jasmer
This 'one line change' is an existential and fundamental effect on the company, it may very well affect operations otherwise.
'One line of code' can easily blow up a system, and the checks are not there to for the 99% of time time we are 'all good' it's for the 1% of the time when there is sketchiness.
Someone complaining about 'hard coded variables' is perfectly right to do so.
Every single element in this situation is in place for very good reason.
Imagine someone wanting to replace the lock in your Airline door, mid flight - oh, we'll just use a 'regular screwdriver' instead of the one designed for the door, who cares!? It's just an airplane!
The gripes are misplaced: the solution for this situation probably is to have a war room/crunch room situation to move the issue quickly and correctly through the hurdles so it can be done within the timeframe needed.
All of those 'delays in between' were the problem - they did not respect the urgency of the situation.
Every attempt to peel away the onion layer reveals mass problems.
It's like saying 'we have no hard proof that all this Mafia gangs revenue came from illegal activity!'.
What I'm saying is, the point of crypto is hustle, there is no real economy, and the players are all shady as can be.
Literally nobody knows where the Binance guy even is!
Why would the Binance guy want to hide from global authorities?
Regular bank CEO's don't.
It's mafia-adjacent the whole way down, with a lot of small dupes and kids playing with some amount of money.
There is no 'there there' in the value creating sense that we might want to see.
If you told me BTC was 95% regular people using it for business and 5% shady, I'd say we need to work on that problem. But it's only 5% 'useful' and the rest is just layers of scam and fraud.
We need to dump crypto, and if we want to try that experiment again - because I think there might be value there - we can give it a new name and keep it clean from the start.
A certified carpenter has more trade-specific information than your average dev out of a great Uni.
It'd be positive if there were some degree of institutionalization of software.
This reads 'immature borderline toxic' I can't imagine having to work with this kind of drama.
Consider: what is more 'free'?
A) Here is some code, do whatever with it?
or
B) Here is some code, you can only use it in certain circumstances?
FSF is dead because it's not practical, and the ideologues behind it naively malign 'capitalism' as something terrible for the world.
OSS makers are free to publish as they chose. Apple and MS don't force or cajole anyone to use MIT. If you use copyleft, your software will not likely get used very much and that's that.
'Big companies leverage over small developers!'
True, maybe they should get together and license their software to Large Corporations?
Finally, the conversation started with a giant Photo of Stallman and that hints at the ideological demagoguery right from the start no matter how much they try to play it down, it'd have been better to not opened the discussion with that at all.
In the end, it will not matter, very few will use copyleft because it's just not practical and that's that.
But more broadly, the value is IP, essentially know-how and lock-in with customers, relationships etc..
Do you realize that's the midsest of bigotry?
"America is going fascist, people who don't with me agree are facists!"
That's your 'nuanced', modern take?
"There is no "nuance" in that mindset."
Yes - there is no nuanced in your own apparent mindset.
Are you reading your own words?
Have you considered that maybe your cartoonish characterization of those 'magic boogeymen' is wrong - and completely lacking in naunce?
Use some logic here:
'Proud Boys are racist more like Hell's Angels than the KKK - and - they are idiots who don't have any power'
Does that statement truly feel red-pill to you?
Or maybe that's a bit of a 'nuanced' take?
'Trump is a life-long Democrat who supports gay marriage, abortion, has not been in a Church in 20 years and could not recite the Lord's Prayer - but who will happily accept the votes of anyone that will give them to him - is an Authoriarian Pig (and a serious risk) - but is obviously not a 'White Christian Nationalist'.'
Again - that sounds like 'Apple Pie America' rhetoric' to you?
Or is that actuaally a more nuance take?
'Abortion and 'definition of woman', are complicated nuanced issues, and that Americans have a diversity of views on those subjets that we have to respect and contend with, and those who disagree with progressives are not necessairly radicals'.
That's the statement of an racist old fart from the South?
Or maybe a more civic take?
Pointing out existentially damaging corruption and embezzelment within a social rights movement (BLM), which for some reason the media wants to mostly ignore - but that Americans are smart enough to handle the complexity of that situation ....
... is somehow 'stuck in 1950's worldview'?
My friend - those are not the staments of an 'American Christian Nationalist Red Pill' person - far from that.
Obviously.
So why would you even think that?
There's a hint here:
"No art, no literature, no music, no theatre!"
You believe there's a big right wing movement that's going to take over America that that is somehow against 'art and literature' ???
You saw 'Footloose' in 1984 and developed your entire 'antifacist' worldview around that, have not changed it since, and pigeonhole everyone into it ???
Paridoxically, these are comical and narrow antifacist views from the 1950s - which I am afraid to tell you are bigoted.
So to get you 80 years up to date: almost all Americans don't like racism, they would all want better schools if it meant an an reduction in crime and increased civility and prosperity, Americans are open and gregarous and accepting people - but - many (maybe even most) are not going to agree with some of the more assertive progressive ideals. Now you can rest well not worrying about a 'Nazi Takoever'.
You're just promoting the perennialy problematic ideal that "The people I don't agree with are zombies and are trying to take over!" and therefore the justification of that toxicity on social media.
Ironically, this is not entirely dissimilar to the logic of actual, loony white supremacists.
Unfortunately, there are few voices willing to play to anything but their choir.
Fortunately, most people are actually good people, and willing to have the discussions about 'the hard and nuanced things' when they're out from under the thumb of various toxic populist forces and narratives.
Are we at diminishing marginal returns and not getting closer?
Do we need a 'leap' in AI? Or is this just a matter of grinding it out?
The laughable inanity about 'Proud Boys White Nationalism' is betrayed literally by their idiot criminal leader who is a person of colour (!!!) as though the MSM wants Americans to sit there like fools and just believe this black guy is the 'Face of White Supremacy', without nuance or context. It's somewhere between Monty Python and Orwell, like Putin saying on TV that 'Russia did not invade Ukraine' and 1/2 of the stupid Russian sheep believing it. The Proud Boys are hooligans. They are literally modelled after Euroepan football hooligans, which is a form of working class gang, the best cultural analogy would be 'Hell's Angels', not the KKK. They definitely have some scary elements and their involvment in Jan 6 was material, but outside of that event, they are compeltely irrelevant.
If you actually visit the more traditional places that happen to be 'White' and also 'Christian' and 'Nationalist' - like Montana, Utah etc. - you'll find very low rates of crime, gun violence, poverty and unemployment - among the lowest in the nation. The nicest, most boring people in America.
Far from being 'a threat' - true white nationalists have basically no intitutional power - they are a very small group, mostly poor, marginalized white trash losers, and aside from some smaller states where they have some political influence, they are not relevant to anything - except for possibly the fact that they support Trump. Now Trump is a giant dirtbag and who will happily take their votes - but he is by far and away not a 'Christian White Nationalist'.
All federal agencies, including law enforcement, FBI/CIA/IRS etc. and even the DoD are inundated with fairly aggressive DEI programs, with some whacky things going unquestioned such as USAF Academy cadets asked to not refer to their parents as 'mom' or 'dad' because it's 'gendered' (and therefore 'exclusive'!) - and even the term 'parent' happens to exclude those who don't have parents - instead aksed to use the term 'caregiver'. Aka "I talked to my 'caregiver' today, they're doing well". With 'DEI Cadets' to enfroce the norms. Which is authoritarian and insane and the ideological opposite of 'Chrsitian White Supremacy'.
Larry Fink, at BlackRock - largest fund in the world ($1 Trillion - larger than most nations) is pushing giant DEI programs in his words 'Diversty has to be forced!' (direct quote) - and it's not uncommon in that world, a bit similar in tech, Hollywood and pop culture is ruled by generally empathetic / pro diversity people.
So where are these influential boogeyman 'Christian White Nationalists'? Well - the FBI does consider them a threat enough to monitor, resulting in a grand total of maybe 2 deaths per year [1]. :( Oh, the horror!
Yes, those evil White Supremacists with their '2 dead' per year, some years 0, which is basically statistical noise.
For refence, lawn mowers kill about 85 Americans per year.
For reference, police kill about 12 unarmed Black men per year, in almost every case there is exceptional context (aka attacking officer, taking officers weapon, pointing replica gun at officer) etc. which is not to imply that 'Police Violence' is not a problem, rather, it's completely misrepresented in pop culture. Take a moment to look at the ethnic breakdown of most police forces and you'll find that since the 1990s they 'look like the people they police' aka LAPD is 1/3 White, 1/3 Latino, 1/3 Black - at all levels all the way to the top. Same in most places. New Orleans aka 'Deep South' has 66% Black cops. Which makes the 'White Supremacist Police!' takeover thing ridiculous at face value, notwithstanding some smaller communities.
And what about non-institutional hate crimes? Gosh, I'm sorry to jam your high man, but Black people are actually more likely to commit hate crime than Whites. [2] Oh no, the data is starting to hurt. :(
In the area of politics it can 'feel' like ultra left/right sometimes, but remember that 'abortion restrictions' and objecting to 'the definition of a woman as being someone who identifies as a woman' - are legitimate grounds for disagreement - not some whacko people arguing against obvious truths. After the overturn of Roe v. Wade what suprised us all was how many women had far more nuanced views than we would have thought. And that one is ongoing.
Unfortunateley, Black men in the USA commit 5x more violent crime than other groups, and are the leading cause of death among that cohort. Sadly, majority African American parts of the US are some cases the most dangerous places in the entire world. The mass violence, mysoginy, anti-social behaviours entrap entire communities into systems of poverty far more than any other social condition - even the obvious and legitimate things like lack of school funding or other sublty systemic issues. Unfortunately, the problem is that the kids are not showing up for class and causing violence when they do - it's not the lack of math teachers. If only that were the issue, such as it was in the 1960's, we'd have a much better chance at fixing things.
Nations of mostly 'White People', especially those with 'Christian heritage' are the most embracing and open places in the world for all people to settle within, far more so than even the very polite places like Japan, Korea, and even Sweden where they will be civil, but 'never truly accept outsiders'. Google OECD PISA standardized tests and you'll see that even immigrants to America score just as well as regular American students (after normalizing for income), which is far, far better than even 'top education nations' like Korea and Finland, where the local kids do amazingly well, but the immigrants fare poorly, because they are marginalized unlike in America where they excel.
So saying 'White People Should Die' is hate speech, along with anything along the lines of 'Kill all the XXX' people and by any reasonable and civic measure, it's obviously wrong, and there are no arguments for that, including the 'White Nationalist Supremacist Delusion'.
If you want to restrict people to material facts particularly related to violence, then I'm afraid you're not going to like it because the data does not look good for 'people of colour', Bro. The facts are harsh howeve you want to scream about it. It's bad, and it takes constant misidrectionn, blame and hysteria to keep basic realities suppressed. The MSM is already trying to rehabilitate BLM after $10's of millions of fraud and embezellment (!!) as though the failure and shame of that institution would somehow be too much for 'dumb Americans' to handle, as though they can't deal with nuance and recognize 'it's complicated' when certain movements, however they may have some degree of legitimacy, face challenges with people and money ... which I think most American can understand.
[1] https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/fbi-dhs-domestic-terrori...
[2] https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/hate-crime-statistics
Those things alone would make 90% of sites better.
My god man just give us the goods!
The statement 'kill all men' is literally a call to violence.
Now of course (probably?) you didn't mean it as that, but it still falls well within purview of 'obviously moderated', probably immediately, by the automated mechanisms, and frankly, how could you expect anything otheriwse?
The fact that you're willing to admit your bigotry and blatant hate speech on another forum, as though somehow you're a victim, is probably an exmaple of how we tolerate trolling dirtbag bigotry, so long as it 'targets the correct side'.
My god man the lack of self awareness.
Moreover, it seems most of the activists don't want to contemplate that bigotry runs in all directions and saying things about 'men' or 'white people' probably should fall under the same auspices ... which is why even as irresponsible and inconsistent as Musk is, he leans a bit more 'loose' than not which is probably preferable than ideological forms of censorship.
I also feel that as a society, we're going to get used to 'foul language' and that it just doesn't have the resonance it might have had.
Someone spreading fake papers saying 'doctors are trying to kill you with vaccines', with a ton of followers, is actually more problematic than some random dirtbag's side-comment.
It's a bit like Zero Hedge in that it's one of those places where they like to talk about how the 'World Really Works!' aka 'behind the curtain' and they do so with some actual insight and intelligence, but ultimately there's a lot of BS and lies, and plenty of over misinformation.
The author is also a pro-Putin fascist / apologist who thinks that Putin's invasion of Ukraine must somehow be the result of Russia's victimization by other countries.
Again - internal self sufficiency is not the basis of development.
S. America has relatively free trade for things they need, and there are no hugely relevant issues there.
The wheat innovation is going to be nice for Brazil, but more as a function of expansion of industry, not really on the basis of 'self sufficiency'.
Brazil's path to wealth lies through the reform of civic and social institutions, not through some kind of magic grain.
The same could be said of most places.
It's the other way around.
Brazil and Argentina especially should be rich, what's lacking is coherent social organization from top to bottom. Obviously it matters more at the top, but it has to be borne by regular people as well.
Same could be said of other Central/South American nations, but geographic factors and natural resources do give a material advantage that can be leveraged into a lot.
Consider that Canada, unlike most other so called 'advanced nations' - does not actually have lot of advanced industry. Research, yes, but 'applied' - no. And yet, because it has a 'free export card' with natural resources, it can import the equipment and materials necessary to support the rest of the regular domestic economy, which benefits from ultra boring politics, 'functional' bureaucracy, low levels of corruption.
Innovations can only be leveraged by organizations that have the coherent ability to make use if them.
The 'low hanging fruit' in Brazil is governance, though I hope this Wheat helps.
If the claims of climate change people were true, that we are facing existential destruction in short order - then how is it possible they are denying a tried and true solution?
We could have reached 'Paris targets' long ago were we to have kept deploying Nuclear installations, in the terms that we understood decades ago. With fewer accidents. Etc.
The denial of a tried and true solution to this supposedly existential crisis destroys their credibility, and therefor their claims. That's not to say clams aren't valid, but that we can't trust the vanguard of the people behind the climate movement, obviously.
It's incredibly naive (but maybe understandable) for people to not understand that the issue of climate change is hugely politicized and ideological, and because of that, it's hard to make heads or tails of a lot of information.
People running around screaming that the sky is falling - and not talking about Nuclear as part (possibly the basis) of the solution - are spreading irrational fear and hysteria. There's no reason to talk about 'mass flooding' if we can solve the problem in a fairly straight forward manner.
The buildout curve grows rapidly in 1980's and 1980's and then drops to 0 in the early 1990's [1].
Were the USA to have 'kept the pace' on that buildout, 60-80% of electricity would be supplied by Nuclear, much as it is in France.
The denialism of the green crowd is existentially damaging to their credibility.
With respect to climate change, far from 'not being listened to' - they're the most influential NGO movement maybe in history (aside from religious movements) - and influence government policy all over the world, at the highest levels, towards a fundamental reshaping of the economic basis.
Mixed in with the 'climate movement' are all sorts of other ideologies, particularly those against consumption etc. which gives you hints as to why they won't chose a relatively clear 'almost solution' to their supposedly existential problems.
If there's a funny bit of history it's that Greenpeace has caused climate change. They saved the Whales, which is nice, but they killed Nuclear (and continue to hold it back) which is bad.
Look at the data from the EIA. Look at those numbers, rate of buildout, and the % contribution made to US energy generation mix. Extend the growth phase (which stopped in 1990) out 20 more years. What is the result?
The result is relatively easy reach to Paris targets.
[1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/us-nuclear-indus...
Unwillingness to build nuclear power, which could possibly solve the problem, is a driver of suspicion, which is a driver of denial.
Politicization of social sciences and campus activities, severely damages credibility, which drives denial.
Corruption of global institutions (such as the WHO, in light of COVID origins) and the understandable yet also uncomfortable 'Don't Look Here' approach to NIH, Lancet relationship with Wuhan Biolab Research (it's complicated) generates deep suspicion, and fosters denial.
Big Pharma + McKinsey designed scheme to addict millions with opioids without real consequences, and subsequent embracing of Big Pharma during COVID on totally unquestionable terms aka 'Trust The Science!', although rational from a policy perspective (it's a national emergency), is again, a huge driver of suspicion and therefore denial.
Political voices basically have no credibility in most situations and won't be able to convince anyone remotely skeptical.
I think things like 'Housing Insurance' frankly is one of the better means of social interdiction, it hits people right in the pocket book, and I would hope insurance companies just send out the letter with the graph saying 'well, this is where the weather is going, this is the expected damage, so this is your rate'. That's not political logic.
Because we could absolutely do it, we wouldn't need to invent a single iota of new tech.
It wouldn't even be that hard - we need to pick up where we left off in 1985 when the 'eco warriors' stopped the buildout.
Why does the current Administration believe in 'science' only when it suits them?
Or maybe there's more than 'science' going on ...
Do you know what happened to manufacturing when automation low-cost outsourcing happened?
It was wiped out.
It was devastating for certain sectors of the economy, even as 'net productivity rose' - the surpluses were acquired by some, not others.
A lot of 'ghettos' in the US are a direct result of mass factory closures.
Now - imagine that happening over the developing world, or rather, factories that were supposed to open, never did.
The developing world are 'services export' economy, with things like call centres etc. - and AI will more likely than not just evaporate those roles.
That those people will have 'access to ChatGPT' is besides the point when most of them don't even have computers (just mobile phones), or any way to apply that knowledge.
It's a bit like saying: 'The developing world has access to Wikipedia and all of Harvard courses online! They should all have great jobs!'
Unfortunately that's not how it works.
AI is going to help white collar workers, not pink or blue collar work which is low-skilled.
This coming century is supposed to be about 'Rest of World' - first China, then India and the rest.
But it's going to risk the ability of the nearly-unskilled labour to help.
They are 'next word prediction models' which elicit some kinds of reasoning embedded in our language, but it's a crude approximation at best.
The AGI metaphors are Ayahuasca Koolaid, like a magician duped by his own magic trick.
There will be no AGI, especially because there will be not 'automaton' aka distinct entity that elicits those behaviours.
Imagine if someone proposed 'Siri' were 'conscious' - well nobody would say that, because we know it's just a voice-based interface onto other things.
Well, Siri is about to appear much smarter thanks to LLMs, and be able to 'pass the bar exam' - but ultimately nothing has fundamentally changed.
Whereas each automaton in the human world had it's own distinct 'context' - the AI world will not have that at all. Context will be as fleeting as memory in RAM, and it will be across various systems that we use daily.
It's just tech, that's it.
There will be no 'AI model' that is 'AGI', rather, a large swath of different technologies and models, operating together, will give the appearance of 'AGI' via some kind of interface.
It will not appear as an 'automaton' (aka single processing unit) and it certain will not be an 'aha moment'.
In 10 years, you'll be able to ask various agents, of different kinds, which will use varying kinds of AI to interpret speech, to infer context, which will interface with various AI APIs, in many ways it'll resemble what we have today but with more nuance.
The net appearance will evolve over time to appear a bit like 'AGI' but there won't be an 'entity' to identify as 'it'.
Apple is almost biggest company in the world and they command very high margins for a reason that is 'more than marketing'.
Ironically, you're pocking at the 'mouse' when their trackpad is the reason that keeps me on mac notebooks.
Their 'hit rate' is much higher than most.
One of Jobs primary philosophies is around 'creating great products' aka 'craftsmanship' which is de facto user centric orientation.
If companies made products the Apple Way, they'd probably have better products.
The Apple Way is of course going to be a culty foundation for keeping behaviours oriented around a common sentiment, it helps the Apple org focus. It probably will feel a bit odd and constraining in some ways, but that has more advantages than downsides.