Would be a good plot for a movie: an AI that's built a company by itself through stolen identity, anonymous companies and trusts, and impersonating a human on video calls etc.
"Has anyone ever actually seen him in person?"
Starts acquiring other companies and some auditor protagonist eventually discovers it and that it's controlling a third of the economy or something.
Well, there is one guide which is manually curated but some data like opening times are outdated. I try to delegate the profiles to the actual owners of rooftop locations like on TripAdvisor or Google Business Profile so that the data remains better up-to-date.
Well I think this is a very wanted utility - tourists especially like rooftop (or high floor) places because they like the combined experience of enjoying good food/drink while overlooking the travel location they're in from a high vantage point. And they've got money they need to spend. So if people know when they use this that it'll quickly give them nearby good rooftop locations, i.e. above all else it's reliable, it'll get uptake.
For that reason I don't think the categorization approach is that helpful. The UI that'd be more likely to work is: visit the site, hit "find rooftop locations near me", it asks for Location permission, you get a list ranked by best rated / closest (and then provide location links for each out to popular map apps).
Filtration based on type of venue could happen after that stage if the visitor cares.
There'd still be the option for manual searching for if e.g. the tourist is planning this ahead.
It's very simple: if you're not spending your own money, so what?
All other discussion is just noise.
If you accept the idea that it's OK for the state to spend 50% of the economy, on things for you or your various self-congratulatory moral-high-horse programs, this is actually where the money will get pissed away to.
It's all carefully avoiding noticing that socialism is theft because maybe you might get a sniff of the loot.
That's because leftism needs an antagonism against the cultural self. I.e. it needs to somehow have an element of fighting against others in your own society.
That exists with say Palestine - it's allows picking a side that's against a western right-wing state, Israel.
It also exists with say Russia, here's a right wing white male traditionalist attacking a state that was aligning towards the leftist EU.
In the case of Iran, there's not really an angle there.
So if you understand leftism not as standing for its claimed virtues and instead being politically akin to a group of teenagers rebelling for the sake of it against their own authority figures, it makes perfect sense that deaths of the downtrodden in general are not of concern - the victimhood cause must resonate with a particular format that gives them a clear and familiar path to self-congratulation - which is the primary goal.
Strong retention definitely helps, but even with good HR practices, long-lived systems inevitably outlast individual contributors.
What I’ve seen break first isn’t code correctness, but the loss of decision context, why the system looks the way it does today. That context usually lives in old PRs, commit messages, and informal conversations rather than in the code itself.
Documentation helps, but static docs decay quickly. Social knowledge helps, but it’s fragile. The hard problem is preserving intent and architectural reasoning as the code evolves, without slowing teams down.
I’m curious whether people have found practical ways to do that at scale.
I know what you mean, the "HP Way" worked at scaling to the max but once Hewlett & Packard were no longer around it faded too.
Or crumbled or shattered, whichever way you want to look at it.
Maybe the "following generation" needs to actually work not only smarter but at least as hard as the founding generation.
And maybe that's less likely the more of the upside that's realized, things can get cushy and no-one may be able to focus on that kind of thing any more, especially after lots of time has obscured how much work it was to get big.
At least that's one thing I learned in the yachting community.
IOW you can rake in the bucks a lot of other ways, outperform your wildest expectations and be perfectly satisfied financially, but you're really quite poor by comparison to how rich you would be if you did it right from the beginning.
1) People demand the government be accountable for their failing to protect them
2) Government responds by increased giving the appearance of protecting them, since that creates more lowest-common-denominator sense of feeling safe than the government actually protecting them does; votes protected
3) Complaints of "security theatre" don't alter the above - they just have to wait until people have forgotten their fear while very slowly, bit by bit, without it being noticed, stop doing the nonsense
Relatively tame rhetoric for them then. Usually he'd have been a "criminal illegal gunman". Close to an admission from this admin that "our bad" we're gonna get methinks.
My theory is that anti-vax sentiment is ultimately caused by democratic thinking.
To a neutral mind, it's obvious that it's a case by case matter. Some vaccines are not worth taking, and some are stupid not to take.
That nuance is intolerable in a democratic society. Instead, everyone is expected to take a position, and then dig in on it - magnifying it into absurd absolutes - and then fight the other side to the bitter end.
The result of this is that people who were really just "I don't like needles" now turn it into a sophisticated and defiant movement against vaccination as a concept.
And on the other side, people who were just annoyed that others were not contributing to herd immunity end up wanting the other side vaccinated by force.
And this just makes the whole thing worse because why care about herd immunity if you basically hate your fellow citizens as "usually enemies".
People in democratic countries, the UK, Australia, Canada, the US at the very least, have been embracing vaccines in the majority since the days of peak polio.
Throughout that time the majority have been aware that vaccines are there for the major risks location by location .. some vaccines are only useful if you're travelling to an equatorial hotspot for example.
Vaccine hesitancy hasn't come about because of democratic thinking, it's grown
* because anti vaxxers have had the means to amplify their message via social media,
* because fear of COVID created a fertile ground for that message ... AND
* a small group of quack medicine grifters put a substantial amount of effort into creating almost all the ground zero anti vaccine memes, messages, misleading statistics, "just asking" thought lines etc.
"Has anyone ever actually seen him in person?"
Starts acquiring other companies and some auditor protagonist eventually discovers it and that it's controlling a third of the economy or something.
reply