486 karma · joined March 7, 2026
Not that the project didn't have merit on itself (we're talking about proto-internet, basically), but its potential role in planning is exaggerated. If anything, it's a pitch before MVP.
The issues were very much political (denied funding speaks in favor of that), not computational. You can't solve those with math and transistors.
It also can be necessary.
In fact, Fred Brooks in The Mythical Man-Month, specifically in chapters 3 "The Surgical Team" and 4 "Aristocracy, Democracy, and System Design" explains why strong (even, maybe, authoritarian) central planning is imperative for large [software] projects.
Without proper mandate the work would be undermined constantly. Again, with regard to software projects (which with all accustomed with) a "Broken Ownership" article [0] [1] illustrates (among other things) the necessity of the mandate.
All in all, if you've been stripped of the mandate, lacking resources and your project is sabotaged in other ways, you don't need to look too far in the search of why it doesn't go as ...planned.
In 1954 an executive order of 14 Oct 1954 reduced the amount of administrative personnel by 450 thousands.
The amount of metrics went down from 9 940 to 6 308 in 1954, to 3 081 in 1955, and to 1 780 in 1958.
Khrushchev moved most of the planning power from central planning institution to the regions and down to the factories and enterprises. What previously was strict targets from the center now became soft suggestions.
Article misses those basic things completely and instead goes into tangential theoretic topics and even goes to state things like that:
central planners preferred to use the CIA’s analyses of certain Russian commodities rather than reports from local Party bosses
LLMs enables them to post (or, rather, paste) something, in an attempt to trick others into believing they do have something to say.
They think they sound smart now, because LLMs are "very much the “stupid person’s idea of an intelligent person”"[1]
So now we are flooded with stupid people's attempts to show us how smart they are.
It's like two parallel worlds, that exist in the same place at the same time, but somehow don't cross.
As many have said before:
it's basically malicious compliance. They're supposed to be super annoying ... Instead of complying, they choose this obnoxious practice so they could continue ... monitoring every action a visitor does.
You don't need a cookie banner to be allowed to create Cookies. You only need them if you're using them for something like tracking. [1]
Regulators didn't enforce cookie banners. Cookie banners are a form of malicious compliance. When you complain about them, you are doing the lobbying work of ad companies for free. The correct solution is to just not spy on people, and the problem is that the EU didn't go far enough and just ban the behavior altogether. [2]
Cookie pops are malicious compliance to regulations that legitimately protect consumers. You’ve cherry picked one bad side effect to throw out all the ways the EU is way ahead of anyone else in protecting consumers [3]
if you are going to rely on what you've seen in movies as your evidence
If you going to twist my words in order to mask weakness of your position and ignore the arguments, "I think this conversation is already over" (what a childish thing to say, I cringe even copying this).
E.g. "we don't set any tracking cookies, so we're already compliant with the law even without banner, so there's nothing to decline or agree to".
So far it hasn't made anything easier (support call lines are the proof of that).
I understand the picture of that outcome, which you'd like to have, but our real world experience just doesn't support it.
> requiring button pushes, or anything else other than voice, should be avoided if possible.
Well, even movie tropes often show, how that is not the case. You might be able to push a button safely, if the intruder in your house, but will be unable to comply with "I couldn't hear you, could you speak in a loud and clear voice?" without compromising your safety.
> and its been working really well
No caller satisfaction surveys, no comparison with tried and true button approach, just statements from parties with vested interest.
Everything can be handled by playing a message and reading a response with far superior, refined, cheaper and privacy-respecting technology than voice recognition - pushing a button.
No need to waste people's time with an "AI agent".
Service providers have been doing that since forever.
Billionaires love it when you try to vote with your wallet, because while billionaires only represent 0.00004% of the population, their wallets are 100,000 times larger than average. [1]
"AC on" crowd usually have no consideration for anyone and rarely understands that while air flow matters, the temperature doesn't have to be freezing.
"Don't do it" note have as much validity as "Nah, I will" reaction. The fact that conversation happened is a win, and it's fine, that the problem wasn't solved in the best possible way, it isn't lingering anymore, so that's a better outcome that nothing.
The Cloudflare folks apparently want security issues reported via HackerOne (which wouldn’t let me log in because the Cloudflare CAPTCHA HackerOne uses seems to be broken…).
and the changes depend on each other so I can't open multiple independent PRs
Stacked pull requests break large changes into small, reviewable pull requests.
With stacks, you can independently review and check each pull request, then merge everything together in one click.
No more opening a single large pull request that takes forever to review, or splitting work across multiple branches you have to keep manually rebasing.
It's like responsibility is shifted from the author to the tool. That has been tried before, and every time it seem to consistently produce a similarly shaped mess in a different area of a process, but with an added bonus of the tool's own problems and restrictions.
it's basically malicious compliance. They're supposed to be super annoying ... Instead of complying, they choose this obnoxious practice so they could continue ... monitoring every action a visitor does.
You don't need a cookie banner to be allowed to create Cookies. You only need them if you're using them for something like tracking. [1]
Regulators didn't enforce cookie banners. Cookie banners are a form of malicious compliance. When you complain about them, you are doing the lobbying work of ad companies for free. The correct solution is to just not spy on people, and the problem is that the EU didn't go far enough and just ban the behavior altogether. [2]
Cookie pops are malicious compliance to regulations that legitimately protect consumers. You’ve cherry picked one bad side effect to throw out all the ways the EU is way ahead of anyone else in protecting consumers [3]
The tone with which it manages to objectify the users and distance the writer from them is a cherry on top.
Precursor is a client-side, session-based verification system, built with privacy in mind, that uses dynamically injected JavaScript to continuously collect behavioral signals as visitors interact with your application.
And then I reached:
> 10. AI is fine. Generic language is not.
> It is fine to use AI to draft or review an email.
> But edit it until it sounds specific and human.
Ok, maybe we shouldn't take advice from someone, who authoritatively states it is fine to put slop in the email?
https://old.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/4dmufm/how_tech_writ...
Dismantling the EU is like burning down your own house
The application probably still treats id as unique, but nothing in the schema guarantees it. And you can’t recover the guarantee with a separate UNIQUE (id) constraint: both MySQL and PostgreSQL require every unique constraint on a partitioned table to include the partition key columns. The uniqueness property has effectively been traded away.
MySQL has AUTO_INCREMENT [1]
PostgreSQL has SERIAL [2] and CREATE SEQUENCE [3]
What am I missing?
[1] https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.4/en/example-auto-increme...
[2] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/18/datatype-numeric.html#DAT...
[3] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/18/sql-createsequence.html