What, a minor sarcastic remark and you throw out the evidence that you asked for? The video and documentation that you claim didn't exist? If you can't engage with an opposing viewpoint because of a single sentiment, well, I don't know how you expect to be taken seriously. Your partisan bias is on display here.
But just for the record: the first link is completely irrelevant to the claim it's supposed to evidence; and the second and third links are not much better, in that arrest often does not require a warrant. (And citing 4A like that is incredibly dismissive; it suggests that refuting the argument is trivial, but is completely mistaken in that supposed refutation.)
The claim was that ICE is going after people for protected speech. The link is a determination by a federal judge to that effect, with the allegation going all the way to the top of the food chain.
This is a person being hunted and swept into a van by masked federal agents on the basis of her protected speech. There's no ambiguity here. The administration has said that's why they did it, and a judge has affirmed that as well (see prior link)
I didn't claim arrest requires a warrant. I claimed it requires probable cause which is a far higher standard than DHS's claim to make arrests based on reasonable suspicion. The claim that arrests can be made upon reasonable suspicion is indeed flatly refuted by the text of the 4th Amendment.
> The claim was that ICE is going after people for protected speech.
No, it wasn't. The claim was:
> There are now dozens of videos of them harassing, intimidating, beating, or detaining people for exercising protected speech.
> The link is a determination by a federal judge to that effect, with the allegation going all the way to the top of the food chain.
No, it isn't. First off, your "food chain" logic is invalid. Trump is the one who wanted the activists in question deported; it's not "ICE" "going after" them. In fact, the judge explicitly:
> ...praised the homeland security officials who testified in his courtroom about their efforts to carry out their responsibilities to keep the country safe — and said their skills were misused by their leaders.
Second, this isn't the activists being "harassed, intimidated, beaten or detained"; it's them being deported.
Third, these are still non legally binding comments by the judge, not a "determination".
Fourth, there is nothing here to substantiate the judge's opinion — no reference to what was supposedly said or done by the activists, or how the judge came to the conclusion that any 1A violation occurred.
> This is a person being hunted and swept into a van by masked federal agents on the basis of her protected speech. There's no ambiguity here. The administration has said that's why they did it, and a judge has affirmed that as well (see prior link)
The video demonstrates nothing of the sort. She's approached on the sidewalk and, in the AP's words, "detained". There's nothing here that could reasonably be characterized as "hunted". There isn't even a van in frame. There is nothing in either the video or the article to corroborate the claim that "the administration has said that's why they did it".
And I don't care if the agents are masked.
> The claim that arrests can be made upon reasonable suspicion is indeed flatly refuted by the text of the 4th Amendment.
No, it is not, because 4A speaks of warrants and not of arrests, and as you cede, arrests do not require a warrant.
Haha, well I hope these gymnastics aren't actually fooling you, of all people. That'd be a major concern.
You can rest easy knowing they're not fooling anyone else though.
Just a few points of note:
* You mention Trump wanted the activist deported, and they were arrested in the street, but they apparently WERE NOT also detained or hunted? How did they find an activist based on an order from on high, if not by hunting them? How could they possibly deport someone without detaining them first?
* You describe this person as an activist, and federal officials have described the enforcement action as based on her activism. You can go ahead and read the 1st Amendment if you need a refresher, but "activism", and certainly signing an op ed, is protected speech, thus proving my original point.
* With regard to what substantiates the judge's opinion, you can go read the court filings, duh. Do you need page numbers for this one too?
* "She's approached on the sidewalk and, in the AP's words, "detained"." LMAO. I love the scare quotes ;)
* Re 4A/warrants/arrests, etc. Arrests can be made in lieu of warrants only in exigent circumstances (which approximately no immigration stop qualifies as), and they can never be made in lieu of probable cause. A person can be stopped under only reasonable suspicion, but again this is not what DHS said. DHS said they are arresting people based on reasonable suspicion. This is unambiguously unconstitutional. I think your motivated reasoning might be affecting your reading comprehension on this point.
> DevOps was (and is) merely an excuse for companies to replace Developers with cheaper Ops resources, and yet expecting better services and better products from them.
Most places I've worked it was the even worse "we've laid off the ops team, now developers are responsible for both" followed by "no we can't hire any more developers, we have enough already".
This is par for the course with this AI slop. Most of the big claims about LLM productivity have completely lacked any backing evidence. Big claims require big evidence, but all I've seen so far is loud assertions and pathetic results.
I’m happy that this shows that hard work, understanding your codebase, having performant software, having actually working software, rigorously measuring and proving proof of results still matters.
There’s a huge difference between using LLMs to offload any hard work and for LLMs to be of some assistance while you are in control and take ownership of the output.
Unfortunately, the general public probably didn’t try a git clone and cargo build, and took the article at face value.
No need to build a tool for it, engineers can avoid the whole issue by simply avoiding slop-spewing code generation tools. Hell, just never allow an LLM to modify the dependency configuration - if you want to use a library, choose and import it yourself. Like an engineer.
> There are many cases in which I already understand the code before it is written. In these cases AI writing the code is pure gain.
That's only true if the LLM understands the code in the same way you do - that is, it shares your expectations about architecture and structure. In my experience, once the architecture or design of an application diverges from the average path extracted from training data, performance seriously degrades.
You wind up with the LLM creating duplicate functions to do things that are already handled in code, or using different libraries than your code already does.
I mean, that's just a truism - it's not really engineering advice. Maybe Postgres is just a hammer, but when you're building a house there's a lot of nails.
If you've got to store 5 GB videos, maybe reach for object store instead of postgres. But for most uses postgres is a solid choice.
Not quite, I used it at work too - the first thing that page suggests is using `Oban.Notifiers.PG` which uses distributed erlang's Process Group implementation, not Redis. You only really need Redis if you're not running with erlang clustering, but doing that rules out several other great elixir features.
Bootlickers. The tech industry is crawling with them unfortunately - perfectly happy to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that they'll never be out of favor. The Hacker News team doesn't seem to care, this has been happening all year with important information.
reply