chrismatic

I have to point out the irony of posting this diatribe under a post about a data leak that seems to pretty much confirm many of the assessments that have been made about the AfD being more than just another right-wing party.

I don't think that popularity should factor into the consideration of a ban. Lots of objectively bad ideas can trend for a while which is why modern democracies emphasize constitutionalism and institutionalism. Would you not, for instance, have advocated for a ban of the NSDAP even in 1933 knowing the consequences?

That analysis skips quite a few empires both before and after the Roman empire. Also, at least for the Romans the bureaucracy arguably came after the empire was already well established.

We've encountered similar constraints. Part of the solution is adopting a build system that can aggressively cache and parallelize.

In our case I wrote a light-weight version of Bazel: https://grog.build/

How does this analogy work when in 1980 you knew that nukes and people using them were a real thing, but we've never seen a frontier model "hack into core inference infrastructure to upload weights to other GPUs to survive"?

How is this different from https://github.com/asheshgoplani/agent-deck ?

I am working on Grog, the “grug-brained” alternative to Bazel. Bazel has a very steep learning curve and is pretty much overkill for most medium-sized teams. Grog already powers all of our internal mono-repo CI and is a lot more fun to work with.

https://grog.build/why-grog/

And? There's endless high quality content on YouTube.

I think that there is a huge leap between using the Kurds to do your fighting (like in Syria) and what he claims if you look at the map that he pulls up in that section.

He makes quite a few quite controversial assertions without evidence or even bothering to explain them. At the top of my head and paraphrasing:

- "The conflict is a game of chicken." Only in the vaguest sense in which any war or confrontation could be called that.

- "The USA is not equipped to handle a war against drones and fanatics". Idk they seem more capable than any other nation save Ukraine given that those two things have been a major feature of their recent wars.

- "Countries that are poor have more energy and are more cohesive". This is just demonstrably false, but he does not bother to explain why he thinks this.

- "The US wants to break Iran into ethno-states that compete for water until they are all dead." He even admits that this is pure conjecture and hand-waves this as the game-theoretic "optimal" strategy which is completely bonkers.

I do share his negative sentiment and outlook about the war, but there are way better critics that don't resort to this type of intellectual laziness.

I think we should hold people to a higher standard especially when they talk with this much confidence and present themselves as a professor. The issue is that "Game Theory" is a technical term so there really only is an "Academic" sense otherwise it's just a marketing term for whatever ideas you want to push.

While I agree with some of his sentiments the entire video reeks of half-baked conspiratorial thinking and shallow engagement with the facts.

A quick tell is that the video's title includes "Game Theory", while only referencing game-theoretical concepts twice in an off-hand comment. In both instances the usage is plainly wrong.

In general, he loves making big assertions without backing them up with evidence or explanations that go beyond hand-wavy examples.

Sops can natively handle .env files. All you need to apply them to your process is a small wrapper script that sources the decrypted file before invoking your command.

We just recently adopted this and it's crazy to me how I spent years just copying around gitignored .env files and sharing 1password links. Highly underrated tool.

I think you can come to a balanced view here where you acknowledge that Feynman was overhyped posthumously while maintaining that he was an exceptional physicist with some personal flaws. That's precisely the point of the video.

It's less axe grinding and more counter-acting an inaccurate narrative.

I'd recommend that you watch the entire video, because the point is that he did not even write any of those books.

The video points out that the legacy not the man is a sham.

Not entirely without reason though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwKpj2ISQAc

This is a point well taken, but it also instills a certain incuriosity about expert opinions which is on display in this article.

In fact you can find a question to this very answer with a quick search: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1nfz67t/comm...

Experts are also not a monolithic block. Within architecture and arts you can find many people who agree with your aesthetic preferences.

It is like claiming that there is a "curly-braced" orthodoxy in programming when you just haven't engaged deep with modern varieties.

Even worse so: Why does he not simply ask these people? What is it with this trend of sneering at expert decisions without even doing the bare minimum of engaging with them?

I am working on Grog, the “grug-brained” alternative to Bazel. A mono-repo build tool where all you do is provide your build commands and interdependencies and the Grog will run everything in parallel with aggressive caching.

https://grog.build/why-grog/

Came here to post the same resource and to point out that based on it it rarely was a "two person's job" only.

I good a few good laughs out of this post, but I still hope it's just elaborate trolling.

I am working on Grog, the “grug-brained” alternative to Bazel. A mono-repo build tool where all you do is provide your build commands and interdependencies and the Grog will run everything in parallel while caching as much as possible.

https://grog.build/why-grog/