I don't trust LLM enough to handle the maintenance of all the abstraction buried in react / similar library. I caught some of the LLMs taking nasty shortcuts (e.g. removing test constraints or validations in order to make the test green). Multiple times. Which completely breaks trust.
And if I have to closely supervise every single change, I don't believe my development process will be any better. If not worse.
Let alone new engineers who join the team and all of a sudden have to deal with a unique solution layer which doesn't exist anywhere else.
> Their opinion of our politics is generally separate from how they treat me personally, and I do the same for people of other nationalities.
That is such a sane thing to do. I was always astonished and sad how often strangers in foreign countries instantly link my origin to the actions of the people in power. As if this is completely under my control and with no doubt I support and approve whatever they do.
Considering millions of russians taking participation in war, doing atrocities, tens of millions of russians are supporting war economy and fact that there are thousands russians agents deployed to western countries it's safe to treat all russians that way.
It's not easy to figure out if person is a gru/fsb agent. To play safe it's better to restrict visa to all russians.
Also, russians who left russia usually continue to financially support war economy.
The default should be to treat people with respect and give benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, treating people as guilty because of where they were born is always a crappy thing to do.
> That is such a sane thing to do. I was always astonished and sad how often strangers in foreign countries instantly link my origin to the actions of the people in power. As if this is completely under my control and with no doubt I support and approve whatever they do.
I've never witnessed this happen. People (in person) are usually not aggressive and would not tell what's on their mind. Maybe if a Ukrainian and a Russian are to meet in a bar, things can get heated.
Mind to share the countries where you saw this happen?
Fortunately nobody was aggressive to me. It was vice versa to a point which made me deeply uncomfortable. Once people learned that I am originally from Russia (even though I am not Russian and I don't live there for many years), people in e.g. Algeria or Tunis or some SE Asia countries were shouting Russian politician names with approval. Some of them tried to lecture me on politics there, assuming I fully approve government actions. Eventually I simply stopped mentioning my origin whenever it was possible, cause I really have no desire to go into same discussion over and over again. And people won't listen anyway.
Not sure how much sarcasm did you put in this comment, but banning from entering other countries and disconnecting from visa / mc only hurts. Here's why.
I am originally from Russia and I do not support the war my country has started. I moved to another country because of that. And I face all the fun consequences from two nice restrictions above. Some of my former neighbors or acquaintances who decided to stay in the country or even support the invasion face no issues. They don't visit other countries and don't need international cards.
Which means both these things primary target people who most likely do not support the shit which is happening. Is that the goal?
that's exactly what I am on about, and facing those restrictions as well
as such, sarcasm here is beyond measurement - obviously those measures were just a distraction for own voters, but presented as a matter of principle yada yada yada
an absolutely identical situation gets a 100% hush hush reverse treatment, hence my comment on being a matter of principle - even though I don't agree with such measures, seeing them implemented against Israelis would at least be an honest thing to do instead of the current hypocrisy
In no way this is a good example of such a system, but I still find Bosnia and Herzegovina political system absolutely hilarious. After Dayton peace agreement the literally put ethnicity requirement for presidents to Constitution as a hard rule. One Bosnian, one Serb and one Croatian. And yes, the country is ran by 3 presidents at the same time. So there is no longer a competition whether the main guy in the country will be theirs or ours.
There were two guys: a Roma and a Jew in BiH who also wanted to take the president office. However according to Constitution they didn't have a chance. So they went to EU Human Rights Court to look for a justice. The court told the country it's kinda racist to have a rule like that and they should change it. This was like 15 years ago. Guess whether the rule has changed since then. (Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina for more details).
PS. If you find 3 presidents not fascinating enough, then google for High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Northern Ireland has a similar system, with an executive built on a forced coalition.
The executive is led by a First Minister and Deputy First Minister (despite the difference in title, they have exactly equal powers), who are selected from the largest party representing each of the two main communities.
Major decisions require cross-community support - at least 50% of all those voting AND 50% of the representatives of each of the two communities, OR 60% of all those voting AND 40% of the representatives of each of the two communities.
On paper, it seems slightly absurd... but in practice, it's a reasonable way to deal with deeply divided societies.
I like this term "forced coalition". How about a traditional parliamentary system where a supermajority is required to pass legislation?
I assume if you need 70% to pass legislation then you get a grand coalition pretty much every time?
I guess it could incentivize brinkmanship among coalition partners though, since the leader of the coalition has less leverage if a small party threatens to quit?
When I put my programmer hat on, there's something inelegant about this approach, because it involves hardcoding the words "Bosnian", "Serb", and "Croatian" into the constitution.
It seems like with a sufficiently clever electoral rule, you could generate a small "national steering committee" with an odd number of members, where each major faction is guaranteed representation. But that also sounds a lot like a parliament where there's one party for each ethnic group, and then we're back where we started?
What happens when the 3 presidents disagree? Maybe the trick is to incentivize consensus-driven decisionmaking?
>What happens when the 3 presidents disagree? Maybe the trick is to incentivize consensus-driven decisionmaking?
That's where High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina comes into play. This is external guy appointed by the EU (US also was participating in the appointment in the beginning, but they withdrew themselves from the process quite a few years ago). This guy has the power to fire any (like ANY) politician in the country. And the permission to overrule or enforce any law.
This guy is probably controlled by EU and can't turn into dictatorship mode, but you never know. At the very least two times presidents were fired due to political disagreement.
EU considered to discontinue this practice, but local people encouraged EU to leave things as is. Cause nobody trusts politicians and the systems is still pretty corrupt.
Anyway, whatever decision presidents have to make, all 3 must agree. That's why a lot of controversial topics are hanging for eternity (e.g. recognition of Kosovo).
When country was trying to choose a national flags, all the parts couldn't find the agreement for a long time. That's why High Representative just approved his own version nobody really liked. So today if you visit the country, you will find Serbian flag in the parts where Serbs live and Croatian flags in the part with Croats. Actual country flag normally is in the parts where majority is Bosnian.
having three is interesting because it gives a way to break ties. how do they handle candidates with mixed ethnicity, though? or the Serbians and Croatians converging, while the Bosnians move farther apart from both?
This reminds me how back in my school days I was not allowed to use the internet to prepare research on some random topics (e g. history essay). It was the late 90s when the internet started to spread. Anyway teachers forced us to use offline libraries only.
Later in the university I was studying engineering. And we were forced to prepare all the technical drawings manually in the first year of study. Like literally with pencil and ruler. Even though computer graphics were widely used and we're de facto standard.
Personally I don't believe hardcore ban will help with any sort of thing. It won't stop the progress either. It's much better to help people learn how to use things instead of forcing them to deal with "old school" stuff only.
I was expecting some response like this, because schools have “banned” things in the past.
While this is superficially similar, I believe we are talking about substantially different things.
Learning (the goal) is a process. In the case of an assignment, the resulting answer / work product, while it is what is requested, is critically not the goal. However, it is what is evaluated, so many confuse it with the goal (“I want to get a good grade”)
Anything which bypasses the process makes the goal (learning) less likely to be achieved.
So, I think it is fine to use a calculator to accelerate your use of operations you have already learned and understand.
However, I don’t think you should give 3rd graders calculators that just give them the answer to a multiplication or division when they are learning how those things work in the first place.
Similarly, I think it’s fine to do research using the internet to read sources you use to create your own work.
Meanwhile, I don’t think it’s fine to do research using the internet to find a site where you can buy a paper you can submit as your own work.
Right now, LLMs can be used to bypass a great deal of process, which is why I support them not being used.
It’s possible, maybe even likely that we’ll end up with a “supervised learning by AI” approach where the assignment is replaced by “proof of process”, a record of how the student explored the topic interactively. I could see that working if done right.
This has to be about people who pushes the button. Not about the people who invents the technology. Otherwise you might want to stop all the kitchen knifes production, cause people occasionally use those to kill each other.
No there is a very clear difference of responsibility between creating an instrument that can be turned towards harm and one that is designed to cause it. Someone designed, engineered, and built these tools knowing this is what they were to be used for.
If you're an engineer or a scientist, you really should have a more developed understanding of causality than just "proximate cause is the only cause" mindset that we all learn before we reach 5 years old.
- They would never hurt a fly. Croatian journalist Slavenka Drakulic covered the Hague trial for military crimes in Bosnia war. The book made me rethink how I view the war in general and what motivates people to do absolute evil things.
- A primate memoir by Sapolsky. I can't stress enough how interesting, witty and overwhelming this book is. One of the rare reads I couldn't stop reading until the very end.
- Neapolitan novels by Elena Ferrante. Even though sometimes it might be felt like a boulevard novel, it gave me absolutely fantastic insight and the atmosphere of Italian Naples in the 1960-1970s.
> he was under orders to shoot the plane down and now they’re trying to cover it up
I highly doubt that's the case. Even though Russia went full evil mode a while ago, it's not that reckless (yet). I don't foresee any sane explanation for this kind of order. I believe a mistake and/or miscommunication is more likely to be the root cause. Sadly it'd be quite naive to expect a thorough publicly available investigation summary from Russian side. You are right here.
> I don't foresee any sane explanation for this kind of order.
The "malice/incompetence" heuristic is really a statement about prior probability more than anything. Even though it may seem as "cautious," or avoiding uncertainty, not updating your priors is doing exactly the opposite! You _should_ assume malice as long as russia is concerned, and it's otherwise up to them to prove incompetence. However, like you would probably guess, it's in their best interest to introduce as much uncertainty as possible. On a different note, there's interesting discourse in iterated prisoner's dilemma regarding _noise_, or communication error. It recognises that any "real" systems is imperfect, and therefore will introduce error. I wonder if they ever recognised that there's advantage to deliberately introducing noise, and falsely attributing it to the system itself!
The war affects everyone. Some people die, some suffer because they are under shelling or occupation, some suffer cause their loved one die. But those outside war zone suffer as well. Due to broken food chains, crazy economic inflation and general political instability. For sure it's as bad as when you're dead because of the random shell hitting your home, but still.
When a man with a nuclear button savagely kills his opponent just because he can, this creates instability inside the country. And increases chances, that once he dies (which eventually will happen), some radical guy might overtake the power and who knows what happens next.
I understand that a lot of events in the world might have potential global effect, but only few of them might hit as bad.
I don't understand why people are so scared specifically about Putin's nukes. He's not the only murderous dictator with a big red button, but he's the only one I hear people worrying about. Xi + the CCP is just as much, if not more, of a threat.
And due to the way things are going, they're testing the waters in cooperation and friendship.
For all of China's faults, the country seems less reliant on hard power for survival. Russia is a country with three tricks only: fossil fuels, nuclear weapons and destabilizing democracies.
China is a manufacturing and technology powerhouse.
Unlike Xi, Putin and his propaganda machine has literally threatened to use the nuclear power if they have to. Multiple times.
Yes, it is considered as a bluff. And most likely it is. However so was all the military "exercises" before the invasion to Ukraine in 2022. Only a few really believed it, unfortunately it actually happened.
I already posted this in another thread here. This particular change is not because isolationism. Most likely.
Russian government added Hetzner to the list of companies who must move their infrastructure within Russian borders in order to operate with Russian citizens. Few years ago they introduced a law on how companies have to process personal data. (It is kinda similar to GDPR, but the government might abuse it in the way to get access to data government needs). Obviously Hetzner doesn't want to create infrastructure on Russian soil. It was quite risky even before the war.
You can find the full list of "lucky" companies in here -- https://236-fz.rkn.gov.ru/agents/list (sorry, it's in Russian, but google translate should help you out).
And if I have to closely supervise every single change, I don't believe my development process will be any better. If not worse.
Let alone new engineers who join the team and all of a sudden have to deal with a unique solution layer which doesn't exist anywhere else.