people who never tried writing code themselves a semi-formal spec is definitely a step in the right direction though
Are there other sources than a linkedin post? I try to be a bit more critical of information in times of war. God knows we've been lied to before, by all sides. I've seen janitorial schedules be presented as a terrorist sign in sheets.
I've seen stories come out in major news outlets about every man needing to have the same haircut as Kim Jong Un. Something that didn't need lying about imo, but people did anyway. Don't underestimate what people will lie about in times of war.
And some attached pdf that I could have an LLM generate in a minute I wouldn't call a source. I'm talking about a source in the sense of journalism -- something I cannot find for this story.
Yep look who is backing these regulations. It's absolutely for no other purpose than to further enable surveillance capitalism and the surveillance state.
Nothing you say is in disagreement with the comment you're responding to. And yeah, Apple is doing really well, in part because of their anti competitive practices. Good for them, bad for us.
These responses talking about Apple's bottom line kind of feel like this convo:
> Cigarettes are bad, they cause cancer. Philip Morris shouldn't be selling them
> Yeah but they sell so many cigarettes! Isn't that great?
I don’t think any of the original articles complaints are wrong but I don’t agree with the thesis. They are one of the best selling device manufacturers because the product and ecosystem is so good. My point was that folks, maybe like yourself, who don’t find the ecosystem open enough or the devices repairable enough, are outliers compared to the average consumer.
Oh, it's an analogy. This is a frequently used rhetorical device where you take a similar analogous setup (maybe hypothetical) to elucidate certain aspects of a situation you're considering.
I would really hate to work with a blue/red function system. I would have to label all my functions and get nothing in return. But, labelling my functions with some useful information that I care about, that can tell me interesting things about the function without me having to read the function itself and all the functions that it calls, I'd consider a win. I happen to care about whether my functions do IO or not, so the async label has been nothing short of a blessing.
Two of my main CAP theorem pet peeves happen on this page:
- Not realizing it's a very concrete theorem applicable in a very narrow theoretical situation, and that its value lies not in the statement itself but in the way of thinking that goes into the proof.
- Stating it as "pick any two". You cannot pick CA. Under the conditions of the CAP theorem it is immediately obvious that CA implies you have exactly one node. And guess what, then you have P too, because there's no way to partition a single node.
A much more usable statement (which is not a theorem but a rule of thumb) is: there is often a tradeoff between consistency and availability.
I agree with you in principle, but in my mind there's a slight disconnect between a proof of a theorem that can freely be built upon by the mathematical community and the social media integration no one asked for that a 5 person point-of-sale startup writes months before going bankrupt.
New mathematical concepts are usually published in scholarly journals so it's possible to dig them up decades later when they're needed. But most companies never publish stuff that doesn't work, and don't even make any effort to learn from it internally. So they make the same mistakes over and over again.
The article says this is the first jet that was shot down by enemy fire this war, but this confuses me. Was the F35 that was downed a while back friendly fire or something? Are F35s not fighter jets?
Assuming you're both referring to the events of 19 March, they did not eject from the F-35. I know of no event during this war where an F-35 crew ejected.
It can, that's part of why these newer planes cost billions of dollars per unit. Assuming the plane is still controllable though. Usually in that case you wouldn't eject, but its technically possible. There was a case where a US pilot ejected on accident and their plane landed itself.
As an aviator, that right there counts as an emergency landing. A hard one.
They limped it back home, they didn’t ditch a very sensitive airframe over enemy territory, I’d call that a win and the pilot deserves a medal for that.
The missiles have what’s effectively a flak shotgun shell at the tip, when they’re pointed at an object and close by it shoots flak in a tight cone towards the front.
Flak spreads the damage better and does more kinetic damage than trying to ram a plane with a missile and hoping the concussion from a the resulting explosion damages something.
You're talking about a single "dash" on the frame before it goes all white. First question, if it were a laser, would be what exactly are you seeing there? A laser from the side is invisible, there'd need to be dust there, or the air would need to have turned into plasma. I don't think either makes that much sense. Second question/problem would be… it would have failed/be malfunctioning because —
— pretty much all AA munition works by exploding in close proximity to the target and showering it in shrapnel. So this might even have "helped" the missle/shell against malfunction in its fuse. And considering that this is designed to work like that, and it's likely not the greatest quality work on the Iranian side, it's also possible that the thing is already exploding and just ejected some piece of intentional shrapnel (or unintentionally itself) early, ahead of the actual detonation.
Or the Iranians edited that "dash" into that one frame, it's not exactly like it's a reputable source and it's in their interest to confuse things. Maybe they want the US to believe that the countermeasures are malfunctioning and helping their attacks, so they turn it off…
I don't concede that the act of sharing this code is stealing, of course. The act of helping one's fellow man is a good thing. You've made your stance clear, and the very cogent and fairly conclusive arguments people have made against your stance don't seem to land, and I have no interest in repeating that exercise (and neither do you, I'm sure).
But this phrase stood out to me, and in particular that you would choose food as an example. You could've used any other example, like a new hat, or a baseball bat, a tricycle, a mirror, and so on. But you chose food, something people need to survive. Is the case of stealing food not at all morally ambiguous to you? What about the case of a young mother stealing diapers she can't afford?
reply