You can also read a zip sequentially like a tar file. Some info is in the directory only but just for getting file data you can read the file records sequentially. There are caveats about when files appear multiple times but those caveats also apply to processing tar streams.
The earth is falling out from under a lot of people, and they're trying to justify their position on the trash heap as the water level continues to rise around it. It's a scary time.
Technically it’s only an ad hominem when you’re using the insult as a component in a fallacious argument; the parent comment is merely stating an aesthetic opinion with more force than is typically acceptable here.
Just imagine how things change when Google realizes they can leverage their technical competenence to have Gemini build competent product management (or at least something that passes as comparatively competent since their bar is so low).
Just as some feedback, your pricing doesn't make sense to me. I san see having a limited number of sessions as a trial, but for people on $20/mo codex/claude plans 10 sessions is too few and adding $20/mo for omnara doesn't make sense. Yes $20/mo is small compared to Codex Pro/Claude Max plans.
Omnara is easy to get a taste and with that pricing the next step is just going to be: switch to happy. But for people starting out you're just driving people to happy instead and when they upgrade from $20/mo LLM plans you will have pushed them to happy and they'll stick with happy rather than come to omnara.
That's sort of the way I feel also. Whether it's the Russians, Chinese, CIA, Murdocks, Bezos, whatever. They're all run by interests and, well, the interests don't need my money to do whatever it is they are doing.
There are findings of fact (what happened, context) and findings of law (what does the law mean given the facts). I don't think inconsistentcy in findings of law is acceptable, really. If laws are bad fix the laws or have precident applied uniformly rather than have individual random judges invent new laws from the bench.
Leeway for human interpretation of laws is not a bug, it's a feature. It doesn't make things bad laws.
This was the whole problem with the ludicrous "code is law!" movement a handful of years ago. No, it's not, law is made for people, life is imprecise and fairness and decency are not easy to encode.
Well for a start, it assumes good faith on the part of the participants, rather than the default assumption of bad faith and corruption you'd like to project.
There are also built-in controls in the form of reviews and appeals.
And more generally, humans are squishy and imprecise, trying to apply precise, inflexible, code-like law to immensely analog situations is not a recipe for good outcomes.
Why should anyone assume good faith about or trust any part of the government? It is well known, studied and documented that justice is not uniform in practice. Yes, ideally it is not, but we do not live in some abstract utopia where judges are not corrupt.
It's so odd that people would say that it is a feature that judges are inconsistent. Juries are one thing, but judges driving their own agendas independent of lawmakers and juries is not a great look.
>going through life with that attitude seems like a recipe for unhappiness and frustration.
Going through life in blissful ignorance of the incompetence and malice driving the systems of violence and control around you is even worse. Unhappiness and frustration are necessary prerequisites to any improvements to quality of life. Terminally happy people are just grazing cattle, fit only for the slaughterhouse.
> Going through life in blissful ignorance of the incompetence and malice driving the systems of violence and control around you is even worse.
I’m not ignorant of that, I disagree that it matches reality.
And see that’s what I’m talking about. There’s no reasoned view of the world here just unthinking, unfocused vitriol.
> Happy people are just grazing cattle, fit only for the slaughterhouse.
Yet here I live in a stable democracy with a historically unprecedented standard of living. It’s not perfect, but the idea that judges should not use judgement and compassion in the application of the law just seems nuts. It’s a human system for humans, not some branch of mathematics. :shrug:
The reason you live in a stable democracy with a historically unprecedented standard of living is that generations of unhappy and frustrated people made it so. It certainly isn't thanks to the people satisfied with the status quo, who maintained faith in either the virtue of the Church or the Crown. Progress depends on unreasonable people doing unreasonable things like killing monarchs and nailing theses to church doors.
>It’s not perfect, but the idea that judges should not use judgement and compassion in the application of the law just seems nuts.
I agree with you. They should. Absolutism in terms of the law reduces to fascism, and even the "code is law" crowd discover religion as soon as they realize code can have loopholes just as laws can. But we shouldn't assume by default that the courts will act fairly, because they won't, they will act in their own interests as all power structures do, and fairly only when fairness isn't a threat to those interests.
For the same reason we shouldn't assume software created by humans and controlled by the those very same power structures would be any better.
Those unhappy people were not, for the most part, mindless reactionaries who declared everything was shit and every human a demonic mire of corrupt motives.
I’m not “Happy with the status quo”, that’s a gross misrepresentation of my posts. I’m critical of mindless cynicism and the pointless stress and unhappiness such people put themselves through because their distrust is aimless, facile, ungrounded and as a result useless.
I would argue it also belongs in decisions of whether to convict and what to convict someone of.
The law cannot encode the entirety of human experience, and can’t foresee every possible mitigating circumstance. Given the fact of a conviction regardless of sentence can have such a huge impact on someone’s life, I think there is room for compassion and good judgement in multiple places.
In systems I'm familiar with, magistrates handle a lot of the minor criminal cases without juries, and civil cases don't usually have a jury either, which covers probably a majority of all court cases.
True, but they do involve judgements, and magistrates courts do involve convictions. And you’ll get decisions from public prosecutors in the US or UK whether to take something to trial in the first place, which can involve a determination of whether a trial is even in the public interest.
:shrug: either way, as I say, IMHO having a flexible system that involves informed judgement in lots of places but with the possibility of appeals, reviews etc is a feature, not a bug.
There's plenty of room for flexibility while still being honest and consistent about the rules. If a judge thinks someone should get away with murder, say, just be honest about it rather than invent ways to avoid calling it murder.
Really, there are three parts to a judgement: facts, the law, and the application of them. There should be no leeway in determining what the law says about a given situation. If that is not decidable, it is a bug. However, what a fair judgement is given the facts and the law, is really a separate issue. You can introduce measures to give clear guidance what the law says, and still give judges flexibility. One of the upsides of "code is law" in that respect is being able to provide a clear statement of what the law says and require the judge to then explain in their judgement why that justifies or does not justify a given judgement.
A lot of bad judgement might be a lot more blatant (or not happen) if the judge had to justify outright ignoring the law.
'The law' is open to judicial and legal interpretation. There isn't always a single 'the law' to interpret in complex cases. While there are many, many rules, they are not as simple as code and they rely on deep layers of precedent. Common law is made up of case history more than statute.
> One of the upsides of "code is law" in that respect is being able to provide a clear statement of what the law says
No, "code is law" in fact always ignored what any actual law said, in favour of framing everything as a sort of contract, regardless of whether said contract was actually fair or legal, and it removed the human factor from the whole equation. It was a basic failure to understand law.
NYT reports they're claiming it was about testing anti-drone tech at Fort Bliss.
> The brief shutdown was related to a test of new counter-drone technology by the military at nearby Fort Bliss Army base, according to a person briefed on the matter.
This is ridiculous and patently false. The US is equipped with many bases with permanent air space restrictions where they could perform such tests. It makes less than zero sense to test anti-drone tech in a crowded civilian space. I fully blame incompetence.
> According to a social media post by the Secretary of Transportation, Sean Duffy, Mexican cartel drones breached U.S. airspace, prompting temporary closure of airspace over El Paso. The Defense Department took action to disable the drones, Mr. Duffy said. Another person familiar with the situation had described the cause of the shutdown as a test of anti-drone technology. It is unclear if the brief airport closure was directly related to the presence of drones or how the technology was deployed.
It does not seem implausible or unreasonable to me that an anti-drone system would trigger airspace restrictions when activated. Whether system activation is intended to put out a 10 days block is probably a different issue, but probably related to SOP for an event of unknown duration.
I'm not a huge fan of conspiracy theories, but starting a 240 hours closure, ending it after 4, and claiming it was a test? What sort of testing are they doing that they were off by two orders of magnitude about the duration?
Who knows. Maybe the system was malfunctioning and they didn't know how long it would take to shut it down. More likely the admin is just blabbing the first thing they think will shut everyone up.
The main thing I think about self-driving is if it truly were self-driving and you could sleep in the car while it drives to a destination overnight. Even if it were only highways. That would be really cool.
Sure except you have your car when you get there, packing is more convenient and it follows you schedule and goes directly between your desired endpoints.
Depending on the destination of course, I often find having a car in a city like having an albatross around my neck. The benefits or features get outweighed by traffic and parking. I'll take good public transit and a set of headphones.
reply