This is a zero sum take. There are no winners, only the people you deem using free expression correctly. Would a developer who names releases like "Ukrainians are nazi's" or "Taiwan is China" be met with this same sympathy? Or would you brush them off as a mouthpiece for those governments? I'm thinking it's the latter. Free expression is rarely anything other than socially acceptable expression.
IMO the ethical response should be positive disengagement with entities with which you disagree, instead of negative engagement.
See something in the release notes of an app you don’t like? Go use a different app, give your money to a different entity. Don’t spend your time and resources messing with the producer or user of the thing you don’t like.
This of course runs the risk of maximal polarization once everyone has filtered themselves into their neat and tidy little bubbles. What happens then, everybody leaves each other alone? Or do the echo chambers slide into further radicalized detachment from each other?
I mean it depends what it is. If someone is talking about master races in patch notes I think that can be met with negative engagement. Splitting along an ideology binary can definitely lead to further entrenchment and possible radicalization. I think the danger there though is the binary choice itself. You of course have edge cases where it is a binary, but I think having people with more complex attitudes and opinions can only be a boon to cooperation and progress.
To get back on topic though, I think conflating using Y app with holding X position on a topic like politics is a dangerous road. Which is where I think having a dedicated space for those politics makes more sense. Whether that's a blog, twitter, etc. It allows those most dedicated to you to know you better without making the product or program a political stance. But the developer is ultimately free to do what they want. So it's not like anyone here can tell the developer to change in any way.
What a bad take. Not every political statement is morally equivalent nor worthy of the same respect. Supporting self-determination of people is not the same as supporting oppression of people - for example.
So the free expression is considered by everyone according to their own ethical and moral values.
It is 1995. You get an unsolicited email with a dubious business offer. Upon reflection, you decide it's not worth consideration and delete it. No need to wonder how it was sent to you; that doesn't need to influence the way you handle it.
No. We need spam filters for this stuff. If it isn't obvious to you yet, it will be soon. (Or else you're one of the spammers.)
I really identify with this way of thinking. One domain where it is especially helpful is writing concurrent code. For example, if you have a data structure that uses a mutex, what are the invariants that you are preserving across the critical sections? Or when you're writing a lock-free algorithm, where a proof seems nearly required to have any hope of being correct.
I was trying to understand how an altitude of 470,000 ft compares to other things, so I looked up a few numbers.
470k feet is 143 km. The altitude record for an air-breathing aircraft is 38 km. There are some very low earth orbit satellites that orbit in the sub-200 km range (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_low_Earth_orbit). The ISS orbits at about 400 km and typical LEO is 800 km. ICBMs have an apogee altitude of 1000 km or more.
(Of course, the energy required to get up to some altitude is only a small fraction of the energy required to get into orbit at that altitude. https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/ is a relevant read.)
I guess to me it seems like common sense that a system that has substantially fewer crashes also has substantially fewer deaths. Maybe we can't make definitive statements about the expected number of deaths yet, but I think the most reasonable best guess with the information we have is that waymo deaths will be much lower.
The alternative requires a scenario where waymo is especially likely to get into fatal accidents while being very good at avoiding non-fatal ones, right? Seems far-fetched.
I would not make the same inference because we know that ML systems generally struggle with robustness and the long tail, while humans tend to be exhibit much more flexibility to adapt to distribution shifts or unusual situations. For a concrete example of this in computer vision, see work such as the Imagenet—C dataset where simple distribution shifts generally tank ML models but do not impact human performance.
But regardless, the claim here isn’t “under some assumptions that some people (and not others) find reasonable, we can extrapolate and predict that self driving cars will be found to be safer”
It’s “self driving cars are safer”, which there isn’t enough evidence to claim yet.
I've done this for a few years as well. I use a terminal+tmux for most work including quickly editing files here and there but for some reason when I get to "proper" focus-mode programming my brain just wants a separate "application" to look at. And usually the terminal is on my secondary monitor while the "editor" terminal is full-screen on the main monitor.
I used to gvim but realized that I was getting almost no benefit (and occasionally the differences between gvim and my terminal caused minor annoyances).
Two things I do that help in this regard:
I use a tweaked config for the "editor" instance of the terminal that has a slightly different background color from my main terminal. This keeps them separate in my mind.
I use dedicated shortcuts for focusing each application I use (browser, terminal, slack, etc) and the "editor" terminal has its own shortcut. (The --class flag that the post mentions kitty has would be pretty helpful in this regard. My terminal doesn't have that so my shortcuts are based on title, which works well enough most of the time.)
