The thought terminating issue with the phrase is that it isn't just a tool. Once you automate its use (automated PR reviews, ticket fixups, etc.), it becomes a process as well. You are almost certainly purchasing it as a service and not as a tool. It also contains elements of randomness that most tools do not. These quibbling points are what triggers the cognitive dissonance to produce the thought terminating effect. It is quibbling so you cannot really argue that point but the point is irrelevant; the second part of the cliche seems to be agreeing with the complaint about slop and yet the sentence is offered as some counterpoint. This termination prevents the actual conversation about how valuable its use is when the quality standard is not lowered.

If it was just a query builder we could have a conversation about the benefits of that vs sql and when one beats another. But it is all kinds of other features that are implicitly activated and then conspire to ruin your day when you were trying to solve some other problem. ORMs bring too much baggage by default. So now you have to talk about its relative merits compared to just writing SQL and the merits of always having these other features activated. Which other features? You need to read your full ORM manual because they really vary from one to another.

If you don't actually need those features then obviously an ORM will offer less value to you. That doesn't mean ORMs aren't useful tools, they just aren't useful for the problems you work on.

I tend to work on projects where those features are useful and if the ORM didn't provide them out of the box then I would need to build them myself. In other words using a query builder alone does not adequately solve the problems I need to solve.

> The private interest is genuine, [...] rational for the individual Nigerian saver

You expand upon that rationale. It is individually rational precisely because of corruption, incompetence, external sanctions and many other situations across the world.

This choice is corrosive for Nigeria regardless of whether the Nigerian government is benevolent or malevolent because American monetary policy is ignorant of what would be beneficial for Nigeria and the more people that make that choice the more the future of their society is tied to American monetary policy. It is an incompetent policy by construction. Now you have two problems: corruption, and an inability to effect monetary policy.

You might think, well if and when we solve the corruption problem we can transfer the stable coin back to effect a monetary policy... triggering the run that will drop the peg because the private entities backing the coin aren't regulated like a bank. Although comically, maybe the American taxpayer will then bail out the entity and the Nigerians will get their money!

This point is not made very clearly and is buried by overemphasising JWTs instead of just quickly pointing them out as an example of a stateless session. But yeah, it is a good point.

And what if the user is logged in from multiple devices, but only wants to log out from ONE of them? Your solution logs them out from all of them.

The entire point is that it is not possible to have authentication that is both: 1. stateless. 2. secure.

And so if authN is going to be stateful anyways, you might as well just use an opaque token in a database and eliminate all the complexities and foot-guns of JWTs.

Doesn't address logging out a single session, though

If one parent forbids their child then their child becomes a pariah. If no child is able to access social media then they will all interact without it. So yeah, a parent needs their peer's children to also not use social media so that their child is not left out.

In general I'm against age based bans. I think there are alternatives where we would identify and just generally regulate the harmful features of social media. In the meanwhile, I feel empathetic towards the difficulties of parenting in this era.

It's not difficult.

Her and her friends don't need social media.

A kid that cant use a phone will sit home alone while others meet up. And I am actually glad my 13 years old has friend group she does in person things with.

2.) And yes, organization among 12 years old means that someone writes "lets do X" and other write back "cool". Those available show up. Those not available sometimes talk back and negotiate different time.

3.) If 5 12-16 years old kids organize in a group chat, not being on that chat means missing out spontaneously organized actions. Even if they are unusually serious and recall to call your parents instead of just jumping into action, you are not there to have input into agreements. So, the meetup will be when you are not available and it will be too late for you.

4.) And yes, even among adults, if others have to jump through special hoops to join you specifically whereas everyone else does not have such requirement ... you will miss out.

Yes, 12-14 years old act on impulse and organized spontaneously without creating org chart around it. That means forgetting to do extra steps so that people not being in chat even know what you are about to do.

Good point. The age ban is based on the idea that it is worse for kids (and other exploits) when the big idea is that it is bad for everyone, just moreso for kids. Might as well protect the whole populace when one change of the app design will do that.

I am sympathetic to the idea that social media may also have social development impacts separate from their negative social impacts, but my experience in life is that actually people appear to socially degenerate with overexposure. Thus we probably need some regulation analogous to forbidding smoking in restaurants but for social media or limiting gambler's access. But indeed, maybe on top of that we also need bans for minors.

> But the article doesn't consider whether restricting children's wanderings is the REASON it is so much safer for children now.

The article considers exactly that.

> Similarly, in an international study that looked at 7 to 15 year old children across 16 different countries they found that most english-speaking countries were in the lowest autonomy tier (12th- Ireland, 13th- Australia, 16th- South Africa). Americans weren’t surveyed, but countries like Finland, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Japan, and Denmark scored the highest on autonomy.

These countries are considered because they would generally be considered roughly as safe as one another (generally safer than America). These countries are the counterexample to your hypothesis: you can simultaneously have safe and independent children.

The better example actually comes from the article: returning a struct and an iterator over that struct isn't possible in rust. Heck, initializing a struct to return an iterator might lead to issues. Most people will encounter this before needing a linked list and the lesson it teaches will help out with the linked list.

An ordinary race condition would be e.g. you put the cat out of the front door, then you walk to the kitchen and close that door - well, the cat might race around the outside of the house and get in first. Our world has race conditions, Rust doesn't solve them, take appropriate care.

A data race is much stranger, it's caused by a difference between how humans think about programming ("Sequential consistency" ie time's arrow X causes Y, therefore Y happens after X) and how the machine works (a modern multi-core computer does not exhibit this consistency) maybe you and your house mate both pick up the cat and she tries to put it out the kitchen door, you try to put it out the front door, this seems to work fine mostly but then on Tuesday the cat explodes, everything is covered in cat fur, messy. Rust actually has a whole layer of extra stuff beyond the aliasing-XOR-mutability to prevent this mistake because humans struggle to reason properly about software which loses sequential consistency so it almost doesn't matter what it "means" if this is lost.

Of course I mean data race, most people in such a thread will implicitly understand that is the race meant. Nobody building a webshop with limited supplies wants to prevent "first come first served", it barely makes sense to think about preventing that kind of race

Data races have obvious real world analogues, they are just so obvious people naturally synchronize. You can look over someone's shoulder while they update a paper master copy and observe data tearing as they erase a field and start writing in another value while that is inconsistent with the rest of the form. It is easy to see that data is being modified and wait until the writer is complete instead of memorizing a partial update and walking away to make decisions on the basis of the incomplete information. A good mutex/rwlock is like having a private separate room to go into to make the update so that no overeager person can even observe the partial update (some languages have non callback style mutexes so there the mutex/lock is the analogue of the visual cue that someone is performing the update). I don't find this at all strange to consider. In a concurrent system it is just all too easy to forget that there are other threads (analogue of people) reading/modifying at the same time. So rust makes that manifest through the borrow checker and it becomes obvious.

Rust prevents more than just data races. Even in single threaded code, if you have a reference to a struct (without explicitly choosing interior mutability), you are guaranteed that its value has not changed since the last time you read it, despite other parts of the code having a reference to it. You don't need to make defensive copies. Some people may find this useful, but generally it won't be enough to convince someone to drop their current language in favor of rust. This transfers into multi-threaded code as well: only a single thread can make modifications to a struct through a reference xor as many threads as you want can read from the struct with references. You can easily write go/java/python programs that have these features and so don't feature data races, but they are difficult to reason about: how do you know that there is only a single reference featuring mutation or many threads only reading? The answer requires non-local knowledge which is difficult to reason about and this is enough for some people to consider rust where the answer is local (defined by the variable).

No they don't, as you handily illustrated by offering no actual data race analogies but instead managing to confuse loss of atomicity with a data race. It's OK though, so long as you write only safe Rust you can't blow your own foot off even though you didn't understand how the explosives work.

And actually people write other race conditions all the time, particularly ToCToU races are very common, and as I explained Rust doesn't prevent those - although a Rust library you're using might go out of its way to be friendly by directing you away from them as Rust's own file system stdlib functions do.

One can probably can have a better communication with, say a dog, than a sever autist or someone in the state of deep coma.

We don’t apply our ethics based on the communication (or same-language ability) but instead on an arbitrary selection. That selection evolved recently to includes a wider set of humans (anti-racism and feminism). Antispecism is an interesting view as it state a the specie itself (humans /dogs/caw/cat/chicken…) isn’t a valid denominator to define what is ethic what isn’t.

Given a stranger, all I can do is, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and make assumptions about how they want to be treated. This will be generally more successful given my broader exposure to the world or if they are from the same culture as me but individual differences can be stark. After some interactions where they can make their preferences known to me I can then follow the better precept of, "Treat others how they want to be treated," assuming the actions required of me are not especially burdensome and I can find compromises with them otherwise.

I have an easier time imagining a severe autist in a consensual BDSM relationship than that I could believe that someone knows that their dog actually likes being slapped. I have an easier time believing this because an autist in abstract may have some communication problems but it is not impossible for them to make their preferences known. These are both so hypothetical though, real situations would require much context of which communication forms a basis (I am not saying we don't understand dogs at all, just that the gap is large).

There is no real anti-specism. What there is the proposition that a central nervous system is a prerequisite for consciousness and from that stems moral value (few people argue that we shouldn't enslave and consume members of the Brassica species). But even then, few of the staunchest vegans are against pesticides or anti-parasitic medication, how many animals (insects) must die to bring one carrot to my table? I don't know the answer but it will always be more than 0. Meanwhile, it is instead possible to believe that the guinea worm has as much inherent moral value as a human but that it is ethical for humans to try to eradicate the guinea worm completely.

   1. antispeciesism = rejecting discrimination based solely on species membership.
   2. all living beings having exactly the same moral value.

And the “insects die for carrots” point is not really a problem specific to veganism, since animal agriculture typically requires even more crops, land use, and indirect animal deaths. Also there's vegans that are speciesists and anti-speciesists that aren't vegan. Those concepts intersects but are not strictly equal.

I'm not sure to understand your other points but strongly agree communication helps to grow ethics and gain empathy. However it's not absolutely required as seen with the exemples of comas, mute, newborn, or as you mentioned someone of a different culture or language. I hardly understand how is it "impossible for [the dogs] to make their preferences known" especially in the situation of being slapped. Perhaps I missed you point because that contradict all my interaction with dogs and gods's owners.

"Insects die for carrots," is a problem for vegans who base their preference on the idea that killing any animal is wrong for sustenance. A person willing to kill a cow because they like the way the flesh tastes or finds it more nourishing simply isn't going to see a problem with an insect dying for a carrot. One person is holding themself to a higher standard and therefore is vulnerable to this critique. Animals need to die so that we may live, people quibble about where the line should be drawn but the line exists for almost everyone (excluding the Jain vegetarians, but practically speaking it exists for everyone).

I am not so much conflating those two as arguing that a) anti-specism much like freedom of speech has all kinds of caveats built in and isn't absolute even in the few people that would preach it, b) anti-specism doesn't form a basis for ethics because there are more absolute truths that override it but also render it unnecessary.

You still choose a frame (eg: "killing any animal is wrong"), then show that frame is irrational and deduct that the while group is wrong. Classical strawmaning, although I'm sure that's not your intent. "Animals needing to die" as a practical truth is not a problem for vegans, you're arguing alone here. However many people thinks suffering is not desirable and act accordingly to minimise it. You're free to critic though.

I understand better your second explication: there's not more absolute anti-specism than absolute freedom of speech. I find more interesting the "All models are wrong, but some are useful" perspective as it helps interacting with the world, but in a theorical land you're probably right.

If you haven't read it and want to learn more, a good one is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Liberation_(book)

Bad takeaway: taste is meaningless.

Good takeaway: qualia depends on many contextual cues beyond the obvious.

Part of the appreciation of Monet is the fact that it was made by Monet. The art pieces 4′33″ or Black Square are early examples of this within the are world. Many pieces will have you saying, my 8 year old could have done this, so why is this piece famous? Critiques and appreciation are often not literal because we cannot properly express these subconscious effects.

I think it's important to note that a jpg of Monet is not fully experiencing the painting in any sense. Colours will not be accurately captured, the texture, the framing, the scale - it's sort of like getting a heavily watered down version of the expensive wine, saying it's cheap wine, and asking what people think.

I am not exactly an art person, but I once was explained why that painting is a big deal, the whole impasto thing, etc.

I get there and there's an horde of morons taking selfies next to the painting, and another horde of morons taking photos of the painting. I just wanted to observe a bit the depth of the carved layers of ink and how light reflected on them.

Why bother taking a photo when I can find professional high definition photos of it online?

In the end I was unable to observe anything. It was sort of a let down, and the experience made me hate people a wee bit more than before. Nobody wanted to fucking look at the painting.

I don't think any picture you take with your cellphone will have as much detail as this.

The act of taking photos of paintings in museums is meaningless.

Note that they said "remember the details" not "capture the details."

No. I found some paintings I liked in a museum and took photos of them with a serious-at-the-time camera and uploaded them to wikimedia and found the endeavour worthwhile. Not all the paintings are super-famous and been scanned at infinite resolution!

For them often context is more important than the actual art. Lie about the context and their view of art changes completely. I would say these people have objectively bad taste in art. These are the worst kinds of people.

In respect to your point about jpeg, you could have had a jpeg marked as real and one ai, and you would have had all the same comments about how the real jpeg was much better for all kinds of reasons. There is going to be almost zero chance anyone commented how they did due to it being a JPEG, vs them thinking it was ai.

Even looking at the real thing, as most pigments degrade with age. There is no way of experiencing it as it was painted.

“My opinion is that this brand is good because others have told me it is. My opinion is that it is expensive because it must in fact be good. The bottle looks old, therefore it is old, which means it must be good because anything good takes time. Everyone has told me how this is amazing, so I need to ensure my refined palette can identify the blah…blah..”

Opinions all the way down, rarely ever based on concrete objectivity. Even for Monet.

In abstract you take the same paintings, stick them in some old dead dudes attic in Nowhere, Montana because he just did them for fun, I’d be surprised if they even ended up at a yard sale.

And that is the point. Value is entirely subjective and built through opinions. If your opinion begins with “I don’t like this,” you don’t tend to then overlook the same characteristics you willingly ignored or even embellished when you believed you are expected to like said thing.

Closer yet is “look at me! I am sexy and cool! Have sex with me!”.

“Taste” is social signalling, end to end, so strike me down.

I say this as someone who gets writeups of their work in design magazines fairly often - and I am not a designer - it’s just like dressing a theatre set with the correct objects to signal the thing you want to signal.

Fuck, I fed people cat food at a dinner party when I was 20 and they all said it was delicious pâté.

All artifice.

Some of the comments reflect this, critiquing the art for what it is, not for who it is from. But at the same time a lot of them clearly go in with the mindset that they don't like it, then try to rationalize that with art critique.

No one said -- Oh that's just what the default option was.

Everyone had a thought out reasoned answer why they did what they did. But the data showed none of them did that and they in fact just did what the default was and justified their choice afterwards.

I wish I could remember/find the podcast but I haven't been able to. It feels like an old freakonomics but I don't think it is.

Yes, the context of who created a piece of art will have an affect on how you interpret it. But if the question of who/what created it can literally flip your interpretation between "it's genius" and "it's garbage", then that's the only thing you care about. All the actual characteristics of the thing itself are irrelevant. And if literally the only thing that matters about art is who created it, what exactly is the point of art?

https://sciencesnopes.blogspot.com/2013/05/about-that-wine-e...

Those that like wine just because they think it’s expensive just have objectively bad taste.

So your defence only works for people with objectively bad taste. It’s not something that applies to everyone.

Oxymoron.

While the idea that qualia depends on contextual cues might be valuable to understand how culture evolves, it's also indicative that that these cultural phenomena evolve to preserve in group/out group dynamics.

It's not so much, "taste is meaningless" and more, "taste is an arbitrary construction." These kinds of tests are the natural tools of the cynics and satirists of the world.

Critics and purveyors of the Fine Arts and Refined Tastes tend to get a little "up their own asses" about the things that they like.

So, while I agree that the framing of "taste is meaningless" is a bad take, it's valid to point out that there's natural humor here.

This kind of playful mockery is as old as the arts themselves. See: Diogenes.

It's mindless tribalism/wokism in different form.

An essay states a hypothesis and then uses first and second party sources to validate it. I'm not conflating anything, it's just a good abstract example of the type of knowledge synthesis work, which is why we make kids do them.

A business strategy proposal is nothing more than a specific type of essay where the research sources are internal research results, market trend analysis, etc.

A technical design doc is an essay about the best way to implement a feature.

An "executive summary" is just an abstract, and the MBR puts the latest research citations and raw results in bullet points.

So send me the prompt and the three extra paragraphs that you wrote. The improved LLM will generate the additional context for me if I need it. But heck, maybe I wrote that context myself or have read it many times and don't need it parroted back to me.