A truck will always be a worse car than a car, the question is do you need a car or a truck? If you need a car, get a Neo, if you need a truck, get a Framework. They’re not competing past that initial question.
> Times change, and I work more in R&D space than on legacy codebases, but I still ask it to write something in Python then convert it to the actual language on occasion. I don't know if I'm tricking the context window, forcing alternate pathways, or both, but it works.
My experience with LLMs is that they perform best in one of two modes - either one carefully scoped context or translating between two different contexts without modification - so this modality lines up with that fairly nicely: think in the programming language the LLM thinks "best" in and then translate that to the one you want.
That said, there's often enough structural and conceptual differences between languages that a direct "transliteration" between, say, Python and Go is going to result in some fairly crummy Go, so I'm curious what you see in terms of the fidelity of that translation - do you mostly get "Python written in Go," or does the LLM really do a proper conversion from one language to the other?
I have strict context in place on what I expect from the final language (C# or C++) and I'm frequently left with my jaw open. Used my preferred json library on C++, used LINQ appropriately in C#. Mapped AWS libraries appropriately and used existing credential stores. Certainly better than what I got when I asked for the native version first, which is why I do the hurdle. It feels hacky but it works. In a year it probably won't be necessary.
Haven't dug in on the technicals, but this is coming out of CERN, it looks like - and in that light, the links to "We're hiring" on that page almost feel like a flex...
I'm highly agreeable, and I've had to learn not to be. Knowing when to challenge people - "strategic non-agreeableness" - is extremely valuable. I've also made most of my career off being somewhat neurotic - I've described the core of my job as "finding things to panic about before they happen" (I went on Prozac a while back and caused an incident in the first couple weeks during uptake because my anxiety didn't trigger about something during a deploy). As far as extroversion - friends of mine who are genuine extroverts about went crazy during the pandemic, while I and a few other introvert friends got some of our best work ever done during that period. There's a spectrum - you can't be a misanthrope, but being able to take (and stand) quiet time to focus on a problem is absolutely an asset. With regards to conscientiousness, this often manifests in the workplace as an unwillingness to deviate from the plan when circumstances demand it and a preference for adding process as a kind of panacea for any kind of failure or delay, and at risk of offending the more conscientious among us, I have not found that a recipe for success.
It's really more of just polite suggestion these days, sadly. Except any time they vote against legalized abortion or minority issues. Then the rulings are rigidly enforced.
Legalized abortion needs to be a law, like the democrats promised for decades but never delivered. When the court invents rights then the court can just revoke it. Can't if it's a law.
This is not true. Many laws banning abortion remained on the books, and the current dystopian bounty hunting system that Texas has was designed to evade Roe v Wade.
This is because Roe decided that a woman has a constitutional right to privacy from her state government while she is pregnant, and that the state's natural interest in the pregnancy only allows them to ban abortion in the third trimester.
Casey was not as unanimous of a ruling, but the assenting opinions made it clearer that a woman's right to an abortion before the point of fetal viability was an extension of her own absolute right to her body.
I firmly believe that the right to an abortion is and has always been granted by the wording of the Constitution, but I also think that the issue is too important for Congress to leave it to jokers like Thomas and Alito.
Courts absolutely can nullify laws. That's one of the major purposes of the SCOTUS. And you think this SCOTUS would hesitate to just declare such a law unconstitutional?
Of course the courts can but in practice never do. The 2A community has been dealing with the courts reticence to deal with patently unconstitutional laws for the last 100 years.
SCOTUS literally just de-fanged the Voting Rights Act, specifically the part protecting minority representative districts.
That's why we recently saw every red state pass new congressional district maps which split up minority representative districts and combine the pieces with deep red rural districts.
We will see how that plays out. In this year's elections, Trump is going to be so unpopular that unless he sends goon squads to the polls, the gerrymander might collapse.
In the future, I would certainly like to see a move to smaller, less-stable districts to discourage this behavior.
Indeed; the whole appeal of a gerrymander is essentially to trade depth for breadth in your votes, and if the vote swings just a tiny bit too far the other way, it makes your district count incredibly brittle.
As for the future: yes, absolutely. Uncap the House; let's have districts with 50k-100k people, tops.
Yes and your suggestion otherwise betrays your ill informed idea of how this current court has ruled.
They were practically hand picked to oppose the case law of the two pro-abortion decisions. Their other opinions are broadly _judicially_ conservative which means exactly what you're asking, a hesitancy to nullify laws.
Their opposition to the abortion rulings is largely formed out of a hesitancy to act as pseudo-legilatures. They would not overturn a law that was passed by the government unless it was blatantly unconditional.
Whenever an issue is settled they can't use it to ask for donations. As long as the problem lasts forever they can make money from it. The goal of an organization is that which brings in the money.
Abortion has been a hot-button issue for half a century. It's not that easy to find issues which inspire so much slobbering from the conservative base - because this one is at the intersection of women's rights, babies, and overbearing government responses, conservatives lose their minds over it. It's also a doomed cause - the recent SC mifiprestone case cited that the number of abortions happening in southern states is now greater than it was before the ban.
They're not abandoning this issue, no matter how many GOP leaders force their mistresses into abortions. It's just too good at mobilizing the base.
Two notes on this - one is that smell and taste are the earliest senses we have. The first thing organisms began to sense about their external environments were chemical gradients, and that’s in essence what smell and taste are doing.
The second is that what they’re doing is _fantastically_ complex from a physical standpoint compared to sight and vision - sight is the detection of photons of various wavelengths and energy levels; hearing is the detection of vibrations. Smell and taste are molecular docking problems: they are the detection and identification of the actual structures (or at least substructures) of molecules. The closest we have to that is mass spectrometry, which basically involves flinging molecules hard enough to break them and weighing the parts.
Because until recently that was part of the sales pitch. The post-WW2 political order was that the US Govt was the security guarantor for the "western world," which meant countries allied with the US traded an almost unparalleled security guarantee for things like dollar hegemony and trade policies they probably wouldn't have acceded to otherwise. The Iraq war severely strained that bargain, and Trump's effectively broken it, but for the entire latter half of the 20th century, "this company is part of the American Military-Industrial Technosphere" was why you did business with them.
Many years ago there was an attack that went around that used the server’s BMC as an entry point. Thing is, BMCs are universally shit, so as part of the attack, the attackers also fixed a bunch of bugs so their connection could persist. I was working in hardware management at the time, and when we heard about that, we all gave that one a hard think…
> I think people should have the freedom to do what they want; if you want to have a truck that has horrible exhaust, fine, but we'll have it piped back into your cab for you to breathe instead of the people behind you, and if you want a car that sounds like a thousand go-carts racing down the street fine, but it'll be through headphones destroying your hearing every time you hit the gas.
Hey congrats, you discovered Society! This is what all those rules and shit are all about - your impact on other people, and their impact on you! It turns out that just saying “people should be able to do what they want” doesn’t actually solve anything, because other people also exist, and some of them are you!
reply