> But in Tech, the playbook is different. Companies over-hire software engineers intentionally. To play the lottery.
The actual reason tech companies overhire is because people get promoted based on the number of people that are "under" them. All leaders are incentivized to fight for headcount.
That's easier said than done. Simple example: API that returns a count of all users in the database. The obvious correct implementation that will work would be just to `select count(*) from users`. But if some other test touches users table beforehand, it won't work. There is no uuid to latch onto here.
That’s why you run each test in a transaction with proper isolation level, and don’t commit the transaction— roll it back when the test ends. No test ever interferes with another that way.
That looks like an integration test. A possible way to handle that scenario is to drop all the databases after it ends and create them again, or truncate all the tables or whatever it makes sense for that possible set of different data stores.
That could run on developer machines but maybe it runs only on a CI server and developers run only unit tests.
Frankly this is the better solution for async tests. If the app can handle multiple users interacting with it simultaneously, then it can handle multiple tests. If it can’t, then the dev has bigger problems.
As for assertions, it’s not that hard to think of a better way to check if you made an insertion or not into the db without writing “assert user_count() == 0”
I don’t disagree with you, but there are diminishing returns on making your test suite complex. To make async test work properly, you need to know what you’re doing in regards to message passing, OTP, mocks, shared memory, blah blah blah. It can get really complicated, and it is still isn’t a substitute for real user traffic. You’re going to have to rely on hiring experienced Elixir developers (small talent pool), allow for long onboarding time (expensive), or provide extensive training (difficult). Personally for most cases, writing a sync test suite and just optimizing to keep it not to slow is probably more practical in the long term.
that's the main gripe I have with codex; I want better observability into what the AI is doing to stop it if I see it going down the wrong path. in CC I can see it easily and stop and steer the model. in codex, the model spends 20m only for it to do something I didn't agree on. it burns OpenAI tokens too; they could save money by supporting this feature!
OpenCode launched a couple of months ago so that makes sense that it's worse. It's much better than Claude Code now. Somehow for the same model, opencode completes the same work faster than claude code and the ux is much better.
That's not sufficient. If a user copies customer data into a public google sheet, I can reprimand and otherwise restrict the user. An LLM cannot be held accountable, and cannot learn from mistakes.
Don't use AI/LLMs that have unfettered access to everything?
Feels like the question is "How do I prevent unauthenticated and anonymous users to use my endpoint that doesn't have any authentication and is on the public internet?", which is the wrong question.
> A worry is the step will encourage other regimes that feel they have might to remove leaders they do not like and replace them with marionette-like figures
Go type "list Russian regime change operations from the last 20 years" in chatgpt.
I think people are overindexed on the US's failures to turn Islamic theocracies into democracies. The people in Venezuela want democracy. It's a fundamentally different situation.
Venezuela had a democracy for decades. It's the US that has been trying to destroy it for decades because the venezuelans voted for the wrong guy. It's funny how we forgot that the US also tried to remove the previous elected leader of venezuela.
No - we know Maduro lost the election. That's knowledge, not opinion. And he stayed in power, while crushing the opposition.
Maduro is a garden variety dictator. Spectacularly corrupt, jails his political opponents, having taken over the media and so on.
How do you know? The official election council certified that he won. A bunch of foreign governments and US-aligned media claimed it was rigged. But the US has been trying to regime change them since they nationalized their oil.
You're trying to paint a picture that it's just the US and it's lackeys that claim the election was rigged.
In truth, we know that the election was neither free nor fair, with the government prosecuting and oppressing the opposition.
The Venezuelan opposition made a point of providing evidence that they won, most notably official tally sheets which collaborate that they won. The government did not produce evidence or even care to refute the opposition's claims.
You'd think Machado winning the Nobel peace prize would be enough for people to not question the popularity of Maduro, but here we are, random keyboard warriors defending dictators nonstop.
Your comment doesn't make any sense. The Nobel Peace Prize isn't decided by Venezuelan people, it's decided by a council appointed by the Norwegian government.
No, people can't just kick out an authoritarian dictator. Such rulers don't need democratic support to stay in power. Strong men only leave their palaces due to two reasons - death from old age or an even stronger power forcing them.
> No, people can't just kick out an authoritarian dictator.
If that was the case, the US wouldn't exist. Might want to brush up on american history.
> Such rulers don't need democratic support to stay in power.
They most certainly do. Once they lose it, they collapse internally. Read up on some history.
As I said, if maduro had lost the popular support, the US wouldn't have had to invade and kidnap maduro. The venezuelan people would have done so. The only time foreign intervention is required is when a significant portion of the populace supports the leader.
This is fundamentally incorrect. A dictator can oppress 90% of the people by just treating 10% of the population well, provided the 90% isn't allowed to heavily arm themselves anyway.
You jump from "some revolutions have happened" to "revolutions always happens and always succeed"...
By your logic why are there any tyrannies at all in the world? Do you really believe all governments are supported by their people and that oppression does not exist?
Given the US position in favor of Bolsanaro against Lula indicates that Trump is not interested in Democracy if it produces the wrong result. If Venezuelans elect a Socialist, they will immediately be out of our good graces.
> The people in Venezuela want democracy. It's a fundamentally different situation.
"We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators" - Dick Cheney (but I'm sure it'll work out this time)
There is a whole lot of directions this can go after we arrest the dictator, but a liberal democracy magically immediately popping isn't on my list. There might be one in the future but there will be a lot of chaos and violence between now and then.
What happened in Europe after WW2? Dick Cheney didn't invent the idea of America liberating a country and being greeted as liberators, it had happened before, specifically in countries that had a history of liberal democracy.
For some reason he thought it would apply to Islamic theocracies and it clearly didn't. Pattern matching Venezuela against Iraq or Afghanistan is an obvious mistake.
We aren't occupying Venezuela and rooting out everyone in the current regime and putting them on trial. We just arrested a handful of people leaving the rest of the government intact. It playing out like WW2 doesn't make sense
Trump has today, explicitly said that the US administration - specifically his administration - will run Venezuela, with boots on the ground, for as long as is necessary.
I was listening to the press conference and almost went back to edit my comment with a note about it. Honestly, coming out of that I have no idea if what is his saying is reality. As things stand and what we know, it doesn't make sense. We don't know about more troops currently on the ground. He said the VP has agreed to assist, but she is publicly saying very different things. I hate we are in a place as a country where we can't believe basic things about important topics our president says.
Also in the Q&A he mentioned this was mostly targeting the protection of the oil extraction/American companies taking over, not the rest of the country.
(tho not sure how much we can really trust what he says)
> What happened in Europe after WW2? Dick Cheney didn't invent the idea of America liberating a country and being greeted as liberators, it had happened before, specifically in countries that had a history of liberal democracy.
Those countries were actually being liberated from a foreign power that had invaded them just a few years prior.
There are very few examples where a foreign nation overthrowing the indigenous government (no matter how despised that government may be) are greeted as liberators, and in those select few instances the sentiment is almost universally short lived.
I don't know if you remember that Hugo Chavez was voted into power, had a legitimate mandate to dismantle the democracy that elevated him, and then his voters defended him against a violent coup to restore that democracy.
The funny part of that narrative is the US government currently being led by people who have been trying to tear down the concept of democracy in the US. Maybe once Venezuela has their democracy back, they can help out the people in the US?
Why would Washington try to get oil from Venezuela when its domestic oil industry produces all the oil the US needs (and if production were to decrease, the US economy could easily make up the shortfall by buying oil from Canada)?
It's not about needing the oil to use, it's about profit for American oil companies. Resource extraction from foreign countries at gunpoint is a major basis of the US economy.
US has a long history of overthrowing both democracies and dictators to allow their companies to extract resources lining the pockets of already rich industrialists.
Has that got anything to do with why these[1] graphs of US oil and gas production are limited to "Lower 48 states". I found that restriction to be very strange.
Domestic crude oil is mostly not compatible with US refineries, so it mostly gets exported. The US imports heavy crude, like that produced by Venezuela, for our domestic use.
Why would you buy oil from Canada when you can take oil from Venezuela?
>Domestic crude oil is mostly not compatible with US refineries
The oil produced in Texas is easy to refine. Some of it is exported as crude, and an approximately equal amount of heavy crude is imported because US refiners have a competitive advantage in refining it. It is not that US refiners cannot refine Texas crude: they make more money refining the heavy stuff or stuff with a high load of contaminants.
>Why would you buy oil from Canada when you can take oil from Venezuela?
But the US is not going to take it, just like they never took oil from Iraq after conquering that country. The value of all the oil produced worldwide in 2023 was about $1.7 trillion. Of course it cost a lot of money to extract the oil. That year the IRS collected over $4.7 trillion in tax revenue. The US government has easier ways of getting money than invading oil-rich countries.
The US does not want any country or economy in the Western Hemisphere to be stragically dependent on Russia or China, so kicking Chinese or Russians out of the oil industry in Venezuela might have been one goal of the current military action.
Can you guess what resource the US is trying to procure by this military action?
I think you are trying to force an incorrect simplistic narrative on the situation. Obtaining natural resources is not an important motivation for US military action with the possible exception of US intervention in the Persian Gulf during the Cold War (and even there I see no evidence that the US was trying to get out of paying the going international rate for the oil as opposed to merely ensuring that willing sellers in the Gulf could continue to transport their oil over the ocean). Venezuela's cooperation with Moscow and Beijing is a much more likely motivation, i.e., US national security.
> Venezuela's cooperation with Moscow and Beijing is a much more likely motivation, i.e., US national security.
If that’s the case why pootin got a red carpet in Alaska instead of orange jumpsuit?
Why if ruzzia is such a “threat to national security”, current government of “no new wars” doesn’t help Ukraine?
Don’t forget that eliminating (or reducing its influence to nothing) ruzzia - would hurt China immensely. Two birds with one stone and all… also with a benefit of a true legitimacy of helping Ukraine and destroying ruzzian totalitarianism.
Determining the goodness of a blatantly illegal action by its ultimate success is a very Machiavellian view. Why have laws if all that matters is the final result?
What kind of democracy do Venezuelans want and will it be the same kind of democracy Trump wants to install? What if they want a democracy that continues to be friendly towards Cuba and wary of the US? Will Trump accept that?
I can talk to them. I can talk to the Venezuelan refugees, who came here not because they are "political refugees" like some claim but because there was a famine in Venezuela.
