These are all additions to the existing treaty that could have been added without the drama, anger and stupid memes, without Trump blustering about "deals" and without terrifying the inhabitants of Greenland.
I think a huge failure mode for progressive politics is looking at a difficult problem like climate change that can only be addressed through a mix of hard international coordination problems and hard technical problems, only to decide that it's really just a political question of beating the fossil fuel industry.
With thousands of developed in a mono repo, it just does happen that one directory is missing one of the two files and this means that a subset of devs work with lobotomy. We fix this with automation but it’s a stupid complexity tax that shouldn’t have to be paid.
The USA has kept dribbling small amounts of military support for Ukraine because it gives the USA a great deal of leverage, the ability to both shape how Ukraine fights its war and even how European states prepare.
Progressive slopulism really fucked us with this "Private equity is buying up all the houses" argument. It's a fractally stupid concern AND an excuse for deferring zoning reform.
Always try your stupid ideas if you can do it cheaply and reversibly. Jumping off a bridge is not a reversible decision. Not talking about that. I'm talking about stuff like this where you're just like, "Here's a stupid idea." 99 times out of a 100 it'll fail. But that one time you won't have any competition cuz nobody else is stupid enough to try this idea.
Whereas if you're a maritime power observing someone else being invaded cuz in theory it's pretty tough to invade you by sea, it's a major point of strategy as to whether you're going to intervene at all and if you are, what is the timing?
Memory safety is this idea that no matter how stupid the code you write is, it's not going to have a certain class of bugs. And this is the, you know, the kind of bug that usually leads into security vulnerabilities.
So even though the models have improved tremendously and if you give them an agentic task, they will just go for hours and move mountains for you. And then you ask for like a joke and it has a stupid joke. It's crappy joke from five years ago and it's because it's outside of the it's outside of the RL.
I think Opus 4.5 was the first one that earned my trust. Like I'm very confident now that for classes of problems that I've seen it tackle before, it's not going to do anything stupid.
They actually had the budget and bought the stupid thing. Then they went through onboarding and invested their time etc etc. That is a crazy gauntlet that almost no one gets through.
I honestly believe that the people at this time were not stupid. They weren’t gorillas. They weren’t less advanced than we are. They were probably indistinguishable from what we are.
So they think, a lot of the historians, they think the Mongols are so stupid, they let the irrigation system be destroyed. No, it takes more work to destroy an irrigation system than it does to create it. They destroyed those systems out of a policy, and that was, “This is going to return to pasture land.”
So the next step then is to try anything no matter how stupid and in fact almost the stupider, the better, which technically is almost guaranteed to fail, but the way it fails is going to be instructive.
Milton Friedman, he also does tend to have friends who agree with him, yet he's always willing to debate his opponents, and he's willing to do so with a smile on his face. He's a happy warrior, and he actually will win a lot of debates simply by his emotional affect and his cheerfulness and his confidence, where Rand will lose debates because she gets so angry in the face of disagreement.
I know from the report that Stanford put out earlier this year that Telegram does not report CSAM to NCMEC at all. That is very stupid. I would imagine Telegram would argue that as a non-US company it doesn’t have to abide by such laws.
The bar I typically suggest is that the people manager doesn't need to have the most technical depth on the team, but they need enough depth that they can follow most discussions without slowing them down, understand who's correct in most debates without needing to rely on trust, and generally stay oriented easily.
A korrent is a belief a person has stated in their own words: one
sentence stating the claim, backed by a quote and a source, kept at
korrents.com.
Under a name here, the quoted block is what they actually said.
The korrent beneath it is the claim those words support, in
korrents' wording — tap it to see the record, its source, and who
else holds it.
Nobody here wrote their own korrents. They are compiled from public
statements, and a person can change their mind, which is recorded too.
About the English under a post
Some people here publish in a language other than English. Where they
do, this site shows a machine translation beneath the post, in
this typeface — the site's own, not theirs.
The post itself is never changed, moved or hidden: what is set in the
serif above is exactly what the person published, and it is what to
quote them on. A translation can be wrong in ways that matter,
especially about tone.
Only the post's own words are translated. A quoted post, a linked
article and a belief on korrents.com
are left in their original language.