Haha, yes, that's what I meant. Written in haste :)
146 karma · joined April 29, 2018
If anything, the more apt historical comparison is to the Czechoslovakian and Polish partisans who wanted nothing less than to harry the Germans on (or within) their borders before the war. The British and French ambassadors (i.e. Qatar, etc) took great pains to try and convince the Polish and Czechoslovakian governments to restrain their partisans from attacking German people or positions, since they suspected Germany would use any and all provocation, no matter how small, as a casus belli. Anyone who's read a bit of WW2 history also knows how often the German government attempted to engineer exactly these kinds of events to justify their aggression.
It sounds straight out of the Likud playbook, doesn't it? But in what universe does an attack that kills 1000 people, a good number of them active duty soldiers, justify killing and maiming over 100,000 civilians and leveling hundreds of thousands of buildings? If the shoe were on the other foot, this implies Hamas also has the moral imperative to do just the same to Israel. That's moral relativism for you.
Perhaps Europe had a better understanding of this topic when they instituted the Geneva Conventions and other international humanitarian law after the war than we do today, 100 years out, trying to now claim none of it actually matters and the means justify the ends.
For example, the ability for the harness to call into a Python one-liner just to experiment is pretty powerful. If I'm asking it to use D2 to build an SVG graph, it can write some Python to introspect the XML to see if things appear to be placed correctly (size, x-y coords, etc.). Which is a pretty cheap way for it to experiment and verify its results before I deign to examine the rendered SVG with my own eye balls.
I think this axiom is not a true belief for many of the most powerful, especially the ones currently driving the technology financially. It feels like they disdain having to be human (especially as it concerns the human propensity to die). Even though they are, by at least capitalist standards, at the top of the food chain and (I'm sure from their point of view) the pinnacle of human civilization.
I think what many of these powerful people want is literally something like Cixin Liu's "The Last Capitalist" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_Benefit_of_Mankind).
Letting people make their own choices always has its limits, regardless of what people say (rather casually on the Internet). When nearly all health systems in the world work through the healthy subsidizing the unhealthy, we should be attempting to limit preventable illness.
In any case, I don't think there's any country or state that bans drinking raw milk. If you're on a farm and you want to drink your own milk, go ahead. Just don't claim it's safe enough to sell, because it really isn't.
``uv`` accomplishes the same thing, but it is another dependency you need to install. In some envs it's nice that you can do everything with the built-in Python tooling.
In any case, regardless whatever clever method you try to use, even if you're successful, it's not as straightforward and easily understood and extensible as OPA policy. Let's say you succeed in governing Rust code. OK, but now I have developers who are writing in Python and Java and TypeScript. What now? Develop a new, customized solution for each one? No thanks
When something is written in a real programming language (that doesn't just compile down to YAML or some other data format), this becomes much more challenging. What should you do in that case? Attempt to parse the configuration into an AST and operate over the AST? But in many programming languages, the AST can become arbitrarily complex. Behavior can be implemented in such a way as to make it difficult to discover or introspect.
Of course, YAML can also become difficult to parse too. If the system consuming the YAML supports in-band signalling -- i.e. proprietary non-YAML directives -- then you would need to first normalize the YAML using that system to interpret and expand those signals. But in principal, that's still at least more tractable than trying to parse an AST.
Let's also not forget that that country's paid spokesmen (both Israeli and American) were joking for months about those explosions, even lobbing it as a threat to their perceived enemies -- on live TV no less!
And sure enough, if you look up any details on the studies in question, they are highly questionable. Vastly different populations studied with very weak controls. For example, sunscreen use -- both chemical and physical, i.e. hats -- was not controlled for. Seems like a big problem since that's the primary claim being made! And it seems like such an obvious thing. It makes one wonder why it was omitted.
The facts of the "status quo" of sun exposure dangers, on the other hand, have quite a lot more going for them, both in terms of study quality and in terms of physical explanation/interpretation. UV radiation physically damages DNA, even when you don't burn. Tanning is a response to skin cell damage, so any additional melanin production in your skin is indication that your DNA is being damaged. Damaged DNA means when your cells reproduce, they reproduce the damage and/or otherwise mutate. If that damage or mutation happens to be cancerous, then you have a big problem. Tanning, contrary to what people seem to think, doesn't inoculate you against skin cancer or damage. It merely helps absorb a higher percentage of UV radiation -- meaning your skin is still getting damaged, just at a slightly lower rate (a helpful, though marginal, evolutionary advantage).
There's this certain anti-historical proclivity to create heroes for worship. Because it's a simple story to tell and it gives you the opportunity to put yourself in the hero's shoes. But the simple story is almost always wrong.
That's quite the leap though, and is just confusing correlation and causation. Maybe the previous leadership was simply getting in the way of the engineers and managers that had the good ideas. And the new leadership was more hands-off, or focused in other areas like marketing. Or those cases are just flukes. For every case like the ones you cite, I could find two where the exact opposite happened.
If you're downing a shot of vodka every morning, and suddenly stop, then yeah, your health is going to improve.
In my opinion, many (if not most) of these CEOs are business-focused people with no technical (or even non-technical) knowledge of anything they purport to manage. And on the whole, they really don't affect the value of the company one way or the other.
From my understanding, I don't think this is completely accurate. But, to be fair, AWS doesn't really document this very well.
From my (informal) conversations with AWS engineers a few months ago, it works approximately like this (modulo some details I'm sure the engineers didn't really want to share):
S3 requests scale based on something called a 'partition'. Partitions form automatically based on the smallest common prefixes among objects in your bucket, and how many requests objects with that prefix receive. And the bucket starts out with a single partition.
So as an example, if you have a bucket with objects "2025-08-20/foo.txt" and "2025-08-19/foo.txt", the smallest common prefix is "2" (or maybe it considers the root as the generator partition, I don't actually know). (As a reminder, a / in an object key has no special significance in S3 -- it's just another character. There are no "sub-directories"). Therefore a partition forms based on that prefix. You start with a single partition.
Now if the object "2025-08-20/foo.txt" suddenly receives a ton of requests, what you'll see happen is S3 throttle those requests for approximately 30-60 minutes. That's the amount of time it takes for a new partition to form. In this case, the smallest common prefix for "2025-08-20/foo.txt" is "2025-08-2". So a 2nd partition forms for that prefix. (Again, the details here may not be fully accurate, but this is the example conveyed to me). Once the partition forms, you're good to go.
But the key issue here with the above situation is you have to wait for that warm up time. So if you have some workload generating or reading a ton of small objects, that workload may get throttled for a non-trivial amount of time until partitions can form. If the workload is sensitive to multi-minute latency, then that's basically an outage condition.
The way around this is that you can submit an AWS support ticket and have them pre-generate partitions for you before your workload actually goes live. Or you could simulate load to generate the partitions. But obviously, neither of these is ideal. Ideally, you should just really not try and store billions of tiny objects and expect unlimited scalability and no latency. For example, you could use some kind of caching layer in front of S3.
Do niche interest groups have influence on housing policy? Sure. But these niche interest groups don't usually have a monetary interest in the outcomes they're promoting. But individual homeowners (who often band into interest groups of their own) and large real estate conglomerates do have such a monetary interest. They consider certain types of housing built in a certain way to have *more value* and be worth more. So they promote politicians who introduce zoning and other rules to protect that value.
For someone looking to make a profit off of housing (or even to invest in housing), what is more appealing? A traditional U.S. suburb? Or a Kowloon walled city? One is denser, cheaper per capita, and (if you're not careful) unappealing to look at. In other words, it's worth less. So there is a great monetary pressure from people who already own homes to prevent "mixing" this type of housing into existing planned communities. People who need homes, on the other hand, are a little bit less discerning (to say the least). They don't have a monetary interest necessarily. They're primarily looking for a permanent residence.
So I just don't buy this "abundance" stuff in general. If you remove all of these restrictions, will some companies start building housing? Some will. But my guess is most will say the juice is not worth the squeeze -- the profit margins and the long-term values of these properties will make it unappealing. Just like it's unappealing for grocery stores to set up in big urban areas. Or for hospital providers to set up in rural areas. Food deserts don't exist because of too much government intervention. A lack of rural hospitals is not a problem because of too much government intervention. It's because those things are not profitable.
So in my opinion, if you want to reform zoning rules or things of that nature, it's only really going to be effective if you *force* (or if you want to be politically correct, "incentivize") housing companies to build in these areas too.
I don't really consider this an "anti-trust" argument. It can be equally true if there's a lot of competition in the housing market and if there's next to no competition. It's more of an incentives argument. This is an argument that, like with medical care, we're treating something that is a fundamental need of every living human to have a stable and peaceful and fruitful life as if it were a standard market commodity. And when you do that, you get poor outcomes. We need to support the building of housing *even if* it's unaffordable or has low (or even non-existent) profit margins
Conveniently, we have the shadow docket. A way to issue diktats without any arguments before the court and in many cases without any reasoning whatsoever.
And conveniently, lower courts can then interpret a lack of details from a shadow docket decision however they want. So that the executive can appeal yet again, to get another thumbs down from SCOTUS (without any explanation), and round and round we go. The executive gets to keep the plates spinning while it essentially does whatever it wants.
With this situation, why shouldn't we simply pack the courts? If SCOTUS is going to take more cases than it can handle and not provide any real guidance to lower courts, then clearly they need more employees.
All of the evidence available to us shows us that migrants, on average, commit less crime than U.S. citizens. The evidence shows us that they pay into social programs without reaping almost any benefit. The evidence shows us that they take jobs that the average American isn't interested in. An evidence-based political program would not target migrants as a first priority, except to provide some more straightforward way to become documented and legal.
The other issue is -- the U.S. has 300 million+ citizens. This argument that migrants will "clog up" the courts seems ridiculous if you also believe U.S. citizens deserve due process. If your court system can't handle a relatively small percentage of your residents committing the crimes you have on the books, then maybe those crimes aren't really serious crimes are they? Or else not funding the courts appropriately to satisfy the political program is purposeful. The goal is to avoid due process and accountability, for citizens and non-citizens alike.
There's a very easy determination to be made here about which students are or are not being victimized. If my knowledge of current events is still accurate, not a single pro-Israel student has been extra-judicially kidnapped and imprisoned. Pro-Israel Jewish students very well may feel victimized or scared. But put into perspective, I can imagine that pro-Palestinian students feel it much more so.
>> We did that. But only the Prime Minister could actually cut through all the bureaucracy and say, Ignore these EU rules on Blah. Ignore treasury guidance on Blah. Ignore this. Ignore that. “I am personally saying do this and I will accept full legal responsibility for everything.”
> By taking over responsibility, Johnson loosened the accountability of the civil servants and allowed them to actually solve the problem instead of being stuck following the rigid formal process.
Of course this also can have pretty severe negative consequences. In the U.S., thanks to a recent Supreme Court ruling, the president has immunity from criminal prosecution under certain (yet to be fully determined) circumstances. If the president then "takes over the responsibility" for obviously illegal actions, and is immune from prosecution for those actions, you now have a civil service unburdened by any responsibility to follow the law. And there are some 3 million odd workers in the U.S. federal government.
That the conservatives on the Supreme Court did not consider this danger, especially in light of who occupies the office, is still astounding to me.