throwaway74432

Yes, it is considered a cardinal sin to discredit authority through embarrassment. It may not be an official crime, but they will make it feel that way. This isn't unique to governments. Try discrediting any authority figure with embarassment (parent, teacher, manager, police) and watch what happens. The result somewhat irrational and ego driven, but it's relatively consistent.

Hear hear. I know a 3 person startup that has a "lead AI researcher" who is trying to train and fine-tune models. That's not their startup's purpose though... they have an actual product. So wtf are they doing? The lead AI guy thinks he's going to compete with these big companies and it's total fantasy.

LLMs are a commodity

It's not the medium (the phone) that's the problem, it's the apps. I don't have kids, so I don't know exactly kinds of parental controls are in place, but from what I've seen, there aren't nearly enough to give parents guarantees about what their kids consume.

It doesn't end at hiring. At one place I worked, the CEO got new hires in a room and "spontaneously" asked them to tell an embarrassing story about themselves one by one, to break the ice. People were very uncomfortable but did it. Nobody was having fun, it was pretty cringe. Then it was the CEO's turn (she went last), and she told the most flattering "embarrassing" you could imagine, which was basically just a huge flex about her life and opportunities.

Some company leaders just like to humiliate the people who work for them because they can.

Is showing pictures of civilian casualties who have died gruesome deaths (think: genocide), with intent to distress citizens into changing their political support, arrest worthy, or is it speech that should be protected?

Why do you want the option to have someone arrested for offending you?

>Hawkes admitted at an earlier hearing that he sent a photograph or film of genitals with intent to cause alarm, distress or humiliation.

Does this extend to sending any image with intent to cause alarm, distress, or humiliation? Or does it stop with images of genitals?

>I get paid for code that works, not for tests

A blog post could be written about just this statement and how it contributes to a low trust workplace where those who cut corners are favored by stakeholders and everyone else is left scrambling to clean up the messes left in their wake. If you're writing code for yourself, sure, be targeted and conservative with your tests. But when you're working with others, for goodness sake, put the safety nets in place for the next poor soul that has to work on your code.

In my opinion, using these tools daily and extensively, AI and AI copilots are an extreme force multiplier for in writing boilerplate code, debugging simple (but non-obvious) mistakes in existing code, and context immersion ("How do I X in framework Y"). It truly helps elevate the craft of SWE above writing code to complexity management and system evolution.

I also feel like this generation of senior/staff SWEs (the senior pre-AI engineer) is in a very unique position for the following reason: we know what the correct code should look like, because we've written it ourselves many times, and we know how to review and modify it quickly. I don't think new SWEs will have that same ability. At the same time, that ability may not be required in the future as AI gets better and better at following instructions correctly.

AI's future in coding is uncertain. I think there is a new unrealized engineering platform on the horizon that can only be realized through a very small and focused group of architects using AI (maybe even 1 person), and that this new platform, which is focused on complexity management and system evolution, will change how we "code" completely, at the same time resetting AI's copilot utility in this new world.

Apparently the law being violated was the Lacey Act:

The Lacey Act prohibits interstate trade in wildlife that has been taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of federal or state law. The Lacey Act also prohibits the interstate sale of wildlife that has been falsely labeled. The Act is one of the most powerful tools the United States has to combat wildlife trafficking and prevent ecological invasion by injurious wildlife.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/montana-man-pleads-guilty-fed...

There's only about 3000 billionaires in the world. Again, cost is a moot point.

>20 years is as much a deterrent as 50 years, but at a lower cost to the tax payer.

The number of wealthy people getting those kinds of sentences is basically 0, so the cost to the taxpayer is a moot point.

If people wanted to wear a phone screen taped over their eyes out in public, the technical limitations wouldn't barely make a dent in that desire. But the vast majority of people want to have real in-person human interactions when they're out in the world. That's what the makers of these devices fail to see. But they can't see that because they're self-described VR enthusiasts. If they talk to non VR enthusiasts (which is everyone else), they'll see that the limiting factor isn't the hardware.

Think of it this way. Most people think it's rude to talk to each other indoors with sunglasses on. That's the slimmest form factor you're going to get, and it still steps on the toes of human connection.

It's heartening to see people punished for operating in bad faith. Real scumbag behavior seems to thrive when what they do is "technically legal" but super corrosive to the social fabric. I know it's a fine line, which is why judges and other decision makers need to be wise.

I tend to agree. An example of how it can be net-zero gain is in this screenshot[1]. To have something maintainable, you have to do your own refactoring pass on the generated code. At that point, it's not much effort to write the test yourself than it is to refactor all of the redundancies.

1. https://github.com/microsoft/playwright/assets/13063165/7794...

I think they meant the code generator tool.

This is everywhere, with everything. I watch a house inspector youtube channel, and there's a ton of horrible hacks and stuff that doesn't work in house construction. If you're not the person to invent a new technology to make it better, then it's better to just not complain publicly about it, because you're just adding to the noise.

Depends. Do we have any examples of Google allowing obnoxious heckling when it is coming from another political belief? Consistency is key.

Different loss function

That becomes clear when management says that hitting all of your goals actually means you weren't ambitious enough.

I recommend that everyone come up with a predetermined secret question that has both a real answer and a duress answer. Decide this question/answers with your loved ones in advance. If you're ever in a situation like this, you can ask the question to determine if its real and if they are being coerced.