khaledh

The zionists attacked Palestine in 1948 and took their land and homes by force. All hell broke loose since then.

Note: A previous submission of this story by another user was deleted (not just flagged). Free speech is good, until you criticize the zionist actions.

If someone can trivially introduce bad state (or worse, data loss), then the API is clearly broken.

That's factually false.

US CSIS data says attacks by non-Islamists account for 85% of total attacks, while attacks by Islamists is just 15%.

In Europe, Europol TE-SAT data says it's 59% by non-Islamists vs. 41% by Islamists.

Also, I'm not justifying this attack. I'm pointing out the double-standards.

Ultimately, coding font preference is subjective. For me, it's been JetBrains Mono since it was released several years ago. There's something about it that makes it so clean and pleasant to read.

I wish software had recipes for architecture. Design patterns are not the answer IMO. The problem with such approaches is that they tend to focus on the patterns themselves. Great software architecture emerges from modelling the problem itself, rather than trying to shoehorn the problem into a predefined set of patterns.

Start with deeply understanding the problem and let it guide you to choosing the right abstractions, dependencies, and arrangement of the various pieces into a system. It's more of an art than science: learn how to use a brush and mix colors then follow your vision, rather than using a set of cookie cutters that tend to produce something that obscures the obvious, and usually simpler, solution to the problem.

Mirrors my own experience, especially with Rails codebases: it's hard to navigate and find where something is declared due to the "convention over configuration" model.

A very notable implementation in BLISS was the VAX/VMS operating system.

What if the human is just transcribing directly from AI generated text?

> Linux won

Linux started at the peak of Unix, but also when Unix was getting fragmented across vendors and mired in lawsuits. At the same time, PC hardware was getting better and faster, making the timing great for a PC-level Unix-like OS. Also remember that Linux didn't win in a short period of time. It would take over a decade (I'd say maybe two) for it be taken seriously.

I've come to the conclusion that technical superiority doesn't matter much. What matters is grit, perseverance over a long horizon, building an ecosystem (especially hardware drivers), accepting collaboration (be kind, not necessarily nice), and fostering a welcoming community.

This is reminiscent of Web Services Discovery (UDDI).

Free Palestine simply means a sovereign Palestinian state separate from Israel, which Israel has rejected many times over the years, most recently in the Knesset vote in February and July 2024, opposing the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River. Any time there was outside attempts to recognize Palestine as a state (e.g. through UN efforts) Israel responded with building more settlements in the West Bank.

Reviewing AI generated slop.

This reminds me off this famous quote by Tony Hoare:

    "There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies."

Pedantic note: "Windows on ARM64", not the other way around.

Those are not mutually exclusive. I can ask the AI to summarize the structure of the codebase before I dig deeper into the code.

AI is a step change, and like any step change, it overshoots before it settles down. We're in that overshoot phase now. So yes, it's a bubble, and will burst when the high expectations doesn't match reality and economics, but it's not going away.

What if I use AI to just understand the codebase?

What a wonderful idea: "This part of the world is unstable with unsustainable ethnic tension due to the arbitrary borders created by colonizers. Let's ethnically cleanse part of this area and give to jews and put arbitrary borders around it. That will definitely not have consequences."

Notice the four characteristics mentioned here (all of them must be satisfied):

- do not believe in Allāh or in the Last Day

- do not consider unlawful what Allāh and His Messenger have made unlawful

- do not adopt the religion of truth (doesn't necessarily mean Islam, since true Christianity and Judaism believe in one God)

- from those who were given the Scripture. That includes Muslims themselves by the way, since they were given a scripture. Elsewhere in the Quran when it refers to Christians and Jews it says "People of the scripture". In other areas it mentions "Those who were given the scripture", which includes Muslims.

What it essentially says: if you do not follow the law of the land, whether you are a Christian, Jew, or a Muslim, there are consequences. Every nation has laws, and if you break those laws you will be prosecuted. In this case it says those will have to pay a "fine".

If Israel cannot coexist with its neighbours then why plant it in this particular area of the world in the first place? Why not take part of Germany, the country which actually slaughtered millions of jews. Why do the Arabs have to pay the price of something they're not responsible for?

Imagine the opposite: an Arab group was planted to occupy part of Europe, occasionally gets into wars with its neighbours, and builds one of the largest weapons arsenals in the world, including nukes. How would Europeans feel about that?

Exactly. As Bassem Youssef once put it: "Palestine is like a fish bowl. It's a lot of fish, it's condensed. Israel is like the person over that bowl, crashing the bowl, killing the fish, taking any fish they want. ...[talks about how Israel takes Palestinan hostages all the time]... At a certain point, Israel is just hovering over that fish bowl. At some moment, a fish, crazy enough, suicidal enough, will jump from the bowl, through the air, bite the pinkie of Israel. And Israel would be like: Oh my god! That bitch bit my pinkie and my hand was not even in the bowl."

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/na2hwj4vB_A

> Then they get nukes and the means of delivering them.

Remind me, which country was the only one in the world that actually used nukes to kill hundreds of thousands of unarmed civilians?

> The Quran literally says the jizya is about fighting those who don’t believe in “god”, to subdue them

Please quote this part from the Quran. I'd like to learn more.

Terrorists specifically target civilian or government targets to make a statement or a demand. Those Iraqis were targeting American soldiers. The term doesn't apply here, no matter how badly the occupier wants to impose it on those defending their country.

If we follow your logic, then I'd argue that similarly, there's no countries in the world. In particular, there's no United States, it's land colonized by Europeans who came to that land and slaughtered its indigenous people and claimed it for themselves.

Those are just Iraqi's that were defending their nation from a foreign invasion.

This is categorically false. The Quran explicitly says "There is no compulsion in religion". It teaches Muslims to say "You have your religion, and I have my religion". It tells Muslims to fight only those who fight them and "do not exceed the limits". In fact, it says God does not forbid Muslims from dealing "kindly and fairly" with non-Muslims who have not fought or expelled them.

In the 1950s, computers were starting to go mainstream and everyone panicked that they'll lose their job due to "automation". Some jobs were lost for sure, but so many other jobs were created that computers "demanded".

The same thing happened in the late 50s / early 60s when high-level programming languages and compilers started to appear. Almost all software at that time was hand-written assembly. Compilers took a decade to reach the same quality (sometimes even better) of hand-written assembly. Programmers adapted and started thinking at a higher level of abstraction.

Another example is virtual memory. Up until the late 1960s most software used manual physical memory management techniques (mainly overlays) to decide which part of the program should reside in memory at certain points of time. Everyone was skeptical and thought that virtual memory would be less optimal than manually-designed overlays. There was a lot of research in that area during the time to prove that virtual memory can have the same or even better performance than hand-rolled approaches.

The point is: AI may well be disruptive to the way we develop software, but we're still in a transition phase where trust in AI output is very shaky. It's impressive, but it hasn't established itself yet as an abstraction we can trust and build on without thinking about what it's producing. It will take time, and humans will always have more work to do no matter how technology advances.