Based on a quick skim it looks like he's talking about combatant deaths? I suppose it's technically supports the claim of "maximize death", but in the broader context of civilian casualties it's a bit misleading. Also, isnt the whole point of a military to kill enemy combatants? It might not be an explicit objective, and there are limits to what kinds of killings are allowed, but at the same time I don't think there's any military trying to minimize deaths either, eg. by using less lethal weapons.
The point of a military is to achieve political goals, not specifically to kill. Notice all the rules around PoWs and how the most common role militaries play is deterrence.
>Based on a quick skim it looks like he's talking about combatant deaths?
You should have read the article more closely.
Hegseth describes the war in Iran very differently. At a news conference last week, he said it would have “no stupid rules of engagement.” In another, he said that the U.S. military would shower “death and destruction from the sky all day long.”
Today’s campaign isn’t about enduring freedom. It’s called Operation Epic Fury. “Maximum lethality, not tepid legality,” Hegseth said earlier this year. “Violent effect, not politically correct.”
What part of this language leads you to believe he's only talking about combatant deaths?
We should all care how resources are used, even if don't own them. That investment is going to make things more expensive for everyone. See RAM, SSD, and GPU prices.
Verifying behavior is great and all if you can actually exhaustively test the behaviors of your system. If you can't, then not knowing what your code is actually doing is going to set you back when things do go belly up.
I love this comment because it makes perfect sense today, it made perfect sense 10 years ago, it would have made perfect sense in 1970. The principles of software engineering are not changed by the introduction of commodified machine intelligence.
i 100% agree - the folks who are best at ai-first engineering, they spend 3 days designing the test harness and then kick off an agent unsupervised for 2+ days and come back to working software.
not exactly valuable as guidance since programming languages are very easy to verify, but the https://ghuntley.com/ralph post is an example of whats possible on the very extreme end of the spectrum
Absolutely no one is seriously clamoring for the old team name. It's an issue that DFM. But of course, because it's on the agenda of the day we need to drop everything.
This is no better then switch from master to mainline. They're both idiotic and performative.
