> Building physical buildings is a much simpler, much less complex process with many fewer degrees of freedom than building software.
I don't...think this is true? Google has no problems shipping complex software projects, their London HQ is years behind schedule and vastly over budget.
Construction is really complex. These can be mega-projects with tens of thousands of people involved, where the consequences of failure are injury or even death. When software failure does have those consequences - things like aviation control software, or medical device firmware - engineers are held to a considerably higher standard.
> The private market is perfectly capable of performing this function
But it's totally not! There are so many examples in the construction space of private markets being wholly unable to perform quality control because there are financial incentives not to.
The reason building codes exist and are enforced by municipalities is because the private market is incapable of doing so.
The Indian authorities has blamed the pilots in every single crash. AND there is not enough evidence to guarantee that was the case. It is one of many possibilities.
"Need blind" here just means that your ability to pay the fees doesn't factor into the admissions decision, not that the admissions office doesn't know how wealthy you are (...since as you note, this is often easily inferred).
In other words, you won't be refused an offer simply because the university thinks you can't afford it.
The point being made here is that while the university claims they don't factor in the applicant's ability to pay the fees, they also conveniently ask for information which helps them infer your social status, making their claim somewhat more difficult to take at face value.
Bear in mind this is a thread discussing how UK universities are claiming in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are not being influenced by foreign governments. So we should be able to accept that universities are capable of lying about their internal practices.
"So we should be able to accept that universities"
We absolutely should. As of now, universities tend to get away with practices that would be called out in the private sector. Entshittification of some services plus greed plus willingness to bend your morality around someone's golden glove (which hides a fist...).
> Can I now build my app in Xcode with an Android target and use that binary in the Play Store?
No. The vision document[1] lays out the direction of travel. Currently the focus is on shared business logic and libraries, rather than full native applications (although that's certainly a goal, albeit a very long term one).
> These tasks aren’t business priorities and had no impact on customers and other teams
...the author has reached the wrong conclusion from this. The problem is they weren't able to articulate why the modernization tasks were business priorities, not that the modernization wasn't a business priority in the first place.
If the tech debt is problematic, fixing it will presumably bring a number of benefits (faster development cycles, reduced defect rates, etc). They were doing the wrong work - they were doing a terrible job explaining why that work was necessary.
In many ways, tech debt and modernization is a near guaranteed way to have business impact, in a way product work is not. If you're at Meta and you figure out how to save 1% of total CPU time on the server by fixing some tech debt you can expect to be showered with money.
> I wonder what the technical details will look like
It’s already a thing, the EMVCo standard predates ubiquitous internet connectivity. Mass transit systems typically use it, airlines used to for in-flight purchases before the advent of reliable WiFi.
It is somewhat common to maintain a denylist of known fraudulent cards, but as you note the main mitigation is on the bank to track the card down. One of the key things you need to figure out with an offline payment system - and what I imagine is needed here - is a consensus on who has the liability for offline transactions and what the dollar limits are.
It's a new space, everyone is coming up with their own protocols. It's really no different than Stripe offering an API so you can use them as a payment provider. You need to implement this API on your website so ChatGPT can allow users to buy stuff from you.
You need some amount of strictness in the API here, LLMs are not actually sentient. You could say that this is a failure on OpenAI's part in comparison to their marketing, sure.
> I've seen a lot of harsh, misguided takes over the past few days, like that the Windsurf founders screwed over their employees [...] In this case, this seems like a happy ending for all parties involved
There is no evidence at all in the announcement that is the case. It just says "100% of Windsurf employees will participate financially in this deal". What "participate financially" looks like is not elaborated upon.
It is possible you're right. It's also equally possible that the founders have still screwed over their employees, we just don't know. Nothing in this post supports either position.
>It is possible you're right. It's also equally possible that the founders have still screwed over their employees, we just don't know. Nothing in this post supports either position.
In the lack of evidence, its okay to assume the most likely scenario, which is the executives & shareholders will make out like bandits and everyone else is likely to at best, get pennies.
Also this is an enterprise policy constant, so it gets sent (and configured) as string/string dictionary via REST API from MDM backend. That's mostly because the constants can be of mixed types (e.g. "MAX_PASSWORD_CHARS" : "1", "DISALLOW_NETWORK_SWITCHING: "true" - example, constants not actual).
> MasterCard and Visa have no business unilaterally, secretly, and unaccountably policing their idiosyncratic idea of moral righteousness. They need to move money and shut up.
Mastercard and Visa don't block companies from processing because of morals, they block them because they lose them money. They will happily process your payments for all kinds of shady schemes that are - to them - low risk.
I don't...think this is true? Google has no problems shipping complex software projects, their London HQ is years behind schedule and vastly over budget.
Construction is really complex. These can be mega-projects with tens of thousands of people involved, where the consequences of failure are injury or even death. When software failure does have those consequences - things like aviation control software, or medical device firmware - engineers are held to a considerably higher standard.
> The private market is perfectly capable of performing this function
But it's totally not! There are so many examples in the construction space of private markets being wholly unable to perform quality control because there are financial incentives not to.
The reason building codes exist and are enforced by municipalities is because the private market is incapable of doing so.
reply