nomilk

A downward trend in the number of questions doesn't imply the site was in decline, since there's only so many questions you can ask about a given technology, so would-be question askers find the answer via search engine rather than having to create a new question on the site.

Tangental, but I tried plotting number of questions by month including deleted questions. It shows similar trends to questions by month (so nothing particularly interesting): https://imgur.com/a/NLLB3OK

Query: https://data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/edit/1969...

He said the same of the stylus during the iPhone launch, but it eventually came to life (just in a much more specific setting/use case)

The original question was why do people take issue with the US enforcing its immigration laws, but not with other countries enforcing theirs (when the laws are approximately the same).

Your point is that immigration laws don't sufficiently take into account an illegal migrant's economic status (i.e. make reasonable accommodations for those in poverty or desperate circumstances), which is a totally fair perspective.

But that doesn't affect OP's initial question/observation, since countries other than the US also apply their rules uniformly, which disproportionately affects the poor.

> the United States has spent a long time having a tacit policy of only partially enforcing its immigration laws

This seems relevant. In other policy areas (unrelated to immigration), there's the concept of gradual change, or a 'glide path'. For example, when raising prices on things like licences or levies, sometimes governments do it gradually over a number of years. Another example: when something is banned, the ban is not enforced immediately but intermediate steps are taken to ensure the public can adjust. By contrast, the transition from immigration rules being unenforced to enforced seems to have been sudden.

The primary problem others have with ICE is thuggish enforcement and lack of accountability, especially when reckless.

But your problem seems to be a combination of the wealthy having an easier time accessing the US (agree, but many countries have purchasable visas), and poor illegal immigrants having no other option (partially agree, but not all illegal immigrants are poor, and many who are do have alternative places they could go legally).

This seems like an obvious and workable solution. Could it be being blocked by something - perhaps unions representing local workers? (only guessing)

Snideness aside, your argument is that laws ought not apply to someone who is poor.

That's sometimes reasonable - e.g. the apocryphal loaf of bread being stolen to feed a starving family. But it's not a universal defence. And not all illegals are poor in the first place.

Got it. So distain is more for ICE's thuggish approach than the laws/consequences themselves.

To play devil's advocate for the heavy handedness and harsh detentions, Australia had a problem with 'boat people' in the 2000's, and subsequently built a massive detention centre on a island, meaning those intercepted never made mainland. The heat was oppressive, processing times were usually measured in years, and illegal arrivals were mostly sent back to where they came from.

But.. the illegal arrivals basically entirely stopped. So although it was harsh (including on a lot of legitimate refugees), it did force entry via legal channels (of which Australia has historically had many).

Helping refugees makes sense, but should existing laws be changed or broken? (there's a big difference). It feels like many smart people are advocating the latter, which appears at odds with their behaviour and attitudes in most other domains (i.e. law abiding). Also, what makes refugees specifically the US's responsibility? E.g. verifying, processing and integrating refugees puts strain on domestic systems, and strain scales with volume.

I change countries a lot and my default assumption for any new country is that overstaying your visa will be treated seriously, resulting in something like immediate detention (in a very lousy environment), probably a fine, and near-immediate deportation (at your expense), and probably some sort of quite serious ban (probably greater than merely months). And that's if the individual has a clean record; I'd expect it to significantly less benign otherwise.

Although this default expectation is pessimistic (and some countries might not be nearly that harsh), I don't think it's wildly inaccurate. What I don't understand is why it's common for intelligent people (seemingly only in the US) to consider violations of visa/immigration conditions acceptable and ICE bad guys for enforcing the law?

Brilliant! Now do it for companies' T&Cs please!

I glance at the HN headlines but rarely have time to dig into the details (and the few times I read 30 mins or more, a lot goes over my head).

Are there any good accounts to follow (platform agnostic) that give occasional updates on the intersection of AI and math that aren't too dumbed down, i.e. that a layperson can appreciate?

> for support, ask on StackOverflow!

Just a euphemism for "we have no customer support". In fairness, it's a more helpful suggestion than just a customer support stonewall.

Some companies had employees monitor their company's Stack Overflow tag. I think Stripe did that. I probably benefited from that at least a few times, which, in those moments of need, would have been quite helpful.

Seems obvious given how each works. Choose the right tool for the job, don't blame the tool.

Some of the demands are well-intentioned but poorly thought through.

Example: many believe the rich ought to be taxed more; but the problem is the Laffer curve: when they're taxed too much, they work less or leave France. So tax receipts go down (not up). End result: more "fairness" on paper but the people who actually depend on government funding have less of it (e.g. for education).

So the change harms the very people who are protesting for the change.

The way the French response overcomplicates things feels analogous to how founders also overcomplicate things:

> many of the conversations we have with founders begin with the founders saying a sentence that begins with "how do I.." and the partner answering with a sentence that begins with "just".

i.e. Often the most absurdly simple solution is the best one.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii1jcLg-eIQ&t=654s

Why not just allow genuinely peaceful protests and take stern police/legal action against all other forms of protest? I don't understand the logic behind cutting access to communications platforms. Seems like an indirect or roundabout way of solving the problem.

But layoffs only occur if firms can produce output at a lower cost by using AI rather than humans. Those humans go and work elsewhere and total output increases.

Try LLMing this (it efficiently interrogates both your assumptions in a single prompt):

> in standard economic thinking, is it possible for a job to be made redundant due to improvements in technology and that employee to be reassigned elsewhere, and for either long run supply to go down or long run prices to go up?

Note: there will always be edge cases, for example if I owned a business, I could theoretically replace someone with AI, and increase my prices, which would contradict the idea that greater efficiency always results in more supply and lower prices, but overall in the long-run that won't happen.

The framing of job "loses" is irrationally pessimistic.

When a job is no longer required, it means we (humanity) managed to do something clever to get it done with less labour - a great achievement!

This frees up those involved in that job to pursue other work, increases supply, and drives down prices - i.e. society overall experiences an increase in standards of living.

The only negatives are on the individual who's laid off through 1. frictional unemployment (the hardship someone goes through when switching jobs), and 2. potential salary reduction as they go from a lucrative job to being a newbie in their new career. But like any career, they can build that up again.

The best mindset is not to take any job/salary for granted in the first place, as it's not someone else's responsibility to employ us.

perhaps a simpler explanation; that kimi occasionally proxies through to ChatGPT. Possibly for A/B testing, or to gather data for training purposes.

AlphaZero (Google's chess bot) famously started with no 'book knowledge' (e.g. ideas on how to play chess), instead, it learned by playing against itself many, many times over.

Has anyone done something similar to that with Monopoly? (by contrast, the technique used in this video is much more basic; it comes up with some specific rules a player will use, then has those bots play eachother)

Many (youngsters!) may not know how to operate an iPod UI!

Press and hold anywhere on the donut-shaped area, then rotate clockwise or counter-clockwise to move down/up the items!

For us oldies, the nostalgia hits hard; I'm reminded of the tracks I listened to and even the roads I drove while listening.

Weird psychological quirk: otherwise banal articles seem much more pertinent when they happen to be nearby (I just read about a random plane crash from decades ago but felt very invested in it, due to proximity).

Wonder if this is related to the biological phenomena of humans tending to care more about humans who resemble themselves than those who don't (homophily)

The argument is that most companies have staff who have read access to databases. That is not controversial. I'd estimate 99.5% of companies at least, probably closer to (or above) 99.9%, but I'm not an expert.

Note that this is truthful yet unpopular, which is the opposite of approval-seeking (or trying to "sound cool").

You incorrectly state:

> (the) argument is predicated on condemning every company

yet the argument is that almost every company has at least some staff with read access to databases: "every tech company ... with extremely rare exceptions", "~every" ('~' translates to 'approximately'), and "most companies".

DHH (somewhat experimentally) used agents to convert one rails app into a rust backend with 6 native frontends. The primary reason was speed on the backend and better UX on the front ends.

But he also said this doesn't make sense for every situation/application.

I think his approach could make sense for an established application with thorough test suite. But it will be interesting to see how maintenance and development goes since there's probably around 7x as much code to maintain now.

But for a new application? Surely just a rails app to start with and gauge popularity (as opposed to making native apps from day one, unless there's really good reason to, e.g. push notifications being absolutely essential).

Totally fair to be annoyed/outraged by this. What I argue is that ~every company has that attitude (Zuck just said the quiet part out loud). Like, we're only kidding ourselves if we think most companies' employees can't peek at our data on whim, or that most companies don't share it with third parties, and probably also (possibly secretly) with government.

How many companies can you name whose staff certainly cannot access your data?

I thought I could name one (GitHub), but after checking, they can (e.g. if requested by law enforcement etc).

Therefore, the total I can name is 0.

To be fair, this is every tech company, ever, with extremely rare exceptions.

Agree. Basically the instructions are really no different to agents.md except that they're embedded throughout the source material rather than in one place. Similar to how we (human or bot) may write an extra comment or two in our code especially for any agents that might look at it in the future, to prevent a common agentic pitfall or misunderstanding.

Holmes isn't disliked for lying to investors, she's disliked for lying to patients, endangering lives.