I don't think you can ever get away from accidental engineering in build systems because as soon as they find their niche something new comes along to disrupt it. Even with something homegrown out of shell scripts and directory trees the boss will eventually ask you to do something that doesn't fit well with your existing concepts.
A build system is meant to yield artifacts, run tools, parallelize things, calculate dependencies, download packages, and more. And these are all things that have some algorithmic similarity which is a kind of superficial similarity in that the failure modes and the exact systems involved are often dramatically different. I don't know that you can build something that is that all-encompassing without compromising somewhere.
What's new is this concept of the "maker movement" as a distinct counterculture. It's relatively easy to go buy parts and materials and make things. People 30 or 40 years ago who built stuff instead of buying it didn't really identify as anything because that was just what you did when you wanted something. Whereas nowadays you can buy pretty much anything on Amazon, even things that are fit for a very specific purpose.
For example, if you wanted a pretty dress with a specific fabric and cut, you would likely have had to sew it yourself or pay a tailor because your off-the-rack options would be limited, costly, or ill-fitting. But people just did that without fanfare and it wasn't a counterculture. Or if you wanted custom cabinets or resin-coated live-edge stair treads, etc. You'd just figure out how to make it if you wanted it. Or you could pay someone else to do it.
I think the severity of this is wildly overblown in an effort to make it fit the thesis.
Like… if the maker thing was less of an insane cult that died out than genuine excitement about things that actually did matter… well the whole thing falls apart.
We’re just not required to accept the (false, I think) premise this depends on, even if we’re inclined to agree with what it says about vibecoding.
Also included drinking from the fountain or sitting in seats or eating at a restaurant with people colored differently from you. I wonder what we're going to make "antisocial" in the next 50 years and whether or not we'll be punishing people for things we'll consider benign again in 75 years. The whole "let's surveil everything to stop all antisocial behaviors" might be going too far just like the idea that everyone should open carry to reduce crime.
Can you show your math on how an example of the opposite of what the person you are responding to you can also mean the same thing? Feel free to skip if you live in a non-Euclidian geometry, but the OP was saying such a thing would have been likely to get people killed in the past for violating a society's mores.
FWIW this is probably the most matter-of-fact series of statements from a commenter about Flock or about the democratic process that I've seen in years on this site.
Can't speak for OP but my spouse has set up a private GroupMe for posting events for a group, but otherwise everyone shares pictures using text messages. We don't post any pictures of our kid where strangers can easily get access to them and we've read the privacy policy of every service we've ever used.
I was considering self-hosting something for a while but she found it more sensible to do it this way.
Every once in a while she logs into Facebook to post something on Marketplace and immediately gets completely sidetracked by their algorithm and design. Then she gets frustrated and we just put the thing she wanted to sell on the corner instead.
It's not enough for them to be "better" than a human. When they fail they also have to fail in a way that is legible to a human. I've seen ML systems fail in scenarios that are obvious to a human and succeed in scenarios where a human would have found it impossible. The opposite needs to be the case for them to be generally accepted as equivalent, and especially the failure modes need to be confined to cases where a human would have also failed. In the situations I've seen, customers have been upset about the performance of the ML model because the solution to the problem was patently obvious to them. They've been probably more upset about that than about situations where the ML model fails and the end customer also fails.
They meet stiff resistance because they're always done at election time and only selectively.
Voter ID laws are a non-starter because historically they've been used, along with literacy tests and civics tests, to disenfranchise people who can't get an ID. For example, in Idaho you must have "proof of your identity and age" like a birth certificate or citizenship certificate, plus proof of residency like a utility bill or rental agreement or employment record.
These things are easy for most people to provide, but people who are in unstable living situations may find these things impossible to provide. Requiring those people to provide ID at the polls would effectively disenfranchise them.
No, what the judge is saying is that just arguing that you're allowed to do whatever "gun things" you want because of the 2nd amendment in a state district court is specious. You can argue the merits of the specific case based on the precedent in that and other courts that have jurisdiction but simply standing up and arguing baldly that the 2nd amendment lets you make guns and sell them without a serial number doesn't carry water. To make that argument you'd first have to take the F out of ATF and roll back a lot of case law that exists at the federal level that does give states the right to enact some controls.
It's a gross oversimplification of what the judge was trying to say to imply that they don't care about the 2nd amendment or the constitution.
This has nothing to do with the federal laws that are enforced by ATF ... what he did was totally legally federally.
And he didn't sell them, you pulled that out of your ass.
It doesn't appear you have any familiarity with the case yet you purport to understand what the judge was saying by completely mischaracterizing the case with outright falsehoods. But I suppose if you just tell straight up lies confidently enough, someone will believe you!
The problem with that thinking is that you have to have the will to act to stop tyranny, and no amount of armament will give you the will or the foresight to see it.
> The real fix is that we need to get rid of immunity for legislators. When they violate the civil rights of the constitutional rights of citizens through their actions, they must be held personally liable and must go to jail.
A build system is meant to yield artifacts, run tools, parallelize things, calculate dependencies, download packages, and more. And these are all things that have some algorithmic similarity which is a kind of superficial similarity in that the failure modes and the exact systems involved are often dramatically different. I don't know that you can build something that is that all-encompassing without compromising somewhere.
reply