svtdragon

If it's domestic, there's at least some recourse available. Facebook was fined $5 billion for the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

When they own the platform they can use it to serve you catered disinformation.

They can have your data but unless they can also decide what you see as a result, it's not the same thing.

That's the difference.

As the primary author of my previous org's GHAs (not GH Enterprise, just the team tier) I found some feature gaps compared to org[n-2]'s Jenkins but they were fairly quickly filled.

I was initially skeptical but it wasn't more than a month or two before I was just glad to be off Jenkins. And now that I'm back to a big org with a big Jenkins footprint, I really miss GHA.

Having everything be contextual in the same place is a huge value add for me.

But mechanically that's just moving the confidence threshold to 100% which is not achievable as far as I can tell. It quickly reduces to "all objects are pedestrians" which halts traffic.

Franken should have been running for President. Smart, incisive, charismatic. Everything we needed.

Fuck.

According to some cursory research (read: Google), obstacle avoidance uses ML to identify objects, and uses those identities to predict their behavior. That stage leaves room for the same unpredictability, doesn't it? Say you only have 51% confidence that a "thing" is a pedestrian walking a bike, 49% that it's a bike on the move. The former has right of way and the latter doesn't. Or even 70/30. 90/10.

There's some level where you have to set the confidence threshold to choose a course of action and you'll be subject to some ML-derived unpredictability as confidence fluctuates around it... right?

In the US the ruling party fills lifetime judicial appointments, which means the 4 years of conservative rule can have decades of lasting impact that will thwart any progressive policies that the next leftish government tries to implement.

There is a gulf between people who are paid well for their valuable labor (even into the millions of dollars) and the capital class who primarily profit on the labor of others.

Rent seeking is a big driver of "eat the rich".

I'm a pretty progressive guy and I don't think there's much in here to disagree with. The only nit I would pick is that inertia isn't a great argument to keep things the way they are. That is, "we've always done it this way" isn't a great reason to do anything.

Your framing of conservatism is in line with the Eisenhower era when we weren't linked into this existential crisis about the concept of governance. But for the last twenty years (at least) the American right has been against the very idea that the government should govern.

The left is trying to argue about who it should serve, taking its existence as a precondition, and the right is trying to dismantle it without regard for who it serves. As a result, we're pretty much irrecoverably talking past each other.

Working down the backlog requires investing in our judicial system, which the cons treat as growing the government and so reflexively oppose. So they're at the heart of that problem, too.

This still makes me mad.

An old colleague used to say something like "pretty much all developers agree that it's harder to debug code than to write it. So if you write code that takes all of your brain power to write, by definition you'll be unable to debug it."