OkayPhysicist

Anybody who is wrongfully executed was basically guaranteed to spend their entire life in prison. Death row inmates get dramatically more access to legal aid than anybody else rotting in a cell, so if they couldn't win their appeal, the guy doing life isn't, either.

Generally, I'm against incarceration for that reason. I think the relatively muted violence of it is too easy to stomach for the public, which leads to people letting the system get sloppy. For public and infamous crimes, however, where the question is not "what act took place", but rather "did this act constitute a crime, and if so, what is the punishment?"-type cases, I'm perfectly fine with capital punishment being on the table. We trust public officials with significant authority, and abuse of that authority is utterly irredeemable. Frankly, for elected officials I'd support a "two-thirds vote and you hang" policy. If you want power, and seek out power, you have an immense responsibility to live up to your constituent's expectations.

Duplicate transitive dependencies throw a wrench in the lockfiles/pinning approach, since most package managers don't make it easy to install multiple versions of the same package (operating under the assumption that packages are large).

There's also a meaningful message difference when you look at a package page that says it's "done" as opposed "dead".

The missing piece there, that would be a real value-add over normal package repositories, is that functions can be small enough to simply be done. Function gets marked as such, it can no longer be updated, thus eliminating the risk of supply chain attacks and their ilk. IMO, most packages I actually use, with the exception of web frameworks, ought to fall into this category. My JSON parser should never update. My Knapsack-problem solver should never update.

These are problems that are hairy enough that I don't want to write my own solution, yet tractable enough that there ought to be a solution that never needs to be touched again. Maybe someone finds a better way of doing it, but the way they're currently doing it will never be wrong.

Without HTTPS, every link in the chain between me and your website is a potential attack vector. Maybe I trust my ISP, but do I trust my buddy's cheapo router? What about the shadowy cabal that offers airport wifi?

With static webpages, the concern isn't someone snooping in on what I'm reading. It's someone injecting content, probably malware, into the page. Let's say I have a zero-click exploit for Chrome. What can I do with it? If I just stick it on a page I control, best I can hope for is spamming it all over the web and hoping someone clicks on it. Probably not a lot of impact before it gets patched. If instead, I can wait until some router firmware gets pwned, or an ISP, I can do a mass attack where I make all the vulnerable routers inject my exploit into all non-HTTPS web requests. Much greater exposure.

Google has two campuses in LA. They have at least some vested interest in local politics being friendly to them.

> And power/money builds more power/money. And because its a boss vs worker arrangement, the worker's power will invariably get whittled down year by year.

Unions used to solve this issue by occasionally dragging a boss out of their home and killing them in the street, or kneecapping scabs. To end such violence, we enshrined in law pretty strong protections for unions, so that they could fight in the courts rather than in the streets. A couple generations of prosperity later, business folk and their bought politicians who wouldn't know Chesterton's fence if it fell on them decided those protections were inconvenient. And so here we are.

Humans are terrible at doing what's best for them. They are pretty good at following local gradients, though. Smoking might kill you in 30 years, but right now it lets you fit in with the cool kids, or feels good once you're hooked. Not brushing your teeth might be terrible for them and your gums, eventually, but right now it saves you from having to do something.

At any given decision point, people are more likely to pick the option that provides some benefit to them. That looks very different from consistently picking the choice that is eventually best for them.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what GLP-1 agonists help with. In simple terms, they make you less hungry. If you stop the drugs, it's not surprising you go back to being hungry. It would be a miracle drug if you didn't.

People, on average, eat until they're no longer hungry. Problem is, there's only a loose relationship between your caloric needs and your hunger response. That's how you end up with underweight people who are trying to put on muscle saying they can't possibly eat any more and still can't put on weight, while having overweight people who eat twice as much as that guy and have to actively choose not eat more. Both people can make a conscious choice to disobey their signals, just like how you can choose to hold your hand to a hot stove. But it takes a lot of energy to keep up that willpower. Effective weightloss drugs solve that problem, by treating the actual problem: the hunger.

The "compromise" that my university found was that if you were caught cheating in Science & Engineering school, you were given (informally) an ultimatum: either this can be escalated to the official channels, and you may be expelled (or perhaps nothing would come of it), or you can go be someone else's problem and transfer to a different subject. Typically the business school, because they're not big on ethics anyway.

As a TA, I once stumbled upon a bunch of students who had been copying each other's labs, because one student was brazen enough to turn in a printout with a the gmail header information across the top, indicating it had been received from another student. So I looked at that student's page, and noticed that they had somehow completely screwed up their rounding, and used way too many significant figures, which I recognized from another student's assignment. Digging through the pile, I found others that had rearranged stuff enough that I probably would have missed them if not for their exceptionally dull friend.

All told, 9 students had turned in the same exact assignment. 8 took up the offer to drop the course and switch majors, 1 faced the music, took their zero in the course, but did stick with the program.

Unless it's relevant to the conversation ("grab some strawberry jam when you're at the store, not the strawberry jelly"), Americans are also likely to use "jelly" as the catch all for the various "preserves meant for spreading". I guess that's kind of alluded to by my suggestion to put any of them on a peanut butter and "jelly" sandwich.

They also got it wrong in their explanation. To Americans, jelly is jam with the fruit bits filtered out, leading to a homogeneous spread. Jam has crushed fruit, giving it a thicker, uneven texture, and preserves are whole-ass pieces of fruit boiled down in syrup. Marmalade is jam with citrus rinds. As listed here, they are sorted in descending desirability for inclusion in a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

I suspect the (perhaps misguided) goal was to avoid a scenario where an array of patchwork solutions leads to a deluge of exceptions to the patchwork solutions require even more intervention. IMO, what they should have done was issue a mandate that finals carry on as usual for any class where they can do so without tightening any access limitations: In-person can remain in-person or go online, synchronous ("the final is at 9:00am-11am") online can stay as such or go asynchronous ("take the final at your convenience today")

huh? Have you never bought clothing in person before? Is Costco really your only exposure to buying clothes in a physical space? Is "big shop full of clothes" an American thing no one has ever pointed out to me?

Fair, I did leave out the soda that comes with the hotdog. But that could be a diet soda. (and seems to frequently be, given that my local Costco has 4 diet coke spouts, as opposed to 1-2 of any others)

I did look up the calorie count for both. 550-ish for the hotdog, 650-ish for the pizza.

Whole Foods started wildly expensive, toned down a lot after the Amazon bought them, and then creeped back up to wildly expensive the last few years.

Unless you are particularly sedentary, 1200 calories is pretty low for daily consumption.

The Government taking money and burning it is called "taxation". With fiat currency, the government makes the money, out of nothing, at its discretion. They then collect most of it back in the form of taxes. Keep in mind, the money they're collecting is going into the pile of infinite money, and Inf + 1 = Inf.

Fiscal policy all about adjusting those levers (how much, and where, the government injects money into the economy, and how much, and where, the government extracts it back out) in order to promote the society we want to have.

This is a tired point of discussion, brought up exclusively by contrarians trying to be edgy. No one earnestly believes that they don't have free will, because if they did, it would result in obvious deviance in behavior. Everyone treats each other as if they have choices, and in turn behaves like they have choices. If the assertion is that we don't have free will, but are forced to (due to our lack of free will) to behave and believe like we do, than there's no difference in experience to compared to having free will, and it ends up in the pile of pointless conversations like what if we're a brain in a jar, or in a simulation, or whatever.

Kids are highly motivated, and have a lot of free time. They make truly obnoxious adversaries.

Not just difficulty on the browsing side, difficulty on the presentation side, too. It took a while for anybody to figure out a decent presentation for forums on mobile devices, and in the meantime the experience was terrible. Frankly, you can get away with much worse UI on desktop, which made hacking together a webpage much easier.

On the spend management side of things, I've found pretty remarkable success in letting LLMs check "does this receipt match this reimbursement request and based on all the information about the user, the request, and our policy, is it appropriately allocated to appropriate GL, Location, Department, and Project codes?" If the verification step fails, it kicks it back and the user can either override it (which gets it flagged for AP review), or fix it. It does substantially better than the naive Bayes classifier I was using before.

Kitten Space Agency is being made by one of the studios that attempted to land the contract to make KSP2. Basically, KSP1 had fundamental engine limitations that were blocking adding stuff that the developers really wanted (interstellar travel, better colonies, etc). So instead of just developing more DLC, they decided to make KSP2. Since the company that made KSP1 wasn't a game developer (they were a marketing company that gave their devs some free time), they shopped around for a studio to take it over. Of the studios that offered to take on the project, they ended up choosing Take2, because they had a flashy, art-focused pitch. Take 2 muddled around in development hell, then decided to abandon the engine rewrite, and focus almost exclusively on releasing a graphics overhaul of KSP1, all while still promising the features that required the engine rewrite in the first place. Queue absolutely disastrous early access launch. Rocketwerks, the KSA studio, were another one of the studios that pitched for KSP2, on the technical basis of their proposed replacement engine which would actually solve the problems that was KSP2 raison d'être. After Take2's KSP2 failed miserably, fired all it's staff, and then pretended that KSP2 wasn't dead for months, Rocketwerks announced that they were going to build their own game, KSA, on the engine that they had developed for KSP2.

In short, KSA is more of a KSP2 than what Take2 gave us.

> Before the invention of money there was only direct exchange; I do/give something for/to you and you do/give something for/to me in return.

This is ahistoric. Widespread barter is only really takes place in post-currency societies. Pre-currency societies mostly engaged in reputation or "gift" economies. When I have a surplus, I share with peers, with the understanding that they have done and will do the same in the future. It can be tempting to map that social obligation onto currency debt, but reputation doesn't really behave the same way as currency does. It's not linearly combined (giving someone with no bread a loaf of bread is going to provide you much greater than half as much standing with that person than giving them 2 loaves), its transaction costs are much, much lower (you probably wouldn't pay the village idiot, but if you enjoy listening to his tall tales, you probably think fondly enough of him to help him out in a pinch, or share some extra berries you found, or you might value the fact that your neighbor gave a loaf of bread to the guy with none from the earlier example, but it would be weird to pay him for that indirect, incidentally service), and it's barely portable: maybe your kid might benefit somewhat from your prestige in the community, but unless he lives up to it it doesn't matter if you saved the village by single-handily slaying the lion that was picking off children and livestock. Likewise you can't just hop over to the next village and expect people to help you any more than basic hospitality rules demand.

Most people at a gym are not the fitness-focused people you're thinking of. Most are just white collar workers who need some exercise. A typical American diet already has an embarrassing surplus of protein, there's very little gear that your average person is going to need (active clothes can just be shorts and t-shirt, maybe swim trunks, and a pair of shoes), and IMO most people don't need a trainer for more than a couple of sessions to show them the ropes.

> high-level languages depressed wages by opening up programming to tens of millions of people who could never grok assembly.

While I agree with your thesis, I don't think your example actually happened. From my experience teaching CS, the fundamental skill when it comes to programming a computer is algorithmic reasoning, that is, the ability to split a task into subtasks until you reach base tools that you exist in your toolbox. Whether those base tools are MOV or document.getElementById() is largely immaterial, IMO. Obviously it's quicker, and easier, for us to not have to drill all the way down to assembly all the time, but if you have a firm grasp of algorithmic reasoning, you are capable of it.

Algorithmic reasoning is a valuable skill across the economy, one of the most valuable, in fact, right after "risk evaluation" and "having a lot of money", but it's difficult to teach. For some people it seems to fit right into their mental model, and it's simply a "duh". For most, though, it either takes a ton of grinding their head against it, or more often they simply bounce off and decide to do something else. I think that is responsible for the relatively limited supply of developers, which combined with software being wildly profitable because of the whole "copies are free to make" scaling created a shortage, which drove up wages.

They drove up wages so much that approximately everyone who has any aptitude for algorithmic reasoning is now funneled into software development. I think that, more than anything, contributed to the explosive growth of the number of developers. Adults may be hesitant to jump industries, but subsequent generations flooded in.

That is a "justifies extreme violence to prevent" type suggestion. Privacy is a basic human right. The problem is power. No one should be in a position to spy on everyone.

It's possible, just expensive. Just like everything else about SF.

Another cost difference that you're not accounting for is building code. It would be entirely unacceptable for an SF skyscraper to fall down in a 7.9 magnitude earthquake. Likewise, fire safety is a huge factor in the US, and especially in California. Safe evacuation routes for people get more and more difficult to provide when the number of stories climbs higher, too.

Again, there are plenty of instances where enough good comes from surveillance that it outweighs the intrinsic negative, but denying that it is, in of itself, intrinsically negative suggests that some creepy dude monitoring everyone's every move is just fine, as long as he's not doing anything else.

A more obvious parallel is violence. To trip over Godwin's law, shooting Hitler would have been a moral action, but not because "shooting people" is amoral. Shooting a random person is definitely immoral. We constantly do immoral things for the greater good, but it is a mistake to thusly assume those actions are amoral.

I thoroughly disagree. Surveillance is an invasive tool of control, and as such intrinsically immoral. Just like a slew of other immoral actions, it may be a net positive when applied for a greater good, but if not used for anything, it's evil.

This is trivially true to most common moral understandings. If my neighbor installs a camera pointing through my window and into my shower, applying some fancy technique to see through clouded glass, most of us would justly think that was immoral of him, even in complete absence of any other immoral actions facilitated by that surveillance.