Almost. After battling with support for several months, a friend of mine recently learned that versions of Office without AI do not allow you to create Teams meetings that last longer than an hour. Makes me wonder what other features they're leaving out.
Indeed. As an anecdote, I've come across a self professed frontend UI guru writing quadratic code that worked fine in testing because it only had to display a few tens of items there, but at a complete loss why it was unusable in production.
In fairness, the US kept indirectly funding the Khmer Rouge even after evidence of their atrocities came to light for their own strategic geopolitical reasons.
The realpolitic of international relations very often follows the words of the British prime minister, Lord Palmerston: "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."
Sure. If Smedley Butler has been less disillusioned by his work history and successfully carried forward the business plot it’s pretty easy to imagine.
But Palmerston's quote isn't about convenience. It is not at all clear to me that supporting Nazi Germany would've served the US's broader global interests. For example, fascism and capitalist free market ideologies are somewhat at odds with each other on multiple points.
What do you mean? Some US companies did business with Nazi Germany, famously IBM and of course Ford, and of course there were nazi sympathizers in the US, but to my knowledge the US never supported Germany at that time.
I mean the US had no problems selling Nazi Germany arms at the start of the war. The US only really took a side after Germany told the US to stop also supplying war materials to their enemies, which Germany viewed as merely prolonging the war and deaths, and when the US ignored them because they were making too much money Germany stopped buying and doubled down on blockading material support to allies.
It's both frustrating and all too common to see blatant historical falsehood being casually thrown around as if it's well known fact. Doubly frustrating knowing that in order to rebut such falsehood, you have to either do your own lengthy research to find the evidence of __absence__ (which is a lot harder comparing to the evidence of __existence__), or hopefully someone else already did said research and more hopefully you can unbury it from the increasingly enshittified google search.
And by the time you managed it the falsehood already netted a few dozens/hundreds/thousands more victims in the best case scenario where the rebuttal actually managed to attach itself right next to the falsehood.
Regular folks just can't compete with professional disinformation spreaders and their horde of victims.
My idea is a little "!" which pops up on the comment byline if the comment fails an AI fact check. AI fact checks are obviously far from perfect, but at least it would be a start. @dang
So has Linus straight up made it know this is where he would like things to head? Because it seems a lot of the resistance to Rust in the Linux kernel is coming from seasoned C developers who do not want to document these interfaces.
I agree with this sentiment. I find attempts to create these kinds of universal rules are often a result of the programmer doing a specific and consistently repeating type of data transformation/processing. In their context it often makes a lot of sense... but try and apply the rules to a different context and you might end up with a mess. It can also often result in a reactionary type of coding where we eliminate a bad coding pattern by taking such an extremely opposite position that the code becomes just as unreadable for totally different reasons.
This is not to say we shouldn't be having conversations about good practices, but it's really important to also understand and talk about the context that makes them good. Those who have read The Innovator's Solution would be familiar with a parallel concept. The author introduces the topic by suggesting that humanity achieved powered flight not by blindly replicating the wing of the bird (and we know how many such attempts failed because it tried to apply a good idea to the wrong context) but by understanding the underlying principle and how it manifests within a given context.
The recommendations in the article smell a bit of premature optimisation if applied universally, though I can think of context in which they can be excellent advice. In other contexts it can add a lot of redundancy and be error prone when refactoring, all for little gain.
Fundamentally, clear programming is often about abstracting code into "human brain sized" pieces. What I mean by that is that it's worth understanding how the brain is optimised, how it sees the world. For example, human short term memory can hold about 7±2 objects at once so write code that takes advantage of that, maintaining a balance without going to extremes. Holy wars, for example, about whether OO or functional style is always better often miss the point that everything can have its placed depending on the constraints.
The burden of proof generally lies with the one making the claim. As Hitchens's razor states: "what may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence."
Anyway, only because something feels intuitive, it doesn’t make it true. In this instance the original claim seems to contradict the article which states imaginary friends are not the result of loneliness but the process by which children explore the complexities of real relationships… i.e. a form of subconscious thought experiment.
According to the Kremlin, this means Russia dictating security policy to a population double its own. You may choose to believe that you can count on one hand the number of countries in the world with genuine sovereignty, but I assure you the citizens of the other countries will beg to differ.
Also it's not clear what "Even Donald Trump now admits..."is intended to mean here. Donald Trump has always repeated Kremlin talking points so I'm not sure why anyone would think of this as novel.
>Also it's not clear what "Even Donald Trump now admits
Obviously American left coast DNC die hards and neoliberals hate him with a passion that beggars belief but he's basically still a different face of American imperialism repesenting similar goals with a changed strategy. Patching things up with Russia is part of that.
The conspiracy theory that he's a Russian plant is amusing, but a delusion to which even the most die hard Putin supporter cannot reach. I guess it's easier to admit than the idea that America lost.
Suppose you very crudely modelled the spectrum of American attitudes on this topic using some kind of bell curve. I don't think many people across the pond realise just how far apart the American and Australian bell curve means would be. These kind of "the truth is unknowable" truisms may sound wise but don't really teach us very much about reality.
On average, Australian culture views anyone, who even passively demonstrates any significant level of achievement, with a high degree of suspicion. Australians make a national sport of cutting down people who excel in any way. Sure, there are sub-cultures there which can vary considerably from this general trend, but even they feel the influence of this prevailing attitude. The end outcome is that Australians tend to go to considerable effort to hide the things that may single them out as excelling among their peers, and emphasise those things which make them similar. (A few months ago the CEO of the most powerful retail company in Australia gave an interview attempting to reduce public ire at their price gouging tactics, dressed in the uniform of a shelf stacker from their supermarket chain. I'm not saying this could not have happened in America, but there it would have probably been seen as a stunt or a statement... in Australia dressing any other way would have raised eyebrows, and in fact most people initially failed to even notice it for the PR manipulation that it was.)
Geographic proximity will always play a role in bringing cultural norms together, and while the US is a big place, the US population throughout the 20th century had incredible mobility, going where the jobs were, which helped to tighten up that bell curve.
In the US, the most likely cause of someone being wealthy is that their parents were wealthy.
But almost every wealthy American tells a story about how they did it by themselves, ignoring the schools that they attended, the services which were available to them, the people their parents associated with, and the ability to make high-risk investments because they had a built-in security net.
Yet economic mobility, measured in terms of the likelihood that you die in a different income decile than you were born into, is lower in the USA than almost anywhere else in the developed world.
How to reconcile? It's fairly easy ... there aren't that many millionaires. The US has a society, culture and economy that allows for their occurence perhaps "better" than most other places. But this doesn't reflect the likely economic pathway that most of the population experiences in life.
The deciles are much further apart and the ceiling is massive. Compare the medians of all the countries (the US is at or near the top) then compare the 90th percentile and the US is heads and shoulders over the next highest.
Which proves that talking about millionaires is no longer that socially relevant thanks to inflation. Somehow ten-millionaire doesn't have quite that ring though.
There are many examples of Australians that have started middle class or even poorer and become wealthy (multi millionaires, a few billionaires) through their own business efforts.
What's lacking is a general habit of boasting about this, being wealthy, letting others in the country (ie. yourself) know about it.
You can find first generation pretty wealthy Australians in trucking, factory ownership, real estate, mining, warehouse volume sales, etc. Of those the ones most likely to be flash about their cash would be the real estate crowd, success in house sales is hard to come by without prominent self promotion.
Sure, I don't disagree that they exist as people, but as prominent stories in the culture they generally don't; outside of Lindsey fox I can't think of any...
Real estate wealth is a bit prominent, bit doesn't really have the same tone as designing or building something, more a reflection of our current dirt obsession.
You used a shit example with the Woolies CEO - he was immediately absolutely reamed on every medium because of the sheer transparency of the stunt - him in his shirt with name tag in an empty shop and then chucking a wobbly when he didn’t like the questions. He blew it and he looked like a tool.
I find the obsession we have with saying we have a problem with success absolutely does not translate to my lived experience here. I see it on the national stage where the moment someone fucks up everyone piles on, but usually they’ve been on a path to being a flog for a long time anyway and they need, at the very least, a reality check.
Think how much better Elon musk’s headspace could be if one person in his circle had told him ‘you are mortal’ regularly along his journey of multiple triumphs
Alright, settle down. The only sources I saw laying into him over it were the ones that make this kind of critique their life mission (professional or otherwise). As for the broad population, in as much as I could tell, it seemed they were upset about pretty much everything but the shirt, which is what I'm more interested in for the purposes of this discussion. Certainly, every person I spoke to about it hadn't even noticed it until it was pointed out, and the trend online didn't strike me as particularly different. I guess we'll have to disagree in that we got a different read of the situation.
Pretty much everything else you said confirms just how ingrained the attitude under discussion is in this country. Which is hardly surprising. If it was perceived as aberrant by the majority then it wouldn't be commonplace.
Anyone who's used TikTok knows the platform is heavily moderated and not at all an "anything goes" paradise for the exchange of free ideas. So, if, as you suggested, the moderation does not favour the US government's mandate, then the obvious question one should be asking is: whose mandate does it favour?
False dichotomy. It doesn't need to favor anyone else's mandate. We are observing a lack of favor to any one mandate. The US mandate is to suppress "anti-US views" (in quotations because what the American populace thinks is anti-US/pro-US and what the American government thinks is anti-US/pro-US is oftentimes drastically different).
What people really mean (without even knowing it) when they say tiktok pushes propaganda is that it isn't suppressing the propaganda they don't like. They mean that after the "funniest Trump moments" video with 10 million views, there shouldn't be a video about the evils of Black Rock, it should instead be one of the "US military is EPIC" phonk edits.
Again, this would only be true if the platform had a laissez-faire attitude toward content, which it clearly does not. What can and can not be shown on the platform is heavily moderated, therefore there is _some_ mandate being fulfilled.
Now we've already agreed that it's not the US's mandate, and I suppose you could argue that it is not the mandate of any of the US's opponents ether. Whether there are any geopolitical entities who don't seem to have the same balance of criticism vs. praise as the others, I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.
