It probably looked like I was equating "accepting the tradeoffs" to "condoning LLM slop contributions to open source projects". I was referring to enabling individual instances of abuse though, not accepting the technology overall in spite of the bad behavior. It's enabling the individual instances that I'm protesting, because I firmly believe we shouldn't. I should've been clearer, my bad.
They're twisting my definition of the word "accept". I was clarifying what I meant with an example. I think instances of evil behavior need to be shunned regardless of the other benefits of the technologies being used for evil. No one should get a free pass to do evil based on the technology.
I also believe the technology itself deserves to be improved so that it can be used for good. That doesn't mean I want more evil or to be more accepting towards evil. Evil should still be shunned.
That doesn't seem to do much in the `curl | bash` setting, given that you're not verifying the attestation in that case. You still need to download it separately and run `gh attestation verify` first.
(Note that the attestation does not appear to cover the shell script either, it only covers the script's final payload. The shell script is also referenced via `main`, so it's mutable even if the underlying payload is properly attested. That's not good!)
Red Hat determined this path in 2001, when it started pivoting to enterprise customers only. Everything after that was just the usual progression for a minor enterprise player.
You might be right. Ubuntu and Shuttleworth certainly captured the void left for a polished Linux distro after the pivot. I think there was value to something being used personally and at work.
> I think there was value to something being used personally and at work.
Right. My own experience was that I paid for a copy of Red Hat Linux, shipped in a pretty box and everything, and then within a year or so discovered that that was the end of the line.
Although technically it was supposed to have been possible to switch to Fedora at that point, the rollout and info around that wasn't at all clear.
My reaction was oh well, guess I'll use Debian - and later, at every company I've worked at in the intervening decades, encouraged use of either Ubuntu or Debian, or provider variants like Container-Optimized OS. No-one ever objected to that, because Red Hat was doing the "enterprise sales" thing, and ain't nobody got time for that.
I’ve sat in a self driving tesla wheni was last in miami and it worked. What’s your point? That tech products miss deadlines? Do you think all missed deadlines are fraud?
You’ve provided no rationale for why that would happen. Could you stop posting comments like this? Regardless if someone supports or disagrees with the comment statements like this add nothing to the discussion and reduce the signal:noise ratio of Hacker News.
Provide your rationale for why that wouldn't happen, then. Otherwise you coming into this thread to vent your spleen at me personally doesn't reduce the signal to noise ratio of Hacker News either.
No. I’m not making a comment either way. I’ve provided supporting arguments for my point about why you need to post better or stop posting. Better posting that passes high school debate rules helps HN.
To sum it up, who thinks the new defense grifters will produce better results than the legacy primes? You don't have to like either of those two choices.
You may wish to read the thread more carefully, because you are mistaken. If after carefully rereading the thread you still believe you are correct, please explain exactly what part of this sentence:
> “And Zuck’s sudden interest in MMA/boxing/Jiu Jitsu as part of his “alpha male” rebranding”
equates general interest in fitness with being an “alpha male”. Because to me it is pretty clearly referring to the interest in combat sports, not fitness.
That was part of it, back in the early 2000s when people considered MMA "human cockfighting" (but bizarrely, boxing was OK) Trump let the events go on at his venues, however Dana is a pretty formidable businessman regardless of the connection to Trump.
No one has actually said that Dana White is a bad business man. It's just very difficult to believe that's the reason he was appointed to the board of a social media company on the same day that Donald Trump was inaugurated. If he was so consequential why wasn't he named to the board on Jan 7th 2021? I think we know why.
There's been a rightward shift in tech and culture (eg, children identify much less as transger and bisexual than a few years ago), it's likely Facebook is aligning with that.
Zuck spends billions on funding for left aligned causes while spending basically nothing on the reverse. He's a chameleon that merely takes the appearance of a centrist when need be. The money doesn't lie though.
Conservatives believe that people need to meet the same standards, and that it is racist to not hold people to those standards. This means if a black kid at a poor school hits a teacher it's treated the same as if a white kid at a rich school hits a teacher - very seriously.
Liberals believe in intersectionalism, and that marginalized groups need unique affordances. This means accepting that if a black kid at a poor school hits a teacher, it may be because of poverty and racism and we should understand the issue in that context.
Conservatives believe in defunding public education, social security and perpetuating root causes of a lot of issues like this that can directly be linked to, racism, poverty and lack of access to education.
Conservatives believe in double standards when it comes to "holding people to the same standards". White kids get off scott free way more often for the same crimes than kids of color.
Do your research.
I don't think this is consistent with reality. Are the historical inequities causing a lot these issues as you mention, or are you arguing there actually are no issues because in fact white kids are committing just as many crimes?
In a world where we solve racism, poverty, and lack of access to education do we expect white kids to now be committing way more crimes than non-whites?
I must have missed that part of Voltaire. Its progressives (socialists) that believe in intersectionalism and they don't agree with liberals on almost anything. If you think otherwise, you just don't know what any of those terms actually mean.
Your correct in those terms actual meaning, but no, that’s now how they’re used in current mainstream political discourse in the USA. Do you live here?
Also if you’re disputing word definitions- you’re using ‘progressive’ in its political meaning rather than its logically correct one, the political meaning assumes all movement towards the left is progress.
Conservative people are definitely more favorable of tough punishment against students and giving teachers more power, but do conservative politicians actually pass laws to this effect? I'm wondering what a bad school looks like in a red vs blue district.
If it’s unclear, this isn’t for or against any position, but rather a reminder to post an actual rationale rather than tell people your opinion. wxw’s post contributes nothing not because of ours position but because of its lack of content.
I'd modify this take: modern liberalism was meant as a commitment, not as a truth. Something collectively agreed on as good, valuable and important, as opposed to something true like the "sky is blue".
The issue, as I think history will judge it, is the truth that precedes liberalism has been spent & forgotten. In the absence of the "why", commitment became truth: the perception/prism/the water people see themselves in and others, the world, etc. From there, as you said, the logic proceeds mechanically (fact: kids are blank slates, results: parents, teachers, environment are to be blamed[1]). Because we can't reason our way out of the truth even if our senses and experiences are screaming at us to stop.
It is a consuming, comfortable & reasonable truth, held tightly because the alternatives are seen as unreasonable. In this way, modern liberalism is useful as a defense mechanism.
What you’re describing is basically a people + a covenant + a system of law. That is basically the structure of the Jews, the covenant they have with G-d, and the Torah.
The question is then to what extend that particular system is an accurate reflection of reality, and to answer that question you would have the analyze the delta between them, both in terms of how it was initially conceived vs how it evolved.
In the case of the US, at a very basic level for example the founders did not envision the US as a multiracial society or that everyone, including non-landowners could vote. Also that the US constitution itself looks very different today in terms of its amendments and more importantly the case law and jurisprudence around constitutional law which is de facto the constitution of the US. I don’t mean that these are right or wrong necessarily, just that the initial conception is very different.
Basically I think you are right but that also the basic premise of liberalism and the liberal system even in its initial conception is flawed and therefore doomed to fail.
I do think fundamentally liberalism does assert a view of human psychology and sociology that assumes that properly organizing and orienting the human mind is at least 3 orders of magnitude easier than it really is. If you actually study anthropology, like the anthropological studies that were done in the 19th century and if you study depth psychology which heavily makes use of those anthropological studies, you find a very terrifying and very chaotic and complex picture of the human psyche, as revealed in the religions, mythologies, and rites of pre-civilization peoples which liberalism has virtually absolutely no awareness of.
I don’t know what you’re calling a strawman, but the point is that wxw’s response is simply an epitome of the underlying problem. He’s just engaging in political discourse completely in line with the ideological superstructure which is ultimately responsible for this very problem (violence against teachers being normalized). You can’t expect the typical person to be able to transcend that, hence “to be fair”.
To be fair, liberalism says none of these things. People that call themselves liberal but are not, do often believe in these things, but they don't vote for liberals anymore so its a moot point.
reply