sgift

Sure, here's an easy example: The GDR had childcare for everyone. And the reason for that was based in the system, namely that communism says everyone is equal, men and women both work. Western Germany said childcare is the work of the woman, who cares about public childcare?

The communist system was far better, which is why we - after having dismantled it in the 90s for Eastern Germany - are now back to providing childcare for all children. Though it will take decades until it works again.

I don't think these are ethical either.

> It isn’t as though we were doing anything ethically or legally wrong.

Legally? Well, they probably have a "if we think you do something we don't like we can kick you off" clause. Ethically? Eh .. Crypto. Ethical. Opinions differ.

> Safari on the other hand has only ever seen ~20% marketshare, has never been truly abandoned, and at least covers core competencies well (recall that IE couldn’t even handle transparent PNGs without DirectX filter hackery). IE made even basic static pages a pain to develop compared to Firefox, whereas most of Safari’s significant shortcomings have to do with more advanced functionalities.

The definition of what is a core feature and what is advanced functionality changes with time. When IE6 came out it was the most advanced browser available, including support for what was considered advanced functionalities back then. But over the long time IE6 existed expectations changed and things which were once advanced or not even thought of were now core. The same is happening with Safari, with the difference that thanks to Apples blocking of different browser engines people cannot just switch to another browser and light a fire under Apples ass.

As someone who works with Java all the time I'm the first to admit that something like TypeToken in GSON or comparable things in other libraries is not the greatest of things. I've also more than once wished I could to if(xy instanceof List<Something>), which you cannot do in Java. Can you work around it? Sure. Do I understand why Java has it? Yes. But "minor" .. no, it's not so minor in my experience.

Pedantic, but interesting - didn't know that. Thanks!

To allow backward compatibility Java introduced Generics with type erasure, which in short means they only exist at compile-time, not at runtime (there are some hacks around that, which various devs have used with great success to still get the information). That is another reason to just start with Generics from the beginning if you design a new language, so you won't have compatibility problems when you introduce them. It's not like Generics were a controversial feature when Go came out.

C#, which is often cited as an example for "generics done right" chose another path, which allowed generics at runtime - they made a hard break and just threw backward compatibility out of the window iirc. The reason Javas designers didn't do that is not only introduced generics far later in its lifecycle, but Java also has always followed the hard rule that breaking backward compatibility is something which should only ever used as a last resort and never between two versions directly following each other.

I love Go. Especially how the devs stubbornly refuse to learn anything from Java, but stumble boneheaded into everything that Java solved over the years. Generics? We don't need that .. (time goes on) .. okay, damn it. Here! Generics! Enums? We don't need that, just do iota/integers!

How long will it be this time until the Go devs accept that Java Enums are a safer and better abstraction over integers for the cases where you'd want an Enum? And that they allow something like EnumSet, which are type-safe bitsets, without everyone having to do that by hand?

Yes, and the compiler does that. That's one of the reasons that iterators are preferred over for-loops with manual access in Rust. While compilers can for very simple cases determine that you will always stay within the bounds (as in your example, where it can find at compile time that the length will always be 8 and no access outside happens) with iterators the compiler doesn't need to know the actual length and can always elide bound checks.

If the author of a system writes in every blog post that they tested their system to remove/manipulate things and the skewing of the results fit extremely will with what they - in their own words - deemed as things to remove then .. yeah: It's probably a (wicked) human to blame.

I very much doubt that if you ask for a 1943 German soldier "most Americans" would agree seeing the examples provided in the article. And it's obvious that this is very different from filtering search results, but still providing correct (albeit incomplete) results if you search for "jew" and Google removed anti-semitic bile. The results are just plain wrong here.

> What could be more marxist?

What has marxism have to do with any of this?

The trade secrets in question seem to be yield and inventory numbers according to the article. Certainly interesting, but not sure how this helps Intel with their foundry business?

Why are the sanctions self-defeating? I don't remember anyone saying China could never do the same thing domestically. They are a powerhouse of industrial espionage after all. Doesn't mean the west has to make it easier for them.

Correct. Good friend of mine couldn't do service due to a physical disability and paid it. He wasn't unhappy with it. His reasoning is that defending the country is a good thing and if you cannot do it yourself - for whatever reason - it's okay if you instead help by paying.

Why should it be too late? You increase bone density by training. If the military finds people have not enough bone density they need to add more fitness exercises (e.g. strength training) to initial training.

so, tldr: Apple tries to bullshit the EU again. EU commission - get them.

They say themselves it would be possible to be compliant with the DMA without removing what is obviously competition they don't like. But they try to take the road which - just by chance, obviously, the security is the real reason - helps them to keep more people away from competition. I don't buy it.

Society already has a certain level of enforced moral behavior. Making murder or torture illegal is based in morality. Problems arise if we get to less universal. That some things are illegal in one society, but legal in another is also often a consequence of a certain morality in that society. How much morality is "universally accepted" in a society to make violating it something which should also be against the law is a contentious issue. Personally, I think it's good to err on the side of "let people decide for themselves" and only make it into laws in exceptional cases.

That's what I don't understand: Why would anyone want to try to get a patent for an AI. Let the machine crunch the numbers, test the most promising candidates as your "significant contribution" and patent the result.

Having read it at the time and now again I'd be surprised if Apple would do any better in his performance metrics. Big companies are, almost by definition, slow. The breakneck speed he wants to see will never happen in a company with thousands of people, thousands of opinions and many layers of management.

So, while that is a sad reminder that things could be far better in theory, I don't see how it supports that Meta couldn't produce a Vision Pro if they wanted to.

I think this is the article from *PNI Gizmodo is referencing: https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/article... - and here's the detail page for the AI Bot in question: https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/romanti...

All I could find was this:

> As part of our research, we looked to see how many trackers the app sends out when you use it. Trackers are little bits of code that gather information about your device, or your use of the app, or even your personal information and share that out with third-parties, often for advertising purposes. We discovered that Romantic AI sent out 24,354 ad trackers within one minute of use. That is a LOT of trackers (for reference, most apps we reviewed sent out a couple hundred trackers). Now, not all these trackers are necessarily bad. Some might be for legitimate reasons like subscription services. However, we did notice that at least one tracker seemed to be sending data to Russia, whose privacy laws aren't necessarily as strong as those elsewhere.

So, probably requests to third parties?

Not GP, but usually things are missing or not up to date. Also, people are really bad at defining what exactly is a "good" result. When we introduce scheduling at customers it can take twenty to thirty iterations until we have a good scoring function with all constraints. And then the data needs to be kept up to date or it gets slowly worse over time (requirements change, data rot). This often leads to people saying "the system is bad, I'll just do it by hand" instead of investing the time to find the underlying issue. Especially if it happens gradually. First you rework one schedule, then two and so on. Or if they are not able to enact a change of the system. In many companies the people who do the schedule don't know who to tell that the system is getting worse or get ignored. And they have a job to do after all ..

Stereotypical discussion with customers after a "bad" scheduling result: "Hey, why did your system not schedule Dave to do any of these jobs? All others are at 100% already, but he has nothing to do." "The job all need a Fubar cert, Dave doesn't have one." "Of course he has a Fubar cert." "Not according to the system." "Oh, we probably forgot it, because all schedulers know it anyway."

Justice for Pluto.

Only if 100% of everything is powered by renewables that could be a good argument (but see below), because there's always opportunity costs: The energy production capacity used for crypto cannot be used for anything else, which means something else uses non-renewables now. Maybe an exception could be made if every crypto miner built their own renewable power source which provided all of the energy instead of relying on existing ones, but then the next point still stands:

Renewable energy production has externalities, same as everything else. The power production equipment has to be built, which needs materials. It has to be transported, which needs energy. It needs to be maintained and so on. Just saying "well, we can always add a few more renewable power plants, who cares?" would only be valid if we could produce them out of thin air.

I have no knowledge how common queries with ORDER BY vs no ORDER BY are, but that sounds like a first implementation which only works if ORDER BY is present would be easier and still useful? Or do you think that's not common enough to justify the effort?

Well .. which one is better for your chances to get more money in the performance review?

Because NATO did not expand. Countries decided to join NATO. You may think this is the same with other words, but it isn't.

In the first version there's only two actors in the world, who can make decisions: Russia and NATO (or rather USA, for they argue NATO is basically the USA with another name). In the second version countries are free to decide who they associate with. There wasn't some empty space that NATO moved into. The countries who were there said "hey, NATO. Russia has been attacking and oppressing us for a long time and we fear they will do it again. We'd like to join."

To answer your second question: Exactly what Russias neighbors feared is the reason. Russia is unhappy they couldn't oppress their neighbors anymore since 1990 and they want to do it again. They cannot really do it to the countries that already joined NATO, so they did it to the country that was late to the party.

Uh yeah .. Michelle Baker, who is one of the founders of Mozilla, the writer of the MPL and who played a role (for a time as the volunteer general manager of the mozilla org, then later again as an employee) in everything from Mozillas rise to - unfortunately - now its decline by being part of the org had "insinuated" herself into Mozilla. You obviously lack the knowledge about Baker and Mozilla to have any business making statements on this topic.

(If you wanna tell me that Michelle Baker recognized before mozilla.org even existed that it will have a meteoric rise, that the person who would have been CEO instead of her took himself out of the race and that that would allow her to make millions as CEO of Mozilla, all I can say is: I doubt that she has a crystal ball that good.)

> Also, a journalist interviewed this person, wrote it as an article, and a bunch of people upvoted it here. So clearly there's a market.

Yeah, but that market needs empathy. Seems to be in rather short supply for some HN commenters these days.

That's not a hot take, that's just being an asshole for the sake of being one.

"I don't like the games of the last few years, so let's dunk on people who have been part of a mass layoff with some thoughtful 'hurti durti, if you had any sense you would have bailed a few years ago'."

Gee, thanks for your 20/20 hindsight advice, presented in this nice way. I'm sure people will appreciate it.