Satire is too dangerous to be presented outside of its community. This honestly should've been left within FOSDEM.
It's great within the context of people who understand it, enlightening even. Sparks conversations and debates. But outside of it ignorance wields it like a bludgeon and dangerous to everyone around them. Look at all the satirical media around fascism, if you knew to criticize you could laugh, but for fascists it's a call to arms.
Maybe I’m missing something but big corps do this, right? I legitimately expect folks like Musk and Zuckerberg to say these things. I get why that’s exactly the reason it’s satire but it’s a little too close to the truth for me to chuckle about it.
Try to take the stance of someone who doesn't really know too much about open source other than it's a nuisance to use, this is a great idea! I wanted to use this tool that corporate said we couldn't touch, but now I can!
If people lack sense of humor or satire, even if pathologically, well, too bad for them. Why should the rest be denied of that satire? It's not harming anyone at all.
Unfortunately it's not too bad for them, it's too bad for everyone they're around. They aren't the ones that lose out when we start dismantling open source communities.
I think this is a lot of "kicking can down the road" of not understanding what code the ai is writing. Once you give up understanding the code that is written there is no going back. You can add all the helper commit messages, architecture designs, plans, but then you introduce the problem of having to read all of those once you run into an issue. We've left readability on the wayside to the alter of "writeability".
The paradigm shift, which is a shift back, is to embrace the fact that you have to slow down, and understand all the code the ai is writing.
> political alignment I favour was as Big Tent as Donald Trump's administration is
I'm not sure how accurate this sentiment is. Your desire is to embrace your enemy without resolving the differences, and get what you want. It's not clear here if you're advocating compromise and negotiation, or just embracing for the sake of embracing while just doing what you wanted all along.
And evaluating Trump's actions against this sentiment doesn't seem to be the negotiation and compromise interpretation. Given the situation with tariffs and ICE enforcement, there is no indication of negotiation or compromise other than complete fealty/domination.
So as grandiose and noble your sentiment is, Donald Trump is hardly the epitome of it as you seem to suggest.
I think the differences in this situation were that I do not want AI used in domestic surveillance or autonomous weapons, and Anthropic holds to that position.
I think Donald Trump has pretty much let Zohran Mamdani operate without applying the kind of political pressure he has applied to other people, notably his predecessor Eric Adams. Also, I think saying "let people be your allies when they take your position" is less "grandiose and noble" than demanding someone agree on all counts before you will accept any political alignment. But it's fine if everyone else disagrees. It's possible there really just isn't a political group which will accept my views and while that's unfortunate because it means I can't get all that I want, I think it'll be okay.
One could reasonably argue that the meta-position is to either join the Republicans full-bore (somewhat unavailable to me) or to at least play the purity test game solely because that's the only way to have any influence on outcomes. If it comes to that, I'll do it.
You are making a mistake in thinking that Trump thinks of these things in political terms. Trump sees a charismatic and popular politician and he wants to associate with them on that basis alone, because Trump has a deep psychological need to be liked. Mamdani understands his psychology and is able to exploit it well by playing his own attributes to his advantage.
Politically, it's not like Trump tolerates dissent within the Republican party, he constantly threatens and berates anyone who shows defiance into submission. It's precisely because Mamdani is not in his tent and not really much of a threat to his power that he is willing to deal with him that way.
I don't understand, your position is the same as Anthropic, yet you disagree with their stance?
And I wouldn't take the case of Trump and Mamdani as the exemplar of Trump's overall behavior towards opponents. The amount of evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Anthropic's adherence to their stated principles was never tested and their willingness to work with DoD made it seem like they didn't stand by them strongly so I wasn't happy with that. This action shows that they are willing to lose big contracts in order to stand by their stated principles. I like that.
In any case, I think I've said all there is for me to say on the subject and everyone seems to disagree. I'll take the hint.
I'm not sure if it's a local issue or intended, but the dots change color when crossing different niches(?), like their color is filtered through the background pane. I would imagine the color of the dots represent specific species and shouldn't change color across environments.
Lineage colors themselves should be stable. What you’re probably seeing is the transparent colored zone backgrounds, which visually tint organisms as they move through different niches. That’s intentional, to give quick visual feedback about which environment they’re in.
Lineages can change color if they diverge enough to be treated as a new distinct lineage, but that’s a separate case.
I found a path from Piano to Volcano with 107 generated topics!
Piano → Piano City (places)
Piano City → Music festivals (broader)
Music festivals → Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival (deeper)
Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival → Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival
Indio (deeper)
Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival
Indio → Coachella Valley (places)
Coachella Valley → Heatwave (evil)
Heatwave → Climatology (broader)
Climatology → Climate science (similar)
Climate science → Meteorology (broader)
Meteorology → Atmospheric sciences (similar)
Atmospheric sciences → Meteorology (similar)
Meteorology → Geomorphology (opposite)
Geomorphology → Geomorphic processes (similar)
Geomorphic processes → Earth science (broader)
Earth science → Geology (deeper)
Geology → Tectonics (deeper)
Tectonics → Subduction Zone (similar)
Subduction Zone → Mantle convection (similar)
Mantle convection → Mantle plume (evil)
Mantle plume → Plate tectonics (broader)
Plate tectonics → Mantle Plume (deeper)
Mantle Plume → Hawaii hotspot (deeper)
Hawaii hotspot → Volcano hotspot (similar).
First build the thing that works, and only if it's really necessary, split it up in separate (networked) parts. You won't have to deal with unreliable network communication, or coordinate on a breaking API change with several teams when a simple search/replace on several function definitions and calls suffices.
I agree, though well designed software, even big monoliths, can be written in a way that isn't too hard to distribute later.
For example, if you utilize asynchronous queues everywhere, instead of something like a shared-memory mutex, it's relatively straightforward to turn that into some kind of networked queue system if you need to. Pretty much every language has a decent enough queue implementation available.
Asynchronous queues make your data out of sync (hence the name) and inconsistent one of the main downsides of microservices. Their use should be minimized to cases where they are really necessary. A functional transactional layer like postgres is the solution to make your state of truth accessed in a synchronized, atomic, consistent way.
Functions and handlers should not care where data comes from, just that they have data, and a queue is the abstraction of that very idea. Yes, you lose atomicity but atomicity is generally slow and more problematic has a high amount of coupling.
I don’t agree that being out of sync is the main downside of microservices; the main downside is that anything hitting the network is terrible. Latency is high, computers crash, you have to pay a cost of serialization and deserialization, libraries can be inconsistent, and zombie processes that screw up queues. Having stuff in-process being non-synchronized wouldn’t even hit my top five.
ETA:
I should be clear; obviously there are times where you want or need synchronization, and in those cases you should use some kind of synchronization mechanism, like a mutex (or mutex-backed store e.g. ConcurrentHashMap) for in-process stuff or a SQL DB for distributed stuff, but I fundamentally disagree with the idea that this should be the default, and if you design your application around the idea of data flow, then explicit synchronization is the exception.
I'll agree that the network layer adds more problems to microservices, but even with a perfect network, they are problematic. Everything being out of sync, (if they are stateful microservices which queues imply), is one big issue. Things being interconnected in broad global scopes instead of more locally scoped is the other big issue.
The more you have globally interconnected and out of sync states, the less predictable your system is.
The solution is to be as hierarchical, as tightly scoped, as functional and as transactional as you can.
To add to this. There's fundamental theoretical reasons why microservices or bad. They increase the entropy of code (https://benoitessiambre.com/entropy.html) by increasing globally scoped dependencies. They are the global variables or architecture. Having lots of interconnected global variables makes for an unpredictable chaotic system.
Funnily enough, microservices. In the macro economy you don't have to have such strict coordination with Microsoft, or OpenAI, or Google, or whomever you interface with. You just figure out how to make your solution work within the confines of the service they give you. Like it or not.
Microservices is exactly the same concept except in the micro economy of a single organization. Each team is like Microsoft, OpenAI, Google, etc. You don't coordinate with them, you deal with what they give you. Like it or not.
I expect the earlier statement confused microservices with a multi-process application.
Yes, in practice you very well might end up there, but then you are not providing microservices and would not call it as such. But it remains that microservices is the solution. Fair to say that it is the solution like not eating too many calories is the solution to losing weight — as in it is not exactly fun to have to put yourself through it, and thus most with the problem will never try to fix it/give up — but the solution all the same.
Or even, someone leaves and you end up with a mess of maintaining multiple services that aren't coherently seperate at all, but have no time to refactor them together to make sense. That's been my experience.
But why choose, just do all three at the same time! Actually you don't even have to choose, it will naturally happen when transitions are never fully completed... So before you know it you're stuck with a partially integrated legacy monolith which talks to a legion of half-baked microservices and emits events processed by arcane workflow engines orchestrating lambda execution.
I'm not sure if you've used their scroll feature, but if you swipe up from the bottom with a single finger you bring up a scroll bar over all pages with a small preview for the current selected page. It works pretty well for <50 pages
I think this exposes a pattern, but not necessarily on the subject or antithetical to OP's point. I interpret the above passage to implicate that we lose abilities as we adopt tools that can do it for us, but writing specifically stunts our ability to memorize facts. I would argue that this enabled us to spend less mental energy on memorization but on processing information instead, able to do more complex calculations. This doesn't negate OP's point that by using LLM's we give up another kind of ability to a tool, in the case reasoning.
Now whether or not this will in the abstract become leverage for another type of skill or multiplier is to be seen.
Surely that's not what the JAG is referring to since the article covered it
"While the Posse Comitatus Act refers only to the Army and Air Force, a different statute extends the same rule to the Navy and Marine Corps. The Coast Guard, though part of the federal armed forces, has express statutory authority to perform law enforcement and is not bound by the Posse Comitatus Act."
I did above in response to the passive aggressive Dunning Kruger reply to my simple comment suggesting an advocacy piece from 4 years ago might not be 100% useful for today’s news.
It's great within the context of people who understand it, enlightening even. Sparks conversations and debates. But outside of it ignorance wields it like a bludgeon and dangerous to everyone around them. Look at all the satirical media around fascism, if you knew to criticize you could laugh, but for fascists it's a call to arms.
reply