The Twentieth Anniversary Macintosh came to be regarded as such a mistake and quintessential example of how misguided Apple was during the wilderness era that I'm not surprised they went in the opposite direction. Institutional memory etc etc
> The New Mexico attorney general’s office created multiple fake Facebook and Instagram profiles posing as children as part of its investigation into Meta. Those test accounts encountered sexually suggestive content and requests to share pornographic content, the suit alleges.
> The fake child accounts were allegedly contacted and solicited for sex by the three New Mexico adult men who were arrested in May of 2024. Two of the three men were arrested at a motel, where they allegedly believed they would be meeting up with a 12-year-old girl, based on their conversations with the decoy accounts.
and
> “The product is very good at connecting people with interests, and if your interest is little girls, it will be really good at connecting you with little girls,” Bejar said.
This is what it's about right? The article doesn't make it seem like encryption is meaningfully part of this case at all.
> Midway through trial, Meta said it would stop supporting end-to-end-encrypted messaging on Instagram later this year.
There's no indication that that decision, or the announcement, are directly related to the trial, just they just happened at the same time? It's a link drawn by CNN, without presenting any clear connection
They have been under a lot of pressure for years to disable e2e messaging because it prevents them from monitoring messages for child abuse. This was a central point of the trial. While they haven't given a reason for the change I think its reasonable to infer it is in response to this pressure.
However there is another possible explanation
> Tom Sulston, head of policy at Digital Rights Watch, said rather than acceding to law enforcement demands, the move was more likely due to Meta deciding against moving messaging on WhatsApp, Facebook and Instagram to a single platform.
This is the funniest possible answer to "Sounds like you've never changed a tire. Or at least not outside of a very controlled environment."
"Oh, you think I've never changed a tire? Well here is my abstract high level understanding of the steps to changing a tire! And have you considered the quintessential controlled environment for putting tires onto cars?"
The "edge cases" make a simple task like this more difficult. What if the nuts are stripped? What if the terrain under/around the car is uneven or not solid ground? What if it's raining or snowing or hailing? What if the driver of the car is irrationally upset and kicks your tire-changing robot over? What if a tire change was requested, but it's clear (to a human) that there is more work that needs to be done?
Every new successful tool doesn't start by trying to meet every need or edge case. They perfect the main case, and then edge cases in priority of likelihood.
Car washes are automated even though they haven't answered the edge cases of how to wash your car when your car is rolled on its side or a terrorist is actively blowing up the equipment. They simply only operate when your car is right side up (and other conditions, like in neutral, wipers off, and a driver who is willing to not exit the vehicle) and when there aren't active bombings on the building. And other "edge" cases.
Just because there is a possibility for something to not work, doesn't make it useless. Automated tire replacements could start with very rigid cases where they are applicable, and expact the scope slowly to allow more cases, like a bent wheel or poor weather.
Then you see a mechanic for the 5% of cases where it's weird? If you think AI is replacing 100% of software engineers anytime soon, idk what to tell you.
I wasn’t trying to say one was better or not, just different. Californians wrap up a large amount of their retirement savings in their houses though, so keeping those home prices high is important to them and that’s a reason for stalling development.
I think Californians do, a lot of time, retire with a higher net worth. But most of them do that because they’re more relatively house-poor during their lives - they take out larger mortgages, and save more into their net worth.
As opposed to Texans, who have higher disposable income since they have smaller house payments. It’s less incentive to save so they may spend more.
So that’s a partial advantage to California - the expensive homes force a higher savings rate, naturally.
But, at retirement age, a lot of their net worth is tied up in their home. So to unlock a lot of those savings they need to move to a lower cost of living state like Arizona, Nevada, Florida, etc.
While the Texans can just stay in their paid-off house.
So yeah it’s just different.
Texans are just paying off their home throughout their life and staying in it. They have larger disposable income to go towards other stuff (kids, lifestyle) while Californians gotta pay that mortgage
It's not that they're "intuitively better" it's that prior generations of them have passes less insane state and local law and they're not at the tail end of a ~20yr industry boom so "pay down my house and cash out to somewhere cheaper" doesn't make sense as a retirement strategy for as many of them.
Or anything where the interaction of small pure functions matters. NAND is a simple pure function. 6 NANDs connected correctly gets you a D flip flop, and suddenly you've got state. Bugs can hide in the combinatorics of all the possible states of your system, and you'll never test them all in polynomial time.
People forget that most tests aren't written to verify if the code is correct or if the spec is being followed. They are mostly written that something isn't broken (mostly to serve as a canary when coding or deploying). There is just too much possible combinations. What you do is doing broad categories and selecting a few candidates to run the code through. But the most important is the theory of the software, having a good understanding of the problem's domain, the model of the solution, and the technical implementation of the solution.
An analogy I've been using is the formula of a curve like y-x^2=0 as the theory of the software. Test points could be (0, 0) (-3, 9), (5, 25). But there's a lot of curves that can pass through these points too. The point's utility is not to prove that you use the correct formula, it's mostly to check if someone has not accidentally change one of the components like the exponent or the minus sign. While the most important for the developer is knowing why we're using this formula.
Yep! I mostly make the point I did to show that "100% coverage" is an impossible metric for any app of even moderate complexity. Regression tests tend to have much more value than trying preemptively find every bug & test for it.
You're subtly shifting the framing to defend doing something different than the post describes.
It makes it kind of unclear if you don't understand the difference between using CC to "investigate the codebase" so you can make a change which you (implicitly) do understand versus using an LLM to make a plausible looking PR although in actuality "you do not understand the ticket ... you do not understand the solution ... you do not understand the feedback on your PR"
reply