7,576 karma · joined January 28, 2012
See, that’s what the article is about.
Saying LLM is on the same level of steam power, the computer, the internet, airplanes, etc. when the technology hasn’t even been around enough to have real impact, and all I read is extrapolation about how everything will be based on it “in the future” — that’s the definition of hype.
What Milei is doing: he's giving up on Argentinian Peso and adopting the USD as de-facto currency.
This is a political move, giving up national sovereignty in exchange of getting Argentina closer to the USA and away from Latin America. It's no coincidence Trump and Elon Musk are praising the Argentinian president.
"In every country in which the capitalist mode of production reigns, it is the custom not to pay for labour-power before it has been exercised for the period fixed by the contract, as for example, the end of each week. In all cases, therefore, the use-value of the labour-power is advanced to the capitalist: the labourer allows the buyer to consume it before he receives payment of the price; he everywhere gives credit to the capitalist."
- Karl Marx. Capital Volume One, Chapter Six: The Buying and Selling of Labour-Power.
I grew up in a capitalist country. Being poor doesn’t give you access to things just the same.
It’s naive to believe only buyer behavior drives what products are available, when the market is fixed to limit offer. You’re probably confused between the meaning of capitalism and free market.
There’s no optimum, only trade-offs. But under capitalism, the problems all reduce to “make more X with less”. If GDP is increasing, we’re doing great - doesn’t matter if life sucks.
Everything is optimized until it all turns into shit.
Wow… we’re so deep into capitalism that worker cooperatives is a sci-fi concept now.
Rules #1, #2, #3: I don't feel these are rules as much as aesthetic opinions. The only thing that matters is for URLs to be unique, and no client should rely on parsing slashes on URLs to derive how data is structured.
Rules #4, #5: Very specific to how data is serialised, I wouldn't take it as a rule, although the future-proofing argument is good.
Rules #6, #7: I feel these are sensible rules in general, not even specific to REST.
Rule #8: 404 or 200 is context specific, but what I would say is that if you can represent the absence in the resource do it, otherwise use 404.
Eg: if the student 99 doesn't exist, GET /students/99 returns 404; but if you want to represent there are no students, GET /students/ can return 200 OK with a [] body – since that _is_ the representation of such information. Many APIs fail here, returning 404 on a resource like GET /students/ that is expected to always exist.
And, definitely don't use 401 GONE in a way that's not in RFC.
Rule #9: I believe it's a good idea to minimize the variation in resource representation in general, this benefits both the client and the server by allowing the reuse of cached data.
Rule #11: Agree. I would go further and even ignore mechanisms like 24 hours temporary idempotency keys - just straight allow clients to PUT a resource with whatever ID, following advice from Rule #6, and be done with it.
All in all, this shows "REST" really means different things to different people at this point, we probably need better definitions for the good practices at the different levels (data structures, HTTP compliance, serialisation).
Free market is like communism: when it doesn’t work we can complain it wasn’t the true thing.
Maybe you're not aware, but it was the socialists who coined the term "capitalism", and their definition has no relation with the one you gave.
The definition is simply: the system where private property of means of production allow the accumulation of capital.
You seem to be trying really hard to avoid the word "communism". Is it a banned word in HN?
Trying to penalize companies never works in practice, regulators CANT let large companies going bankrupt, cascading defaults of creditors, creating unemployment, etc. It never happens. Also, this penalizes the workers the most.
Once psychopaths have certainty of personal consequences they will want to stay away from executive positions.
> - Leave actionable comments
> suggestion: This is not worded correctly.
> Can we change this to match the wording of the marketing page?
> - Combine similar comments
> - Replace “you” with “we”
It seems these practices are created because people are using reviews as some form of conversation, and then everybody is stepping on egg shells. I believe if the entire team agrees to see it as just annotations (it's not a performance evaluation, leave your ego at the door, etc) these problems are avoided.
(I can see "why" you need these guidelines though, I guess it depends on what kind of work culture you have, company size, and so on.)
What people have to understand is that it doesn't matter how clearly you think you're labeling it, if it breaks the user expectation, it's not clear at all - and an experienced user reads even less, which is the case of a pilot.
Once the pilot develops an habit of, e.g., switching the vertical speed display from feet/s to degrees during final approach (and that may have been what happened), and one day he forgets to switch, or the mode button malfunctions, or double clicks by mistake... there you have a recipe for disaster.
[ ] Mode [10.0000 DEG]
[X] Mode [32.1234 FTS]
[10.0 DEG] [32.1234 FTS]
Sometimes you can use modes to hide unnecessary information, but for something that answers the question how fast am I falling you really don't want ambiguity or cognitive load.
No, that's bad. Your user can always miss the cues, in fact, you have to design considering they will miss.
In vim and other examples you gave, modes aren't a problem less because the distinction is clear and more because being in the wrong mode is not a cause of disaster - but they're still annoying.
The problem with the Airbus VS would exist regardless of indication of the mode it's in, even if it had a giant bright orange screen explaining the value shown is in feet not degrees, because the operator would develop blindness to it. A possible solution is having two VS displays, one for feet and another for degrees, such that the operator can disambiguate at a glance. Another is standardizing to one unit only (which is harder).