> If I were to guess, the types of conversations that happen in these places that aren't gutter racism (they're eating the dogs etc) are going to be eugenics-adjacent, "enlightened" scientific racism instead. At least, that's what I've noticed among rationalists online.
This statement is proof for the need of this rule. Everyone who disagrees with the "one truth" is obviously a racist who is aligned with the worst of the other side. There can be no deviation or nuance. No debate, or benefit of doubt.
That is a deeply toxic view that in the past I only saw in the right. Maybe it was my own blindness. But now I see it all over the left as well.
Given that we now have tools that can fix some serious genetic errors, and enable even people who were dealt very bad cards in life, to live a healthy life - and given that this sector of biology is constantly evolving towards more capabilities, I would argue that it makes more sense to study genetic diseases and disorders than ever.
100 years ago, when genetics was unchangeable, the only solution to any genetic problem was heavy-handed: stop that individual from procreating. I agree that this is basically fascist (though even social democrats weren't immune to this).
But in 2050, we might be able to fix terrible things like Huntington's Chorea with a single shot. Which is fascinating, but it also needs some honesty. In the late 20th century, there was a lot of activism that tried to pass off seriously debilitating diseases as "being differentially abled" etc. While I can understand them wanting to stop eugenic thinking from seeping in, this attitude becomes counterproductive when tools are being developed to actually help the sick people. Similar to anti-vaxxerism, in fact.
People like Charles Murray think people like me are subhuman for having low IQ and being non-white, the conversations I'm hearing aren't about curing disabilities they're about the "wrong type" of people procreating.
Weird that you got "curing disabilities" from my comment on "scientific racism" though. That reaction kinda concerns me.
Logging is great for long term issue resolution. There's tracepoints/logpoints which let you refine the debugging experience in runtime without accidentally committing prints to the repo.
There are specific types of projects that are very hard to debug (I'm working on one right now), that's a valid exception but it also indicates something that should be fixed in our stack. Print debugging is a hack, do we use it? Sure. Is it OK to hack? Maybe. Should a hack be normalized? Nope.
Print debugging is a crutch that covers up bad logging or problematic debugging infrastructure. If you reach for it too much it probably means you have a problem.
What is the difference between print debugging and logging? With most deployments setups now days you can pipe prints to some logging solution anyways.
Logging lets you refine the level of printing and is designed to make sense in the long term. There are many technical differences (structured logging, MDC etc.) that I won't get into but they are important.
To me it's mostly about the way you write the logs vs. the way you write a print. A log tries to solve the generic problem so you can deal with it in production if the need arises by dynamically enabling logs. It solves the core issue of a potential problem. A print is a local bandaid. E.g. when print debugging one would write stuff like "f*ck 1 this was reached"... In logs you would write something sensible like "Subsystem X initialized with the following arguments %s". That's a very different concept.
totally agree re: structured logging. my intro to that was w/GCP Logging and it changed my mind on when and what to log. proper structured logging and keying metrics/alerts from those metrics is extremely satisfying and legitimately useful.
If your code is connected to some external factory, it's impossible to pause on a breakpoint without breaking everything. And no, "just mock it" doesn't work if you have no idea on how the factory actually behaves. Printf is good because it doesn't messes up timing.
Time travel debugging (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel_debugging) can be good for this situation too because it separates capturing a bug ("recording") and understanding it (the debugging phase, which happens while "replaying").
You don't need to pause anything whilst capturing the bug.
Now, if your code is literally connected to running critical systems in an actual factory then you've probably got additional realtime and safety-critical considerations that might push you towards debugging.
But (for more conventional use cases) time travel debuggers can handle multiple communicating systems without causing timeouts, capture bugs in software that interacts directly with hardware devices, etc. And you don't have to keep rebuilding / rerunning once you've reproduced the bug.
I suggest re-reading my comment and learning about tracepoints/logpoints.
Your comment highlights my exact problem with print debugging... You just aren't aware of the tools available to you and you reach to the rusty old broken hammer.
Qatar's goal is very aligned with Hamas. Global Jihad. Qatar is dressing it up with western appeal but its goals are very clear. The Palestinian authority understands that armed conflict has never worked for them. Palestinians were used as a pawn for surrounding powers who manipulated them into conflict with Israel. Qatar is still playing that game and it goes against the interests of the Palestinian people.
How do you dress up global jihad with western appeal?
I will be plain, as a Westerner who has watched Al Jazeera on and off for many years, and who tries to follow Middle Eastern investment in the West with some scepticism as to eventual goals, I don't see Qatar as anywhere near the level of concern that you do. Can you give background reading, I'm genuinely curious.
Qatar has been a hideout to Hamas leadership and has passed money to Hamas for decades. It plays both ends and keeps relationships with the west to appear civil. Its English broadcasts even hired well known US journalists to give them credibility, but when you see the translation of Arabic broadcasts the stories are problematic. It's Pravda run by a Muslim theocracy, some stuff is more subtle but you can't trust anything you read/see there.
I don't want to "hum, actually", but Hamas is aligned with Iran, and Qatar is playing Iran vs Saoudi arabia to exist, out of practicality more than anything. Also not a theocracy, but an aboslute monarchy.
Playing Iran vs saudi arabia is also the reason why Qatar "passed money to Hamas", when asked by Israel (or rather, Likud). The funds they passed are originally from Israel.
Imho it is likely to be viewed as an unjust behavior and a treason from Israel by Qatari. With the Assad clan out, Iran and Saudi Arabia only have the Yemen left for their proxy war, and Qatar in the middle absolutely need Al jazzeira to be credible on the international scene. I'm pretty sure they only report on things already reported on by Haaretz (which are the only middle east news i truly trust atm) or international medias.
It's a monarchy under sharia so I don't think a western monarchy term properly represents what it is. Iran is very much unaligned with Hamas, it uses Hamas as a tool but despises it. Hamas and Qatar are Sunni whereas Iran is Shia, they despise each other but hate Israel/the west more.
> Playing Iran vs saudi arabia is also the reason why Qatar "passed money to Hamas", when asked by Israel (or rather, Likud). The funds they passed are originally from Israel.
Some money was indeed passed by Israel, but a lot of the payments for families of Suicide bombers etc. was not part of that specific deal. Giving refuge to Hamas leadership is not part of that either.
> I'm pretty sure they only report on things already reported on by Haaretz (which are the only middle east news i truly trust atm) or international medias.
I used to read Haaretz but now I only read specific posts my spouse shares with me.
Haaretz is a bubble. They pick narratives that fit specific world views. That makes it harder to understand why some things are happening. When I read more centrist news it gives me better sense of both sides on the matter and the comments there help me gauge public sentiment more accurately. Unfortunately, none is good and I still need a filter to "read between the lines".
I'd argue that any Israeli news source is better than Al Jazeera but I'm obviously pretty biased on the matter and even I don't blindly trust Israeli media.
I think absolute monarchy is exactly what Qatar is, an absolute monarch use religion to establish and justify its power. Absolute monarchies were pretty rare in europe overall, but looked a lot like Oman and Qatar look like these days.
I think Al Jazeera, in this very case, has a point, the PA army indeed fought Hamas in refugee camps, and those raids have caused deaths. I'm, very, very partial to Fatah, especially the post-2014 iteration, but hiding those raids is imho a very bad political move and will cause a Streisand effect.
Also, sadly, whatever Fatah do against Hamas, it will never move Israeli opinion about Palestinians.
> Absolute monarchies were pretty rare in europe overall, but looked a lot like Oman and Qatar look like these days.
In the 15th century... Sure. But since we still have monarchies today it's not quite the same as the UK.
> I think Al Jazeera, in this very case, has a point
They often do. My complaint isn't that they invent stories as a form of lying. They create a narrative and then cherry pick facts that fit with the narrative while hiding or misdirecting when inconvenient reality gets in the way. You can see more moderate western versions of this in Fox news or people like John Oliver.
> hiding those raids is imho a very bad political move and will cause a Streisand effect.
I don't think they hide the deaths. It's a matter of how they are reported. This is a powder-keg and Al Jazeera has repeatedly reported misinformation in an inflammatory way with complete disregard to the outcome.
> Also, sadly, whatever Fatah do against Hamas, it will never move Israeli opinion about Palestinians.
I disagree.
Israelis were very much for the Oslo accords and wanted them to work. Fatah didn't do enough to stop Hamas and then missed the two opportunities to get a Palestinian state.
Opinions swing both ways. Right now the global anti-Israel sentiment and the ongoing hostage situation has helped the Israeli right-wing control the conversation. But things change and can also change to worse.
E.g. if Hamas is successful in starting another Intifada the west bank will be completely screwed. This is what Ben Gvir and Smotrich are trying to trigger. They want another Intifada so they can use that as an excuse for ethnic cleansing. Fatah is doing the smart thing here. Sadly, if they'd had the political courage to do that in the late 90's we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.
Ok, I stand corrected on Al Jazeera, you convinced me. I disagree with your opinion on the Oslo accords agreement among the general Israeli public, but time will likely decide who was right, and hopefully you are.
Just a point: we don't have absolute monarchies in Europe since like 1830, they are all parliamentary nowadays, or at least republican. The UK has practically never been an absolute monarchy, jumping almost directly from feudalism to parliamentarism. I'll stand on what Qatar and Oman are as political system, and those are absolute monarchies (the 'absolute' here is important), and I wish monarchists understood that.
I don’t think that Haaretz is in a bubble as much as it’s simply captured by its audience.
Don’t get me wrong it clearly has a very distinct ideological leaning but comparing their English edition to Google translate of their Hebrew one shows that their ideals very much take a backseat to subscriber fees.
it was qatari money that was passed to hamas through israel in suitcases (this is after PA stopped paying salaries in gaza after hamas takeover). not the other way around
Until 2014, then they stopped (they wanted to align with the West). In 2018, according to several new sources, including right wing Israeli news, Netanyahou and Steve Mnuchin sent letters to Doha to implore Qatar to send fund to the Gaza strip. At that time, the Gaza population was fed up and hungry, and an uprising against Hamas was likely.
The official justification was that an uprising would have had costs for israeli companies who use Gazaoui labor, but i bet keeping the Hamas freaks as opponents was also in the balance.
Well it's basic propaganda. For instance, there is a LARGE difference between English and Arabic content. So don't read Al-Jazeera english, read the arabic version with your browser's translation turned on.
For example, in English, there's a country called Israel. In Arabic there isn't. It's called "the occupation". In English there are only ever Muslim civilian victims (e.g. patients in hospitals, little girls in their home). In Arabic muslims destroyed X civilian targets and they brag that they can do that, but there aren't muslims victims anymore, only "martyrs". The little girl doesn't get mentioned anymore, I can only assume she's one of the martyrs now. In English, there are only attacks on muslims (and Sudan doesn't get talked about much). In Arabic there's only battles and always some sort of victory.
E.g. in Arabic their current "victory" articles. God (ie. "allah") has apparently destroyed the IDF, reconquered a Syrian mosque, enabled "Al-Houthi" to attack 22 Israeli and US targets (all civilian targets I might add, in Arabic they brag about the targets being civilian), and allah has "harvested legal victories" against Israel and the US at the UN:
100%. I've been using that and also the DevContainer support in IntelliJ/IDEA which is good but has some limitations (e.g. I can connect IntelliJ but not CLion at the same time).
I don't even think that CEO was the problem. It's the lack of government regulation and public option in America. The problem is the politicians.
I saw someone mention that online and the response was "now you get it". People are advocating targeting politicians too. That is no different from Jan 6th people etc. I see people who are supposed to be smart making such insane "structured" claims. The level of cognitive dissonance in support of that guy is absolutely insane.
There was some nuance here. They blocked the abilities of the humans to communicate when achieving that result. So no talking or even gestures, only communicate like ants do.
Since we are so used to communicate when collaborating, it's unsurprising that we fail at collaborating when that is taken away.
This is a very cool study. But the conclusion is probably more nuanced.
While that is true, the paper shows more video and experiments that they did. they show that a single person finishes the puzzle way faster than a group of people. I agree it could be interesting to check how a group of people, sufficiently able to collaborate, would solve the puzzle. Would that be faster than a single person?
You're probably young. I can barely see in 100% zoom and going back and forth with reading glasses is very uncomfortable. I spend 90% of my time looking for them. I have an air and a 16 inch Dell. I don't want to lug the Dell around because also, back pain.
Yep. If there’s one thing that Big Tech is doing even remotely better at in 2024, it’s letting the self-interest of the increasingly aging top brass guide the ship into making products that don’t assume that everyone is 20 years old with perfect vision.
It’s one of the few things that Apple is doing well at, but they’re doing really well at it.
Let's see... one airport... runways bombed and Palestine told in no uncertain terms that any attempt to repair, rebuild, or build an airport would be met with military response.
The Israeli Navy's blockade of Gaza's ports is in its seventeenth year.
The generally closed land borders? Hmmm.
"Here's an option to build a state, a very generous offer, we must say."
It's the state equivalent of "Yes, you can live in the basement. We're going to lock it when you're down there so you can't leave, and you can't have anybody to visit. But it's a home, so quit complaining."
Not now. In 2000 and in 2008. You clearly don't know the history.
> The Israeli Navy's blockade of Gaza's ports is in its seventeenth year.
If that blockade didn't exist Oct 7th would have been fought with tanks on both sides. Hamas were given plenty of chances to show they don't want war, they kept building rockets and digging tunnels while firing constantly for the past 17 years at civilian population.
Let me ask you this, your neighbor keeps firing and throwing grenades at your home... Do you tare down the wall to his property? That's an insane argument.
> The generally closed land borders? Hmmm.
Again. Same thing. They smuggled literal slaves through the tunnels they built into Egypt. On the eve of Oct 7th there were over 10k Palestinians from Gaza working in Israel. There was an active border pass which is how countries are separated. With borders. Especially if the neighboring country doesn't believe you have the right to exist and keeps firing at you.
> "Here's an option to build a state, a very generous offer, we must say."
Yes. It was a very generous offer. They were offered part of Jerusalem and 94% of the territories. It was spectacularly generous and probably won't come back.
> It's the state equivalent of "Yes, you can live in the basement. We're going to lock it when you're down there so you can't leave, and you can't have anybody to visit. But it's a home, so quit complaining."
Well... To carry that stupid analogy... It's the equivalent of parents whose son is a mass murderer offering him a way to prove that he's changed his ways.
The problem is that you're ignoring the agency Palestinians had in the matter. Hamas made conscious choices every step of the way, but so did the more moderate Palestinian authority and unfortunately a lot of the populace. Right now the current terrible state of affairs is a result of two sides being terrible. The difference is that the Israeli side is far more powerful and has nothing to lose other than its soul. The Palestinian side has everything to lose and yet their leaders and populace made the wrong choices along the way.
Interesting, but the post seems to focus on a Python code base. I wonder how well it would do with a large Java code base where a refactoring will very much go outside of its context window.
That's where I think JetBrains AI will be beneficial. I know it isn't great with its first iteration, but knowing JetBrains I'm sure they'll improve. When we have VERY large projects, the need is so much greater. Having an AI that understands the AST constraints and can leverage IDE capabilities would be fantastic.
Depends on your luck. For if you large Java codebase is somewhat outdated or uses an outdated code generation setup, you may have lots of problems with Cursor not being able to compile parts of your code.
This statement is proof for the need of this rule. Everyone who disagrees with the "one truth" is obviously a racist who is aligned with the worst of the other side. There can be no deviation or nuance. No debate, or benefit of doubt.
That is a deeply toxic view that in the past I only saw in the right. Maybe it was my own blindness. But now I see it all over the left as well.
reply