Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | bratbag's commentslogin

It's not about blindly accepting autogenerated code. Its using them for tooling integration.

Its like terminal autocomplete on steroids. Everything around the code is blazing fast.


The majority of obese people want to be thin, but will die obese anyway.

Just wanting something that requires a significant overhaul of how you do things, is not enough.


better analogy: the majority of fouix-gras birds would prefer not to be force-fed and caged.

The people working in the bureaucracy do not have the authority to overhaul it.


The people working in the bureaucracy chose to be there. Bureaucracies self select for people that are okay with it. I'm sure there's a few who are there to change it from the inside but they are the exception.

You're not going to find a lot of vegans working in a meat packing plant.


But you are going to find vegans working in a slaughterhouse. Some people prioritise pragmatism over ideological purity. (See https://our-compass.org/2020/06/15/i-worked-undercover-insid... and parts of https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-50986683.)


> But you are going to find vegans working in a slaughterhouse.

Your first link is the first-person account of a vegan who went undercover to document the abject cruelty that exists in slaughterhouses. The pragmatism was in service of a mission to protect animals by disseminating information on such cruelty rather than the “I need a job.” type of pragmatism. There’s a moral distinction here.


The first link's narrator blew the whistle to industry regulators on practices unethical by non-vegan standards, something that is only possible if you're on the ground. The second link quotes an interview:

> Basically, I'm an animal lover. I don't take any pleasure in what we're doing, but if I can do it as quietly and professionally as possible, then I think we've achieved something.

I was not at all referring to 'the "I need a job" type of pragmatism' (which would not be moral pragmatism for a vegan); rather, doing a job that involves killing animals in such a way that your presence reduces the marginal harm could be seen as defensible to a vegan.


If this reduces error rates to below those of a human, then that's an acceptable approach.

Unless you think humans code reviewing humans is pointless because errors sometimes still slip through?


Pass.

Im glad not to be confined by historical rules invented by people who could not hope to predict the future, and would not choose to put that kind of burden on my descendents.


Amendments can be made with a super-majority's approval


The libertarian fantasy where its possible to exist without the choices of others impacting you, doesn't work in the real world.


True, but in the UK (and many other so-called democracies) it's not fellow citizens/voters who impact our lives the most.

Rather, it's vested and sectional interests who control power and or have the most effective means to bring the citizenry around to their way of thinking.

As Chomsky would put it, these few have the means to manufacture consent.


They voted against it because they thought it didn't go far enough.


Do you have any sources for that? I'm genuinely interested. I've heard it mentioned before as fact, but a quick search of Hansard[1][2] only turned up one very vocal Labour politician (Alex Davies-Jones).

[1] https://hansard.parliament.uk/ [2] It was a very quick search.


Those three things are just part of point 4 in the article.

An authoritarian leader will tell you those things are under threat and that only they can protect them, to create a feeling of threat that will persuade the gullible to give up their freedom.


I'm one of those people who is happier when spending some time in the office each week and have said that when surveyed.

Don't assume survey results that run counter to your anecdotal experience have been fabricated.


They did not say the results were fabricated, but that they were misinterpreted. If you like being in the office, then your are gonna be more in the office than those who don’t like. It’s not being in the office that causes you liking being in the office, and thus if we force those who are not going in the office to go they will like it.


This is overblown.

The police are responsible for deciding how to classify a report. Their decisions need to be audited to avoid corruption.

Ergo they have to maintain a record of reports they decided were not hate crimes.


How long should police hold on to reports that they don't do anything with? If I make a complaint to the police about you, should an unrelated interaction you have with the police 5 years later bring up that report? Do you have a right to be forgotten if you haven't been convicted of a crime? Do I have a right to be forgotten if I've filed a report (or reports) that the police determine is/are frivolous?

I can think of plenty scenarios where these records should be destroyed permanently after some amount of time - namely, if the police decide not to refer to a prosecutor, or if the prosecutor decides not to press charges, or if the defendant is found not guilty.


This is true but, non crime hate incidents can appear on enhanced DBS checks (criminal records): https://www.slaterheelis.co.uk/articles/crime-category/non-c... and https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-do... - but bizarrely not on security clearances at least according to the London link.

I would hope that this along with any other disclosure where the police decided on no action would be treated appropriately and only disclosed/acted upon if the incident was really worrying. On the other hand, I can't help but feel if the incident is worrying enough would it not also meet the bar for a criminal incident?

I'm not really comfortable with the naming and the lack of due process to be honest.

On the other hand, being careful what you say on social media is a requisite in many careers as companies can and do perform private background checks.


>Their decisions need to be audited to avoid corruption.

And as we all know: corruption ends abruptly at the highest levels.


Depends what else it's solving for.

I've seen multiple issues solved like this after engineering teams have been cut to the bone.

If the cost of maintaining enough engineers to keep systems stable for more than 24 hours, is more than the cost of doubling the container count, then this is what happens


This. All the domain knowledge has left. This sounds like a Hacky work around at best which AWS will welcome you with open arms come invoice day.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: