Not to single you out in particular, but I see this sentiment among programmers a lot and to me it's akin to a structural engineer saying "I laughed out loud when he said they should analyze the forces in the bridge".
Care to elaborate? Perhaps the tools to do this in practice aren't there (which just shows how young the field of software "engineering" really is), but what consensus are you talking about and how is it an obstacle to verifying code? Most of the web follows standards and protocols, which actually sort of a prerequisite for communications across different systems...
Basically the modern web uses orchestration, for pretty much everything. Usually Kubernetes is doing that. Theoretically protocols like RAFT are formally verifiable, but their implementations in orchestration tools like etcd have not been, and I would go so far as to say that that is an impossible task. Therefore, the entire exercise is kind of silly.
Thanks, interesting. However, that just seems like a protocol like any other, with no real reason why you "can't" formally verify it. Is there something special about a consensus algorithm / protocol that makes it any more difficult to verify than any other algorithm which doesn't yet have a formally verified implementation?
> You can't formally verify anything that uses consensus
What did you mean by this then? There certainly seems to be nothing special about consensus that makes it any harder to verify than anything else. It's not fundamentally impossible to verify the software that CERN uses, it just takes some work.
A bridge failing is a high likelihood of death or serious injury. How many people died or were seriously injured in the latest Cloudflare outage?
For life or death systems, I agree that we should be looking to implement analogous processes/systems to a structural engineer or doctor, etc. Cloudflare is not a life or death system. If you operate a life or death system and you have Cloudflare as a single point of failure, for some reason, that should not be Cloudflare's problem.
> How many people died or were seriously injured in the latest Cloudflare outage?
I would not be surprised if the answer is "several". The average impact per human is obviously pretty small, but across billions of humans, there will be outliers.
Maybe a fire department uses a coordination system that relies on cloudflare, and with cloudflare down they have to resort to their backup system, and their backup system works but is slightly worse and causes one engine to be delayed in their response, and because they're 3 minutes late, they just miss being able to save someone from the fire.
Maybe someone's running a scientific study on nutrition, and the cloudflare outage means their data collection system is goes down for a bit, so their data flawed, and they end up just barely not passing a some necessary threshold, and they have to rerun their study, and that takes an extra week, and then they miss that quarter's deadline, and then the resulting adjustment to a product/procedure is delayed, and that 3 month delay causes 100,000 people to be slightly more malnourished than they would be otherwise, and one of those people ends up just barely too unhealthy to survive an unrelated deadly illness.
Sure, these scenarios are far-fetched. The chance of if it happening is one-in-a-million.
There are 10000 one-in-a-million people on the earth.
Sure, but this sentiment is why software "engineering" isn't really. You can justify it by not being important enough for actual engineering practices I guess, but to me it's a lack of pride in and care of your product.
more like "I laughed out loud when he said they should FEM the whole structure, down to the last bolt and strand of cable".
(More seriously, 'formal verification' is not a single thing, more a class of techniques which allow you to statically guarantee some properties of the system you are working with. When you propose it, you should have a clear idea of what properties you care about and how you intend to prove them, as well as a strong concern about whether those properties are actually going to capture enough of what you care about for it to be worthwhile)
Dunno, if you're using Rails, because of the naming conventions its pretty easy to find what you're looking for by just jumping to a file using grep or something.
Ruby-lsp runs everywhere nowadays, but back in the day, there was all sorts of code completion servers, live coding environments, etc... for Emacs, Vim had completion servers, and if you didn't have any of those, the REPL has always been good too.
American museums should not be telling stories to our people that we should be ashamed of ourselves. It's become too much, the pendulum is swinging back. Sorry
We are all Americans. I however don't want to be constantly re-told why our great, if flawed, history makes WASP Americans out to be the bad guys at every turn.
Slavery and segregation are as much a blight on US history as the holocaust on Germany’s. It’s important that the US is not proud of its entire history. I’d rather not have obvious political hacks making decisions about what is on display and for that decision to be at least nominally in the hands of those with most knowledge of the historical details.
So it wasn't political hacks that tried to add their left spin to every piece of American history that they could get their hands on? Not trying to be offensive, but the tone of how American history is re-told today is not what I would consider moderate.
Are you considering how some part of history is told, or whether it is told at all? Because they're currently not reframing history, but erasing it. How do you reconcile this with what you consider being an earlier "left spin"?
It's an executive order that contravenes existing legislative and judicial precedent, sets penalties, and is expected to be unchallenged. It limits free speech by fiat because a single man wants it to be so.
It's clearly dictatorial, you'll have to demonstrate why it's not an act of a single person dictating policy.
Burning American flags is free speech? It's definitely an interpretation... and one that many legal scholars disagree with, similar to Roe v Wade. Not that repealing Roe v Wade was a good thing, but it didn't have a solid legal foundation.
It's not all about getting your way... well maybe the better way to say it is that the left got their way, for sixty years. And some of those wins from that period for the left were built on shaky ground. There has to be give and take in any healthy political system.
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed this in Texas v Johnson. It is an act that expresses a political view through a symbolic act. It might be offensive to you, but "I find it offensive" is not sufficient defense to stop political speech.
And the left did not get their way for sixty years. The left is predominantly socialist, communist, anarchist. Democrats are not a leftist party. The left hasn't held many political positions in the US. But we on the left hate the democrats as much (or more) than folks on the right. We also tend to be broadly supportive of individual freedoms (most of my leftist colleagues are anti gun control, for instance.)
Yes. Of course it failed. It also succeeded several times. I'm not a communist, though. (I do have communist friends, however.)
Most of my communist friends are not authoritarian communists (aka tankies). A tankie is a very specific type of communist who believes in central autocratic power and a single party.
I think you'll find most modern communists tend to prefer a worker led democratic government. And people like myself prefer a syndicalist democracy without a central government.
I consider tankies my opponents, just like I consider all authoritarians my opponents.
Without some kind of coherent post-Marxist revolutionary understanding of what communism is, this is just pure delusion. Most people don't have the ability to synthesize grand ideas for the direction of society, no offense.
There's like dozens of people in the world that can do these things, and they need to want to use their intellect for such a thing. Unfortunately, communism is just philosophically derelict, until another great thinker comes along.
Good thing I'm not a communist or I might be upset. You keep moving the goal posts all over the place. I was just saying I'm not a tankie, lol, and you've pivoted to philosophers.
But what about Bookchin, Kropotkin, or the people of Rojava? Bakunin? Thoreau?
It's a little more subtle than that. His executive order doesn't ban flag burning as an expression of speech. It only bans flag burning as part of an incitement to violence. I expect the courts will strike it down, but even if they don't it won't be something you get arrested for. It'll be something you get extra time for, like hate speech.
Just for context, what Trump tries to (illegally) ban in US, flag desecration, is already a crime in most of Europe. You can get 3 years for burning the flag in Germany, 2 years in Portugal, 3 years in Switzerland, or 1 year in Poland. Worth keeping in mind when comparing democracy and individual liberty between Europe and US.
But it's obvious when people say "dictatorship" or "fascism" today in the USA it is just a dog whistle for not liking Trump. Nobody called Obama a fascist for how Chelsea Manning was treated.
It's absolutely not the case. The US is an empire with increasingly dictatorial power centralized in the executive. Clinton increased prison populations and increased police power. Bush increased executive power during his post 9-11 presidency. Obama regularly enforced U.S. policy at the end of a drone strike and shut down U.S. domestic agitation. Biden increased police funding and continued to sell surplus military equipment to cops. He also shut down a workers strike. Trump is a symptom of a general slide towards dictatorial policy. If it wasn't him this time it would have been one of the next 5 presidents from either policy.
Trump is doing some fucked up shit, but he doesn't get to be able to do that without decades of groundwork from both sides of the aisle.
Okay here's a secret that you probably won't hear other than in some books that are hard to find.
The youth desire a strong executive. They don't yet understand why it can be a bad thing, because they have little experience with people having power over them that aren't their parents or teachers.
The middle aged desire a strong legislative branch, the most fair branch of government. They have enough life experience to understand why. They are not quite old enough to be set in their ways just yet.
The elderly desire a strong judicial branch. Judges are almost always old, and biased towards the opinions of the elderly, left or right.
There is nothing wrong with a strong executive. It is just completely at odds with those who still control the vast majority of the money and power, and of course, mainstream media: the Boomers. JFK, Great Society, these are marked by a desire for a strong executive. Ironic, of course.
A strong executive can stop them, and the Boomers have never been told 'no' in their entire lives. Really truly, everybody was young in the 1960's. They warped society to their will, just like the people in every baby boom in history. You misinterpret their tantrum as something substantive.
I'm old (50s), I don't want a strong any of those. I especially, however, don't want a strong executive because I don't think decision making should be strongly centralized.
I'm a syndicalist anarchist, who believes communities should be primarily bottoms up driven, democratic, and cooperative. I argue we don't need any of those branches to be strong.
It's really fundamentally unimportant what you specifically believe. What is important is what people your age in the aggregate believe. This is an undeniable truth. It's therefore silly to engage in a conversation about you and your beliefs specifically. I recommend trying to understand Plato's ideas first.
Well, I disagree. What evidence do you have to demonstrate that a) this is true and b) it's so unassailable that one could not deny it?
Because it sure reads like, "I have a worldview. I will assert that it is true and talk down to anyone who does not accept my worldview as truth." It's a way to paint your discussion partner as an intellectual lesser, while adroitly dodging critique. You'll have to do better than just asserting something is true because you said so.
1. Degrees / magnitude. How many cases of dictatorial behavior were there with Obama vs Trump? Every president signs executive orders, but trump signs a lot more of them.
2. Defiance to checks in power. The current administration seems uniquely defiant of both the legislative and the judicial branches, both in rhetoric and act.
You have to stop thinking it's us or them. You have to stop imagining that somehow any of this is ok because my team or your team did or didn't do something.
I certainly hope I've been clear that this isn't some D vs R conflict. Both parties are at fault, both parties own some blame, but the situation today is not ok. It was also not ok under Biden, Trump 1, or Obama. We should be looking at ways to get the working class to look past our differences and securing more of the pie for ourselves. We should be reducing the power of the executive, no matter who is sitting in the seat. We should be focusing on the wellbeing of all.
Stop making a team sport, or at least correctly identify that you have way more in common with me (a working class anarchist) than you do with the people in power.
I'm not a tankie, and if you think all leftists are tankies you definitely need to refresh some definitions.
Unless you are saying, "I have nothing in common with the narrow subset of leftists that are tankies" rather than implying I'm a tankie then, sure. I guess you could make that case.
> And in turn federal district judges have signed a lot more nationwide injunctions? Orders of magnitude more than had ever been issued?
that by itself doesn't mean much. More EOs and especially illegal ones produces more injunctions.
> No, but it's different when my opponent does it.
No it's not different but the amount that's done matters. I for one have no issues calling out overreach by "my" side as well (which is more than can be said about most MAGAs). But I'm also going to call it out when the "other" side is doing it as normal course of governing vs being the exception.
How many legislations has this administration proposed let alone passed? vs how many EOs signed just since Jan?
The Obama administration wielded the power of the executive branch against its political opponents. And then the media ran cover for them -- "the Obama administration had no scandals!"
Using the IRS to target your political opponents should have been disqualifying. Running guns to the cartels should have been impeachable.
Texas gerrymandering with an overt publicly stated goal to bias the election is enough evidence. But if you want more: sending the military to intimidate politicians (Newsom), deporting and arresting people with permanent residency or other forms of legal immigration, arresting citizens without cause, intimidating law firms, journalists, and news companies by using the power of the executive branch to punish individuals and organizations, illegally dismantling congressionally established governmental organizations and branches.
This is just a small summary. Foreigners are not visiting the US, not because they don't want to or don't like the US, but because they are afraid of visiting a non-free country. It's not worth the risk of getting detained because you posted a negative comment online about a government official.
Notably, Eisenhower did not militarize the national guard to go after groups of people who are not politically aligned. He militarized them to protect groups of people. Quite the opposite and a poor choice of an equivocal example.
For how counter-cultural HN has always prided itself in being, I find it a bit hard to believe just how much the media has shaped the story here. There's a lot of reason to be skeptical... it's not that I like Musk but the media doesn't like him and that's no secret. I find it to be quite the opposite of what you're saying, that their press team has done a good job of shaping the story positively for Meta.
The puff piece in the WSJ combined with the all the positive press over the success of Threads, with now a quite rosy view of how it has played out since. I'm personally not a believer that they internally think Threads is a success, but to each their own. I constantly hear from my engineering co-workers about how much Twitter has changed and how the sky is falling, but the user numbers don't back that up and my user experience seems to be much the same.
>For how counter-cultural HN has always prided itself in being
Really? A bunch of engineering types who work for big corporations and who also dream and or do start their own hopefully big corporations prides themselves as being "counter-cultural?" That seems like a tough generalization to support.
It’s also encumbant company solely owned by the worlds richest man versus enormous global corporation mostly owned by another one. There is no counter-culture here.
Right, and the closest thing I can recall to a counter-culture here is occasionally seeing the suggestion that software engineers should unionize. The rest is bread and butter tech culture (which loves obscure technical topics, psychedelic drugs, discussing money, various ways of accomplishing tasks in a clever way, statistics, design and so on).
Much to your point of media having an apparent dislike for Musk, I had noticed Business Insider dominating anti-Musk coverage. It was so much so that when they published a flattering article about him I was shellshocked.
I think people assume that because Musk is highly successful that he is a normal person, worthy of being judged by such a standard. From the outside nothing seems normal about him to me. He is almost certainly on the spectrum, yet fairly highly functional.
I attribute half of the hatred for him not because of his behavior, but because of the general anger towards the billionaire class.
I think the sharp divide in perception of him shows that polarization within America has reached unhealthy levels. I won't invoke the terms used to describe people believed to be pro or anti Musk here, but I think most know them. I wish we could get to a point where we discuss less about people and more about their individual actions.
While I can’t deny that people, including the media, have a general disliking for him, there’s plenty of puff pieces to be found, especially by corporate friendly outlets.
Business Insider in particular likes to publish articles that are either outright shameless puff pieces or occasionally contain thinly veiled attempts at spinning things in his favor.
As for the disliking or hatred towards him, I’m not sure why this puzzles you.
He is simply an unlikable person, doing unlikable things.
Yeah sure it doesn’t help that he’s wealthy in this time and age and it also doesn’t help that he’s attributed accomplishments of mythical proportions that are mostly veneer, nor does it help that he seemingly has taken it upon himself to disprove the business acumen that people attribute to him, but all of those are just cherries on top.
Certainly not half the reason people dislike him.
Gates, Zuckerberg and Bezos are in the same order of magnitude as Musk (at least from the perspective of most people) and don’t nearly get as much hate, because they don’t act like utter tools at every single chance they get.
That’s it, that’s the reason. It’s not rocket science.
Which is why it’s weird that you seem to yearn for a time where people will judge him on his individual actions, when they already do so.
In "Hunter: The Strange and Savage Life of Hunter S. Thompson", it's made very clear that Hunter did _not_ write while he was sober. An excerpt of his daily schedule -
9:00(pm) starts snorting cocaine seriously
10:00 drops acid
11:00 Chartreuse, cocaine, grass
11:30 cocaine, etc, etc.
12:00 midnight, Hunter S. Thompson is ready to write
The OP was talking about "William Faulkner, Eugene O'Neill, Ernest Hemingway and John Steinbeck"... "what about Hunter S. Thompson?" isn't really a good argument. He's not considered a great writer in the grand scheme of things, I think he's better known for being a drug addict.
The idea, since it appears to have been lost on you, is that there's a long history of great writers (like Thompson) using drugs while they created. The Thompson quote is one of many, I think that's the part you may be misunderstanding. Truthfully, I'm surprised that a single Forbes article which quotes a "Michelle Stansbury, PR expert and founder of Little Penguin PR" is enough to have convinced you otherwise.
I also agree that this attitude is much more common in Europe than the US. Founders and CTOs constantly blowing their feet off because they can't seem to give technical people any power, and it doesn't seem to be changing any time soon. I think you would need a big FAANG-like talent feeder to convince them otherwise
Don't do it without a parachute of course, but as long as you have a monetary cushion, what do you have to lose? Move to a country with good healthcare, don't own a car, what hardship could possibly happen otherwise? Outside of extreme tail risk situations that could happen to anyone at anytime, I don't buy it.
> Really stupid. My advice is don't listen to this advice. If you are getting itchy feet go on a fucking holiday for a few weeks.
You could also call this quite myopic. How do you know what is out there without trying it yourself? Sitting in your little world and poo poo'ing those who are willing to take a chance. Because yes, from their vantage point, OP is right.
There really is a world out there that few can find but it's worth looking for if you have good reasons to take a chance and put down new roots. Most don't make it because accepting any culture outside of the one of your birth is a very difficult task, and you will never have any true change until you accept a new culture: their customs, their values, their belief systems.
Because really there is quite a lot of variation in those things, and in all the travels I have had, I have only met a few who truly made it. And there is of course a loneliness that comes along with the change, at least for a while. That doesn't mean it isn't worth trying, and if you bit off more than you can chew, just go back home. You obviously need resources to do that, but it's not really as scary as you make it out to be.
