The OP quit, publicly, and the response (and your post) miss that entirely. They aren't interested in a personal chat, and they aren't inviting anyone to help them process their feelings. They've left, and told everyone why.
And good for them honestly. This seems disrespectful as fuck, to just have their work overwritten by some fuckass bot nobody asked for, and have their feedback ignored. I'd tell Mozilla to kick rocks too.
Corpos have a nasty habit of, after so many years, feeling very entitled to the efforts of what are, at the end of the day, volunteers.
Clearance is a process and it hasn't been obeyed, and the ultimate purpose of it is to both audit potential recipients and train them in security protocols. The president can't elude it, though he can pardon them for federal crimes, which they're committing a lot of.
The authority of classification rests solely with the executive branch and the policies are established by EO.
A President can absolutely classify and declassify whatever he wants. This has been done a million times.
"It is true that the President has broad authority to classify and declassify, derived from the President’s dual role “as head of the Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief” of the armed forces. The “authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security... flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant" ...
"Finally, as the district court recognized, the suggestion that courts can declassify information raises separation of powers concerns.... such determinations encroach upon the President’s undisputedly broad authority in the realm of national security."
- The New York Times v. Central Intelligence Agency, No. 18-2112 (2d Cir. 2020)
The only reason the material was not considered declassified in that case was because the possible declassification was "inadvertent" etc etc.
Even that ruling does not go far enough, and I'd be willing to give 10:1 odds SCOTUS would give Pres. full and complete powers over classification
What you are overlooking is the underhanded plays executed by a certain political party to allow one president during one 4-year term to appoint 3 supreme court lackeys in order to ensure no matter what bs went before them, they'd rule in his favor.
The idea of the "unitary executive", a concept that has long been a wet dream of the Federalist Society and other conservative think tanks, is the most decidedly un-American thing I can imagine.
Our country was founded on the idea of 3 co-equal branches of government, who each have the duty and authority to exercise checks and balances against the other 2 branches (trust but verify).
Further, the citizens are supposed to have representatives in the house & senate who act as their voice on issues and execute their will and represent their interests.
Nowhere in this entire framework was there a President with the authority to rule by executive fiat, who has absolute immunity from every law of the land, and who is given free reign to do as he pleases like a bull in a china shop. The President of the United States is not a Monarch and he is not a King. There is no divine bloodline in the US of A. The President should always be answerable and accountable to the citizens of the United States and the other 2 branches of government, and they should be held to account for his/her actions.
The current legal framework is a travesty and a result of a gradual erosion of many foundational principles of our republic that have been ground down since FDR dared to empower the working man 80 years ago. In short, it's an abomination.
And don't give me this "but Biden had that same authority" bs. Anybody who knows anything about politics know Dems are spineless. If a Dem tried to pull one tenth of the shit the Republicans do, Rs would be all over AM radio, Fox News, Breitbart, X, Rogan, screaming at the top of their lungs about socialism or some kind of "takeover" or telling people their country is being stolen from them, or some other boneheaded idiotic conspiracy theory. They know there's always someone to fall for their shit. Remember the guys showing up at the DC pizza place looking for the child sex dungeon in the non-existent basement? Yeah, these geniuses.
It's always the same old shit- rich & powerful people don't like being told "no" by the government. Oh, and they also hate paying the government (we all do, but to them it's an actual insult). This is a tantrum of epic proportions, and all this crap is political theater for people who don't know any better.
As an aside, not a one of them has any problem holding out their hand to get old Uncle Sam's money, nor do they have a problem suckling at the government teet their entire career. Ironic, no?
If half these people knew they were carrying water because some spoiled brat of a man didn't want to pay his taxes or got pissed because they can no longer light a river on fire, they'd tell these gold-brickers to pound sand.
But that can't happen anymore. Everybody is plugged-in. The algorithms that drive engagement drive the feedback loop. People can't even argue anymore, because no one knows what the hell is really going on.
This is what our ancestors fought and died for: Twitter and Donald "I can't even make money running a casino" Trump.
The worst part? These people truly don't care. "Gee whiz, why are all these billionaires building bunkers thousands of miles away from the continental US?" Because they're planning to light the USA on fire and bounce. They don't care if you are a republican or a democrat. They don't care about anything. They got theirs. They raped the system, rigged the system, and that's it. Why? Because, paraphrasing George Carlin, "You ain't in their club, you ain't ever going to be in their club. They don't give a shit about you."
And one half the country is helping burn it all down, while blaming the other half of the country for "making them do it ha ha, see what you get you stupid <insert insult here>", meanwhile, the greatest grifters of all time will be sneaking out the back door with the loot to live out their days sipping mai tais, sailing around on aircraft carrier sized yachts, talking on satellite provided cellphones, and jacking off all day, while we continue to argue with each other about whose fault it is that all the money's gone.
That's a lot of politics I won't be answering about but I think you misunderstand the unitary executive idea.
It's not that the president is the sole power in government! it's that he's the sole power in the executive branch
This means the checks and balances are Congress vs Court vs President. Just like the clerks for SCOTUS don't have any power and neither do the staffers or clerks of Congress, so too do all the members of the executive branch have no power, except for whenever the Pres decides to delegate his power to them.
Even those who argue with this idea (few do) the only other ppl who have power in executive branch are the officials who get confirmed by the senate bec. they are mentioned in the constitution. No one thinks that unelected bureaucrat have any standing whatsoever outside of what's been delegated to them by the President
This does not in any way pertain to ruling by EO! Many things should in fact be done by Congress, but those that can/should be done by the executive branch are under the Presidents full control.
When the executive is also vested with the power of enforcement, then, by construction, it usurps the power of the other 2 branches to check its authority.
Which I think is obvious- a power hungry executive who disputes an attempted check of its authority by one of the other branches can simply decline to enforce.
Ipso facto, unchecked executive power.
Edit: you seem informed, so you should know that issues like these are not new; Andrew Jackson famously ignored the Supreme Court and told them to get bent way back in 1832 after their decision in Worcester v Georgia.
To use a programming analogy, our government's type system has a soundness problem. That means we, as a civilized society, have to follow a few unwritten rules to make sure the system remains functional and doesn't crash. One of those is for the executive to exercise restraint on the technical power they have in the interest of not encountering UB.
No, the greyed-out parent comment is correct. It's an unintuitive and weird legal truth, but it *is* the truth.
- "While the president has the legal authority to grant a clearance, in most cases, the White House’s personnel security office makes a determination about whether to grant one after the F.B.I. has conducted a background check. If there is a dispute in the personnel security office about how to move forward — a rare occurrence — the White House counsel makes the decision. In highly unusual cases, the president weighs in and grants one himself."
This is philosophizing, and it isn't even on topic.
The laws are broken, so regardless of what you think "should" be legal, it isn't. They are being selectively enforced, though, and that's both the problem and probably the thing more worth your philosophical energy. Is that okay, when a criminal operation is too wealthy and influential to be held accountable?
> The laws are broken, so regardless of what you think "should" be legal, it isn't. They are being selectively enforced, though, and that's both the problem and probably the thing more worth your philosophical energy. Is that okay, when a criminal operation is too wealthy and influential to be held accountable?
All the laws have been being selectively enforced for decades. The people who were previously running these departments may have written the right incantations and negotiated a consensus with the departments that are supposed to watch the watchmen, but they had no more accountability to the average citizen/voter than the people who are moving in now.
The voting public no longer cares about "legal" versus "illegal", because they recognise that those categories have no bearing on anything relevant. This has been brewing for years, but the establishment benefited too much from subverting the rule of law to fix it. At this point they've made their bed.
The laws have been selectively enforced and it has led us here, yes, and it does mean that broad support of the bureaucracy has justifiably waned.
Was it okay then, when it was a bureaucratic governing class encamping in the public coffers? Is it okay now, when it's a single vulture capitalist harvesting the public coffers?
What's "okay"? My position is that the current state of affairs is far from ideal, but also not significantly worse than what came before, and so I'm suspicious of the motivations of anyone who's selectively concerned about public accountability now.
To to drain the swamp you probably have to dive into the swamp, or at least get your feet muddy. Every successful reform/anticorruption programme I can think of has involved giving a few trusted people some fairly extraordinary powers - special prosecutors, special judges, special task forces and the like. Sometimes the end result is no better, or is even worse, sure. But I'll take trying something that might work over letting the prior status quo continue indefinitely. And I don't think the system would ever have been capable of reforming itself while staying within its bounds.
OP was philosophizing. Why would anyone need any kind of clearance to access non-classified data. If they’ve been given permission by the head of the executive branch, what more authority do they need?
It's always played out like this in software, by the way. Famously, animation shops hoped to save money on production by switching over to computer rendered cartoons. What happened instead is that a whole new industry took shape, and brought along with it entire cottage industries of support workers. Server farms required IT, renders required more advanced chips, some kinds of animation required entirely new rendering techniques in the software, etc.
A few hundred animators turned into a few thousand computer animators & their new support crew, in most shops. And new, smaller shops took form! But the shops didn't go away, at least not the ones who changed.
It basically boils down to this: some shops will act with haste and purge their experts in order to replace them with LLMs, and others will adopt the LLMs, bring on the new support staff they need, and find a way to synthesize a new process that involves experts and LLMs.
Shops who've abandoned their experts will immediately begin to stagnate and produce more and more mediocre slop (we're seeing it already!) and the shops who metamorphose into the new model you're speculating at will, meanwhile, create a whole new era of process and production. Right now, you really want to be in that second camp - the synthesizers. Eventually the incumbents will have no choice but to buy up those new players in order to coup their process.
And 3D animation still requires hand animation! Nobody starts with 3D animation, the senior animators are doing storyboards and keyframes which they _then_ use as a guide for 3D animation.
Oh my, no. Fabrics and things made from fabrics remain largely produced by human workers.
Those textile workers were afraid machines would replace them, but that didn't happen - the work was sent overseas, to countries with cheaper labor. It was completely tucked away from regulation and domestic scrutiny, and so remains to this day a hotbed of human rights abuses.
The phenomenon you're describing wasn't an industry vanishing due to automation. You're describing a moment where a domestic industry vanished because the cost of overhauling the machinery in domestic production facilities was near to the cost of establishing an entirely new production facility in a cheaper, more easily exploitable location.
I think you're talking about people who sew garments, not people who create textile fabrics. In any case, the 19th century British textile workers we all know I'm talking about really did lose their jobs, and those jobs did not return.
I agree it's a problem but it isn't incumbent on the 'x' peers to solve it. The burden of that goes to any supposed '10x'.
Long version:
I agree with you, though I would add that a superintellect at '10x' that couldn't look at the 'x' baseline of those around it and navigate that in an effective way (in other words, couldn't organize its thoughts and present them in a safe or good seeming way), is just plain not going to ever function at a '10x' level sustainably in an ecosystem full of normal 'x' peers.
I think the whole point of Stranger in a Strange Land is about this. The Martian is (generally) not only completely ascendant, he's also incredibly effective at leveraging his ascendancy. Repeatedly, characters who find him abhorrent at a distance chill out as they begin to grok him.
The reality is that this is an ecosystem of normal 'x' peers and the '10x', as the abnormality, needs to have "functional and effective in an ecosystem of 'x' peers" as part of its core skill set, or else none of us (not even the '10x' itself) can never recognize or utilize its supposed '10x' capacity.
That's what I meant, once you apply what happens in practice to the theory. It's a response to a comment about ego and cults so I tried to be as political as I can... which just isn't sufficient. My entire premise is that this subject is something familiar and controversial in a new guise so there is going to be a lot of knee-jerk reactions as soon as you bring up something that looks like a pain-point.
For reference, I think most of us are '10x' in a particular field and that is our talent. Society-in-scarcity rewards talents unequally so we get status and ego resulting in a host of dark patterns. I think AI can ease scarcity so I keep betting on this horse for solving the real problem, which is ego.
I think maybe you ought to think about inverting your stance on this, because it's not necessarily virtuous to imagine that everyone repeating the same warning, over and over again, is due to some mysterious, inexplicable negativity. And it's not great to imagine that they don't know what they're talking about, or that they're just trying to scare people off with senseless FUD. Or that they didn't actually run into the problems they say they did. Or that they don't know the root cause.
Maybe a better question to be curious about is this: What can Elm do about the (self-evident in these comments, IMO) fact that a bunch of devs who really like it, feel like it's a bad choice? And, what SHOULD Elm do about that?
If a bunch of people think it's a tool foreboding enough to warn others off of it, and in the same thread some of those same people are saying they really liked that tool and wish they didn't have to do that, what benefit are you really getting from just dismissing their feedback?
Outspoken feedback is rare, just calling it negativity and paying it no mind rhymes a lot with the way Elm, writ large, has behaved. It's not indicative of a tool or ecosystem that wants to foster growth or continue development. That's part of the problem.
I disagree. I don't care what elm maintainers should or shouldn't do. It's not my problem, so that's not a question I want to ask.
I'm curious about why the same few, a vocal minority, spams every thread about elm with the same blog post. If you think we're dismissive, it's more because we don't want the discussion to be derailed for the umpteenth time.
People who make commercial decisions based on the support and development a language receives do indeed care. If you are making decisions with commercial or practical relevance you should care and not caring is negligence if you decide to use the product. Many people got burnt by the abandonment of Elm development (and yes, it has essentially been abandoned despite what the Elm community will say).
I think it's a bit disingenuous to pretend the goal of many of these critics is to improve Elm. They are clearly through with the language--as shown in their comments--and that is fine. But they're acting like they got dumped five years ago and still aren't over it.
I like to think of it as `view, effects = fn(state, events)`, where effects are any subsequent events or instructions that come out of a state change. I think of it very close to how you're outlining it here, though, and when I'm thinking of effects I'm generally also thinking of it as a set of things that can fit into an event stream like you're outlining.
In this case, "community is moving in that direction" means that over the last 3+ years, a significant amount of middleware and tooling has grown in the Tower ecosystem, which Axum is based on. So the network effect is the draw here, not a hype cycle.
That doesn't seem like a mitigation to what the poster above you said, to me. It just means that if I don't like it, I don't lose my posts when I move. That's nice but it offers no guarantees in the face of a corporate actor harming the overall federation of a network.
You and others in this thread aren't grokking what this means in practice: it means that users are transparently redirected to your new home wherever you are. If a corporate juggernaut tries to harm the network, folks just pick up and move their identity. The protocol bakes in treating the provider like a dumb pipe. The protocol puts the power in the hands of the users and at any time they can just up and walk away, defeating the stickiness of the provider.
No, I definitely get that. Where your data is, or is not, has no relevance to a network member choosing to behave badly or harmfully against that network. Nor does it actually impact what they can do to the network itself. It simply provides you with durability concerning your identity.
