If it’s a well known case feel free to share it, otherwise you’re just editorialising an unverifiable anecdote.
6,105 karma · joined July 25, 2011
Instead I found a concise, measured and sane opinion that I honestly can’t disagree with. Like, sure, if your language broadly supports the secondary use case (scripting) why not? If it doesn’t, then the juice almost certainly won’t be worth the squeeze.
He clearly wasn't, so forcing one particular interpretation based on the way you've personally set up the "paradox" goalpost is strange to me.
They've had 100+ million weekly users for over half a year
Your last question is perfectly reasonable, and I'm interested in hearing more specifics to this point as well.
However, your primary stated basis for skepticism seems flawed. One child's usage pattern under parental surveillance is almost certainly not reflective of the platform as a whole.
> That is, if someone / another nation state is not willing to follow the same basic rule, then they don't get the benefit of it.
I agree, but is a 3rd party interpretation even necessary in this context? The original text is minimal, as in literally a one-paragraph plain language footnote copied here in its entirety :
> "Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. " -- The Open Society & Its Enemies
Is the implication that all pentesters are black hats until axiomatically proven otherwise? High bar.
If everyone in my country decided to stop working in or sponsoring the arms industry, we'd be invaded by an authoritarian dictatorship tomorrow.
If in contrast we all summarily banned these aspiring social credit tools, the negative side effects would be negligible to nonexistent.
> So part of the reason that we deploy the way we do, we call it iterative deployment, rather than go build in secret until we got all the way to GPT-5, we decided to talk about GPT-1, 2, 3, and 4. And part of the reason there is I think AI and surprise don’t go together.
This was presumably said with a straight face, which I find both impressive and unsettling.
A more productive society is not incompatible with extreme inequality. Unless the middle is preserved, it's hard to see how all these winemakers and charismatic artists will find a market for their labor.
Maybe I'm being overly broad in my interpretation, because they did specifically single out "coding" - but having personally worked both in and out of tech I don't really see non-dev "desk jobs" as having any particular moat against automation (and potentially even less than devs, which admittedly means I disagree with the likes of Jensen Huang).
So, when programmers go - they won't go alone. At that point it's reasonable to ask what kind of human labor will be marketable enough to command upward-mobility salary tiers, or if the 99.9% are perpetually relegated to pouring Bezos & co drinks while teaching them how to telemark [1]
[1] dystopia aside it would be entertaining to watch
The longbow's reputation as a hard-counter to heavy cavalry is, I think, a little context dependent. The famous set pieces like Poitiers, Agincourt, Crecy all featured favorable terrain - and in the case of Agincourt, favorable weather - ideal for massed fire into predictable funnels (where, strictly speaking, the longbow served first and foremost as a horse killer).
All this to say, it's IMO a mischaracterization to imply the peasants in the aforementioned peasants revolt held the military edge relative to the crown and its allies. After the initial shock of the uprising, they were a clear underdog matched against a well resourced and ruthless opponent.
However if you're attributing widespread product adoption to the erosion of cultural conservatism towards [new thing], then I think that underplays the role of product iteration. AirPods shrank their form factor and eliminated the cigarette-butt aesthetic, EVs became highly quality competitive, Amazon expanded from being a bookstore, etc.
Both of these jobs - particularly the latter but where I live also the former - rely on a heavy surplus of disposable income sloshing around the economy. Once the money stops flowing the home stills start and the ski trips stop.
> My friend whose ten year old stayed indoors for a few years to play around on REPL, less surely.
The broad point you're conveying is reasonably clear, but I'm not even sure whether you're implying your friend is a SWE by virtue of their child tinkering with a REPL, or if you're referring to the future job prospects of said 10 year old.
Sounds to me like you're describing a broadly universal human trait. I for one certainly can't claim with a straight face to always place the concerns of others on a fully level footing with my own. Can you?
> this claim is disingenuous propaganda
> Hamas is an assymetric, irregular force, and assymetric forces cannot operate bases or fight open battles anywhere; they all must blend in with civilians
Is the hangup on the word "notorious"? Because you appear to first claim the notion of colocation to be propaganda before explaining why it's also a logistical inevitability.
It’s a bit like “racism” : I honestly have no idea if the current academic definition is “prejudice + power” or just “prejudice” - but to a significant extent it doesn’t really matter since the common understanding is the one that matters when communicating.
I see you being deliberately antagonistic and strawmanning an opinion you disagree with.
A bit chicken and the egg, this. Persistent and well funded influence campaigns are precisely how people came to hold the views you describe. I personally wouldn't treat "leave" logic as some kind of particularly organic position. Rather its success demonstrates how one form of persuasion was more effective than another.