> Most computer programs (almost all?) are not supposed to be worth money to begin with. It can require quite a reality-distortion effort to build positive sentiment on a case-by-case basis. As we have seen, after some people get that good at building sentiment, they can choose to do so without anything of value underlying their effort, whether integrity is intentionally being compromised or not.
What the hell are you blabbering about? 95%+ of software ever written was done so for a specific purpose (solving a problem), which resulted in profits (typically).
Maybe I should qualify that as "lasting value" to better put it in perspective.
I highly admire your success if 95% of the code you have written is worth something, especially money.
I could be wrong but I respect that number as an outstanding outlier, maybe I'm just underestimating what average professionals are capable of, but I would think you are still head & shoulders above most of them with stats like that.
95% of my code has ended up in the garbage bin, not even recycle, and I'm no professional so maybe I'm just grossly overestimating the number of pure software companies that failed without ever issuing a commercial product of any kind because their extreme programming effort was not able to be brought to a logical enough conclusion for monetization to take place.
I can be a dingbat sometimes but I'm completely in awe of the value of deeper experience and nearly-universal success like that :)
How well have you done when it comes to AI so far, and where do you see the money being made over both the short-term and long term where opportunities still exist?
That's so cool - many people wrongly discount the mental benefits of learning the fundamentals of things that already exist as off the shelf products. Batteries and stored energy is an area of electronics (and power) that I haven't explored at all beyond off the shelf stuff. Did you happen to keep a blog with your notes and thoughts? I'd love to read more about it.
In general I agree with your attitude - however my sympathy is limited by my “lived experience” of interacting with those in the criminal justice system. Most of them belong right where they are - regardless of what the brain dead politico class has embraced.
1) Most people charged with a crime these day are usually guilty of it. The public has made it pretty clear they would rather see no one charged if the crime is a legit whodunit -- no one desires to see innocent people arrested and charged just to give the impression of safety. Prosecutors, and downwards (police) feel pressure to only file and prosecute cases that are legitimately believed to be of truth regarding the suspect. That said, you are innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the state. Even if we can mostly feel that you did it, if it can not be put before a jury to return a guilty verdict, you are not to face penalty in our society (mostly; ignore OJ's civil case... that's a pretty rare exception to be honest).
2) I understand why judges seem automatic -- but remember this: in a criminal trial (minus your option to do a bench trial), you are found guilty or not-guilty by a jury of your (location) peers. The judge has his own opinion, but he is restricted based on the guilty/not-guilty finding of the jury, and sometimes state/federal sentencing guidelines. Of course there are prick judges who SENTENCEMAXXXX people just to be an asshole - no one with an ounce of common sense will endorse that. In general, I trust and expect judges to apply their experience of both law and life in determining what is the appropriate penalty after someone is found guilty.
Well my experience is a solicitor pleading guilty on my behalf which isn't generally allowed in this jurisdiction.
So no trial, no presumption of innocence, and absolutely no interest in anything other that processing 'criminals' as quickly as possible.
So your comment
"Most people charged with a crime these day are usually guilty of it"
May well be true. the issue is that it is self reinforcing, most people are guilty, so the system treats you as probably guilty, so the people that aren't guilty don't get the protections theyre supposed to have the right to.
You have no idea how wired this country is. HN is a nerd cluster with zero social awareness. Half this site would die within 30 days of an insurgency kicking off hardcore.
I don't think JFK's assassination supports this though because that led to President Johnson, the Civil Rights Act, various memorials and some interesting X-Files episodes and not a civil war.
It doesn't have to be. They're disproving your claim that it will lead to civil war by showing that when that event happened previously, a civil war did not break out. It _might_ happen, sure, but it's not as sure of a thing as you're making it sound, either.
The US is very divided currently, I agree, but I don't think any of us know what would have happened had Trump been assassinated, and anyone claiming otherwise is either too confident in their theorycrafting or trying to sell you something.
You don't have to possess a crystal ball to draw a rough conclusion with confidence. Here, watch this, I'll show you: If Trump were to have been assassinated in 4K high def with his head blown off filmed perfectly from multiple angles, this country would see some of the most raw shit known to mankind (domestic terrorism). There is only one group of people who is armed up to the teeth in America and it is not the Democrats. If Trump would have been assassinated it would have been open season on Democrats and anyone not hardcore-right. Anyone who doesn't acknowledge this is simply a naïve fool or willfully lying to you. Raw power is still power, even if you hate it.
Yes. And yes. Treaties for arms reduction deal with not only warheads but also delivery vehicles. Protocols include mutual inspection of disabled vehicles, etc.
I have a hard time imagining that anybody with the resources to secure a nuclear warhead in the first place would later be prevented from using it just because it wasn't plug-n-play compatible with their existing trebuchets or whatever.
It's not about "later" it's about "now". You don't inspect standing stockpiles and delivery mechanisms to say "See? We will never have the capability to nuke you", you do so to show that you're not currently building and are not currently sitting on a pile of nukes.
As mentioned probably two posts up, any ramp up would be obvious to adversaries, have some lead time, and would take away from other production efforts.
Are treaties still worth something? In a world where authoritarians defect the "global community" and start wars of conquests that violate MAD , are those papers and laws still worth something?
The "global community" was never a thing. In the fist decade of the UN some countries made an effort, quickely it became a power grab political nightmare that never actually resolved anything.
In my eyes they are. For what it is worth, with the exception of this recent period (Ukraine), both the US and Russia for the most part made pretty good-faith efforts to comply with what their diplomats signed. I'm sure there were undeclared vehicles that were not disclosed, but I imagine those are not that plentiful, and certainly not in the quantity that would make a strategic difference (thousands sitting spare, ready to fly, all it needs is a warhead mounted an hour before launch).
I view arms control as a reduction of the number of variables in play (launch vehicles, warheads, etc). Both sides will always retain their God-given right to unleash nuclear holocaust, but both sides also reason they don't need 10,000+ warheads to do that. They can accomplish that goal with far less nukes than war planning 40 - 50 years ago called for. Partly that is due to accuracy having increased rapidly since gen 1 ICBM. There is a great book about missile guidance and accuracy, it is called "Inventing Accuracy". If you can't find a local copy or can't afford it, the Internet Archive has a PDF you can check out and read. Really insightful as to the "why" we don't require 30,000 nukes (1965) -- we only require ~5000 today and the enhanced accuracy makes them even more potent than prior bomb designs (which had a much larger yield).
Yeah, even if you are only parsing "safe" inputs such as ones you created yourself. Other bugs and sometimes even truly random events can corrupt data.
Fair enough - did not mean to be glib. As much as I dog you boys here sometimes, I really enjoy your comments. HN makes Reddit comments seem like porno video comments by comparison quality wise.
