ICE is targeting groups of people based upon a probability that some are illegal. This violates the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment requires reasonable suspicion of a specific individual. This is also why they don’t have warrants, because no judge would grant it. The LA courts have ruled their activity illegal. The federal government is appealing. The SCOTUS ruling allows ICE to continue doing what they are doing until the appeal is heard.
If Tesla has a “no charge” list, they should at a minimum notify Carfax. However, everybody buying a used Tesla needs to be knowledgeable about this caveat. Tesla has a duty to inform the public. How they do this I have no idea. Perhaps the vehicle should never have been released back to the owner if it’s so unsafe. I don’t how that would work legally and financially.
Something that might be useful would be a sub language that didn’t support all the dynamic features that make JIT difficult or slow. Perhaps a module could have a pragma or something to indicate the language set in use. Maybe like Racket. Simply not being able to add new methods or new member variables after initialization would help.
This. Maybe we could call a method of the JIT (it must be exposed) and tell it that we won't use some features of Ruby, globally or inside that scope. That would let it skip some checks. Of course calling that method takes time so it should be something that is called only once. It depends on how the JIT accesses Ruby code.
And if the code actually does what we declared or must not do, we accept any runtime error that it might happen.
We must trust dependencies, including Rails if it's a Rails app.
I recently saw an article about LLMs and Towers of Hanoi. An LLM can write code to solve it. It can also output steps to solve it when the disk count is low like 3. It can’t give the steps when the disk count is higher. This indicates LLMs inability to reason and understand. Also see Gotham Chess and the Chatbot Championship. The Chatbots start off making good moves, but then quickly transition to making illegal moves and generally playing unbelievably poorly. They don’t understand the rules or strategy or anything.
Could the LLM "write code to solve it" if no human ever wrote code to solve it? Could it output "steps to solve it" if no human ever wrote about it before to have in its training data? The answer is no.
Could a human code the solution if they didn't learn to code from someone else? No. Could they do it if someone didn't tell them the rules of towers of hanoi? No.
A human can learn and understand the rules, an LLM never could. LLMs have famously been incapable of beating humans in chess, a seemingly simple thing to learn, because LLMs can't learn - they just predict the next word and that isn't helpful in solving actual problems, or playing simple games.
I think if you tried that with some random humans you'd also find quite a few fail. I'm not sure if that shows humans have an inability to reason and understand although sometimes I wonder.
I sometimes wonder if the issue is really the parentheses or the ease of nesting. In LISP it’s natural to write
(f (g (h x))).
Whereas most people are used to.
a = h(x);
b = g(a);
c = f(b);
In C/C++ most functions return error codes, forcing the latter form.
And then there are functional languages allowing:
x -> h -> g -> f
but I think the implicit parameter passing doesn’t sit well with a lot of programmers either.
Interesting comment. I found the lisp/sexpr form instantly understandable. While the others weren't hard to grasp it took a moment to consciously parse them before their meaning was as clear. Perhaps the functional arrow notation is least appreciated because it's seems more abstract or maybe the arrows are just confusing.
More likely than not it's a matter of what a person gets used to. I've enjoyed working in Lisp/Scheme and C, but not so much in primarily functional languages. No doubt programmers have varied histories that explain their preferences.
As you imply, in C one could write nested functions as f (g (h (x))) if examining return values is unnecessary. OTOH in Lisp return values are also often needed, prompting use of (let ...) forms, etc., which can make function nesting unclear. In reality programming languages are all guilty of potential obscurity. We just develop a taste for what flavor of obscurity we prefer to work with.
The article didn’t discuss ACK. I have often wondered if it makes sense for the protocol to not have ACKs, and to leave that up to the application layer. I feel like the application layer has to ensure this anyway, so I don’t know how much benefit it is to additionally support this at a lower layer.
I see this comment on all language postings and I just don’t get it. I’m much more curious about the motivation behind the language. If the syntax was that of APL, Forth, or Prolog would you just instantly ignore it because it doesn’t look like Java. I think if the language motivation is compelling then you can decide to dive into a tutorial where the syntax will be explained step by step. I don’t see how syntax can be judged before it is understood. Do you accept/reject languages over simple syntax like curly braces vs begin/end or significant white space, or abbreviations you don’t like eg. def, fun, defun, function, procedure.
Examples such as Hello, World! can tell you many things.
They can tell you whether language is statically typed or not, does it have an effect typing (it necessarily needs higher order types), does it have type inference, etc,
Code is poetry and even if you don't know the syntax or details of the tools of the language, a choice example up front gives you a sense of the "rhyme" and "meter" of the language.
Sure, some people are going to use that as an immediate gut filter for "doesn't look enough like languages I already know" or various pet peeves, but on the other side for those that love to dig deep into the syntaxes of esoteric/lesser-known languages it becomes like the first sniff when working on tasting notes of a beverage and tells you a lot up front to your "nose" faster than paragraphs of prose about the motivations of the language. "Ah, yes, I'm sensing a strong Python influence on top of earthy notes of Erlang and just a bit of floral Pascal-ness most recently from the vineyards of Typescript, perhaps?"
Well then what are you reading. It’s well known that Pfizer and Moderna required immunity from lawsuits in order to provide the vaccine and every country gave them that immunity. Here it is from CNBC.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effec...
Perhaps you were thinking about compensation from the government, but the original poster was talking about actually holding Pfizer and Moderna liable.
Okay, work it out for me: how was that a bad trade for world governments and society?
People still have an avenue to sue for harm -- they can sue the government.
The government took on that liability in exchange for preventing the spread of a highly pathogenic, novel pandemic with moderate mortality, thereby allowing return to normal life, with fewer deaths, faster.
VI claims are still paid (faster, with lower standard of evidence, and cheaper to everyone involved). Lawsuits that go through court involve law firms and the investigations become extremely expensive for everyone.
Manufacturers (and rhetorical supply+delivery chain) are monitored by medical orgs and the federal government to ensure the doses remain safe, after passing the initial trials. These review systems catch incidents like the Samoa measles vaccine incident (in which a few nurses were at fault for injecting from the wrong bottles, which RFKJr was on the wrong side of) and other incidents where some vials were contaminated. Unless a VI plaintiff can prove gross negligence, the outcome is better under the current system. If they can prove gross negligence, they can still take a manufacturer (or any other defendant involved in the supply chain) to court.
The government decided that vaccines are a public health net positive and designed to current system to spread the risk across manufacturers and the government to ensure the cost of litigation didn’t eliminate this very useful tool.
Wait. Maybe I'm misinformed, but I believe all vaccine makers are immune from lawsuits. This started back in the 80s, and had nothing to do with COVID.
At a minimum it would be nice to know good colors for the pseudo classes active, focus, hover, link, visited and their various combinations for a light and dark theme. Additionally material UI adds disabled, before, after.
