Before LLMs (and still now) a human will often write a doc explaining the desired UX and user journeys that a product needs to support. That doc gets provided to engineers to build.
I agree - at least with the thesis - that the more we "encode" the fuzzy ideas (as translated by an engineer) into the codebase the better. This isn't the same thing as an "English compiler". It'd be closer to the git commit messages, understanding why a change was happening, and what product decisions and compromises were being designed against.
I think I’d rather have the why in English and the how in code, i.e. keep both, keeping just the English instructions is nowhere near enough to fully specify what was done and why. These things evolve as they are produced and English is too fuzzy.
Insta was tapping out of how much content (and therefore ads) they could show a user. They could either find new content to show or add more ads per unit of content. There are only so many friends, who only take so many photos. Social media stopped being “social” because it just wasn’t as good of a business as generic media. There are endless influencers and videos is way more engaging. Influencer content is semi-professional content and is way better made and way more engaging than your family who posts only at big events. Meta is very data driven, and they understand exactly how reels is increasing duration of app sessions - which means more ads.
People are totally entitled to like what they like, and that's OK. Everyone has something that works for them, and this world has a great variety of options available but the "car-centric suburban sprawl" is linked to various negative mental and physical health consequences. Negative health consequences, IMO, isn't "just as livable".
As a simple example, when people walk more during commuting instead of drive, they tend to be healthier. There are other more nuance (but studied) impacts, such as increased car accidents, mental impacts from increased isolation, etc. In America, there is even a correlation between how car-centric a community is and how often individuals are willing to seek out healthcare (even when accounting for access and affordability).
California (the titular state) is not right-to-work, so you can be forced to pay dues, but this does NOT extend to public sector jobs. The entire premise is flawed.
California (the titular state) is not right-to-work, so you can be forced to pay dues, but this does NOT extend to public sector jobs. Reread the article knowing that the wealthy VC's initial premise is flawed from the start. They meekly mention this reality at the end, ignoring the agency employees have had to choose to be in their union or not. The author is also very politically involved, and unions serve as a political force against his own PACs and interests.
This whole thing is just more wealthy business owners trying to turn the public against unions, which is an effort as old as unions.
> The Real Fight: Public Sector vs. Private Sector Unions
They claim the "Real" fight is against public sector unions, but largely blame private unions (eg. teamsters vs Waymo) in their examples.
> It’s a very bad thing for California to be the innovation center of the world and Golden Goose of the state while simultaneously the biggest, most powerful special interests want to destroy it.
Public sector jobs, respectfully, are not California's center of innovation. Again, bad-faith arguing.
All these of these providers support this feature. I don’t know about ChatGPT but the rest are opt-in. I imagine with Gemini it’ll be default on soon enough, since it’s consumer focused. Claude does constantly nag me to enable it though.
Everyone else is announcing initiatives to investigate the feasibility of this because earthlings currently hate the data center build out. The news is full of anti-DC stories about how much electricity/water they're using. They're selling a story.
> The Germans literally elected the Nazis... you think they’re better at democracy
FYI - Germany changed their government after this regime fell, to ensure that it would become more democratic and harder to concentrate power in the executive. So they became more democratic as a learning process.
The US had an actual civil war (over slavery no less) and didn't change anything fundamental about their constitution nor government structure as a result. It was less deadly than the holocaust, but enduring a civil war is not a sign of a functioning democracy.
> The point of Global Entry is that Immigration and Customs Enforcement did a background check on you and decided you were cool
Technically Global Entry is run by a different organization than ICE, but under the same parent organization. GE is run by "Customs and Border Protection", which is a sibling organization to ICE. Obviously it's all the US government, so it doesn't matter a ton...
> well, your background just changed, didn't it?
NO! This is an absolutely unreasonable take.
The bigger issue is "When you demonstrate against them" is a protected action by our laws. So taking a legally protected action and expecting to keep your government entitlements is reasonable. This is entirely a non-essential scheme to help punish people for speaking out against ICE; they're just pulling all the levers they have.
It is a reasonable assumption that the government would not declare you a higher-risk traveler because you attended a protest. Let's not pretend that this is reasonable behavior.
It also depends. Do you mean protesting by holding up a sign on the sidewalk and chanting. That's absolutely protected. Do you mean "protesting" where you obstruct ICE officers, throw things at their vehicles, create an "autonomous zone" and vandalize businesses? Because none of those things are actions that a reasonable citizen who is a low risk for reentry takes.
Global Entry is a fast lane because they've evaluated the risk an individual poses. Someone who shows they're angry with the authorities also shows that the risk profile has changed. The fast lane at Immigration and Customs is not a right.
Yes it is. Especially when this is all in context of the article, which you have either not read, willfully ignored the context within it, or somehow decided it is untrustworthy while providing no reasoning as to why.
> Do you mean "protesting" where you obstruct ICE officers, throw things at their vehicles, create an "autonomous zone" and vandalize businesses? Because none of those things are actions that a reasonable citizen who is a low risk for reentry takes.
We have no evidence the woman in the article did any of that. She was filming them in a public space.
We have seen DHS try to claim this is illegal repeatedly - as noted in this Cato Insitute article (hardly a left leaning institution!) - so there is no reason for us to disbelieve that they would take this stance.
Why you think it is acceptable for a government agency to penalize you for holding them accountable with your first amendment right is beyond me. I would also suggest that it is inherently unamerican.
> it's impossible to tell who is normal in these stories
The answer is that everyone thinks they’re the normal one. And everyone generally is normal.
I’ve objectively been a bad neighbor in the past. Early 20s me loved loud music. But late 20s me learned how to be considerate of the music volume.
I’ve also had crazy neighbors. One neighbor of mine complained constantly, immediately after moving in, that the communal laundry area light was left on, and I kept promising to try and do better. Of course, I made plenty of mistakes and often forgot to turn the light off when leaving with a full basket. One day he just took the (low powered LED) bulb away like they were his! Was I the poor neighbor wasting electricity? Was he the psychopath who thought he could forcibly control the entire apartment buildings access to light? It’s all in the story telling.
In my apartment complex,there are 3 types of lights in the community/public areas:
1. Centrally controlled lights - security team controls them from their common control room (this is also where the CCTV feeds are monitored live on TV screens) - e.g., floodlights, for pathways, lights in staircases.
2. Automatic-sensor (motion-sensor) driven lights - e.g., in elevators/lifts.
3. Manually operated lights - e.g., terrace lights, etc.
So the security team manage all the lights in the utility areas, whereas the uncommon areas (e.g., terraces; their doors usually kept locked by a bolt on the inside, because we sometimes get prowlers/intruders on the rooftops: monkeys from nearby jungle!) are operated by security or tenants/owners, on a need basis.
Of course, for smaller complexes, where a dedicated security team (or even a lone night watchman) is not feasible, it is advisable to install automatic lights on common areas (but not for stairs, etc., otherwise it is a safety risk), so this avoids altercations between users.
For inner rooms (such as a laundry area), a two-way switch setup helps - one switch in the room, and one on an accessway or way outside (preferably one of those acrylic translucent light switch (which lights up when switched on)), so it is easier to spot if it is left on.
I agree - at least with the thesis - that the more we "encode" the fuzzy ideas (as translated by an engineer) into the codebase the better. This isn't the same thing as an "English compiler". It'd be closer to the git commit messages, understanding why a change was happening, and what product decisions and compromises were being designed against.
reply