achierius

It's not an agreement but it is indicative of the company's position. Why do you go to such lengths to avoid assigning responsibility to a large corporation?

Hate to be a pedant, but that's really not what "zero cost abstractions" means. The idea behind those is that you get a cleaner interface to some gross machine functionality/OS API/etc. layer, but don't pay a performance cost vs. using the gross lower-level layer. E.g. Rust's Option, unlike C++'s std::optional.

What you're thinking of is "no runtime" or "lightweight runtime", which does often mean "no garbage collector".

So? Maybe that extra information points them to believe that the war will be over soon, even if I don't agree. Isn't that what I said?

Why are there homeless people then?

Capital doesn't care about whether your work is "inherently valuable". That you think poor countries are somehow fundamentally different in this regard, exposed to the downsides of the market in a way that we here are not, is a defect of imagination.

It's possible that oil traders are still trading on the assumption that the war will be over Soon™, in which case the expectation is that we won't hit the bottom of our stockpiles and thus there'd be no reason to price in that eventuality. I don't know if I agree with that, and I would certainly be surprised if traders generally thought as much -- but who knows!

What makes you better than them?

> AI represents a unique opportunity to enjoy a two-for-one special and both cut staff and portray themselves as leaders in the sector that's achieving massive efficiency gains.

This is not what a scapegoat is. Definitionally, a scapegoat is innocent; here, however, AI is being used as a tool of disciplining labor.

In many cities they just bring it up again and again until it passes. They only need to win once, we need to win every time. That's the problem.

The UK didn't just repress its citizens, it ultimately caved to them. The voting reforms of the 19th century gave people essentially everything they wanted, at the time, and as a consequence when the rest of europe was going thru 1848 Britain was chilling. But just a few years beforehand there was legitimate fear that the government would be toppled by rioters! You can't judge centuries of history just by looking at the end result.

When exactly would that have been?

Most will and do. Few people become priests, today especially, without a deep-seated faith and desire to spread/support it.

While this is certainly the more interesting question, the unfortunate reality is that the ideological complex of capital (even if weakening, and no longer effectively reproducing itself) is still strong enough that most in the West can't even imagine a better world (other than "less bad capitalism"), much less think about how to get there. Consequently messages like the above are of great value in moving more people towards a point where questions like yours become relevant.

But the decision is still subject to heavy scrutiny; in fact, more than with normal for profit corporations. It does not seem like the board acted in the best interests of the nonprofit here, they acted in their own.

What am I?

First of all, you're confusing different events: iconoclasm was the destruction of Christian icons, by Christians who thought that practice was idolatrous.

> the battles were so bloody that the Christian victors not only converted the conquered

Who do you think 'conquered' the Swedes, some continental Frenchman? Their own kings converted, and thereafter converted their countrymen. And the first such Christian king, Olof Skötkonung, inherited the throne -- he didn't conquer it.

"that's the actual news", "the bigger signal", etc. -- this has a lot of the hallmarks of AI generated text but with overt stylistic simplification layered on top (nocaps, some weird spacing)

90% of software engineers are not charlatans, and it's convenient that you at confidently place yourself in the "10%"

Is that the case? The article says that the losses were

> led by customer service representatives and certain types of secretaries and salespeople.

What do you want? This sounds like you have something against people making a claim in public, at all, on any topic of importance.

This comment certainly does not scan as AI! Look, this isn't perfect, but it's the best we've got, and so long as AI writing is meaningfully worse than human writing, people are going to try to tell the difference.

This seems interesting, but has so many signs of AI writing that I worry it's not just edited but generated from whole cloth. Probably still a lot of truth in there but it does give me pause!

> The roundness is the signal.

> Slight pain, same result.

to point at a few.

Sure, but we have no prior reason to expect that the 'rate of discoveries' is going to drop off significantly in the next few years. Certainly not stop entirely.

Based on what? This seems like speculation.

Who are you to say? Why do you have such little regard for everyone in the field, both pro- and anti- AI development? Do you think they're colluding to deceive us?

> Depending on the processor, accessing the "privileged" mode can be done either by software interrupts, exceptions, or both. An operating system should pick one and stick with it.

Practically most will support access via both, but for different reasons. For example, page faults (which the software cannot possibly predict) are going to be exception-mediated, but syscalls (which the software asks for) are triggered via an interrupt.

> new roles will be created.

In the past, one such "new role" was that of slave. In fact, we expect slavery is <10,000 years old! Yes, new roles will be created. But there's nothing to say that they'll be pleasant for us to take on.

And when have we not? When in history has mankind ever treated the idle poor well? What makes this age different, that we who can no longer work would be taken care of?

I do think there's more class granularity than that, and it's important to understand how such distinctions can make it more or less difficult to organize and cooperate. E.g. the idea of a petit bourgeoisie is useful for understanding why small business owners, despite indeed needing to work for a living, are generally against unionization.

But the core of your point certainly stands. "Higher wage" vs "lower wage" does not make a big difference in terms of our fundamental interests, and the interests of workers are far more similar than people realize.

What if neither side represents your interests? What "election" is there in that case?

Things can provide value to a business while still acting as a liability -- that is to say, by virtue of their existence they cost you money, even if, when properly leveraged, they can be used as a tool to make more.

Consider a canonical loan: you get a pile of cash, but in exchange you need to make regular interest payments (plus, at some point pay back the principal, but this isn't strictly necessary -- e.g. governments used to issue perpetual bonds, which paid their coupons indefinitely). The analogy I would make with software is that the product has value, but the code you use to create it is a liability, in that it demands continuous maintenance and upkeep. Just as when you go shopping for a car loan, you look for one with the smallest interest rate -- if the debt itself were an asset, you would want more of it, which doesn't make sense. In the same way, it behooves a business to try and achieve its goals with a relatively small amount of code, not to create as much software as possible.