Are you familiar with Georgia’s “Cop City”? This sort of thing does and has happened in the United States, and recently.
> Carr obtained indictments against 61 people, alleging violations of the state’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) law, over ongoing efforts to halt construction of Cop City. Indicted activists, including a protest observer, face steep penalties of up to 20 years in prison. Three bail fund organizers face additional money laundering charges, and five people also face state domestic terrorism charges. [0]
Is it ok because the prosecutor isn’t seeking life sentences? Do you contend that the activists are being treated fairly as one expects in a democratic society that values rule of law? Is it acceptable because America is 66% less repressive than China and against a narrower range of views (like socialism/communism, see Debs et al)? Have you really even interrogated your positions?
> were they charged and convicted with subversion, treason, or anything like a felony? Because that's what happen in HK.
Not yet. But it’s obtuse bordering on disingenuous to claim this isn’t on the table, given rhetoric from politicians (current and former). Or is eliminationist rhetoric and political repression okay as long as it isn’t done the way China does it?
Also, are you familiar what how the anti-Cop City protest movement has been treated in Georgia?
Honestly I want to know if you’re speaking from ignorance or malice.
This is so bleak, and the reason these bromides against CEOs appear is because this system of global capitalism is intent on commoditizing everything; even a CEO’s skill set.
Some people (either CEOs themselves or temporarily embarrassed wage workers) will bristle at this because it’s written from the perspective of warning/mocking CEOs who so readily automate-away workforces.
But an honest accounting would recognize that these automation processes have been happening for many decades, now. And maybe the CEO is diminished, but that’s besides the point that all of this just serves to accumulate wealth to the capital class, who’ve almost become sovereign (when Bezos, Musk, Andreeson et al can conduct independent foreign diplomacy or get a dedicated seat in the UNSC, I will be happy to revise this).
Everything is up for grabs, and if a board of ancient mummies can enslave a populace with an AI as well as with a flesh-and-blood C-suite, then they will. Because of the pressures to optimize and deliver more value that undergird our current society!
On the upside: an LLM probably lies less than a human CEO.
Please expand on the tension between the competing passages of “We have the technology to pause the worst effects..” and “It’s far from a complete solution”.
The phrase “since the dawn of humanity” is doing a lot of work in this comment. On a long enough timeline, the “world has ended” multiple times. This isn’t doomerism, it’s a pragmatic view from a biologist’s perspective.
Also as others pointed out, you misinterpret or misrepresent the interviewee’s words by placing “the end of the world” alongside TFA’s as though a thoughtful discussion with domain experts (in biology) is the same as the ravings of apocalyptic cranks.
Do you have an argument besides the ad hominem directed at “these people among us”?
I thought this article (a polemic and critical reflection on New Atheism) would be interest to the HN community.
History has shown us that a lot of “intellectual movements” loved by technologists et al have gone nowhere or otherwise been a joke:
- Rationalism: Styling itself as a rigorous way to interrogate reality to chart the best path forward (nurtured by the lesswrong community), its crowning achievement was Roko’s Basilisk, a hilarious “doomsday scenario” that only holds true if you happen to have a VERY specific set of beliefs about AGI and what its motive would be (ie the priors you must hold to believe RB are de facto religious)
Effective Altruism: Same as above, but (supposedly) tied to material pursuit of improving life for humanity as a whole; in practice, another rich tech brat playground and favored mindset of at least one multi-billion dollar fraud; also EA-motivated actors haven’t made a dent in any measurable global indicator of health/happiness, so what is all that money going for? Could it be think tanks?
And New Atheism: just a stalking horse for evopsych sex pests and neocons in academia (see the support for the war on terror, obsession with “western values” ,positions on campus protest post 10/7, etc… the article covers it well)
Putting this together: I think that “our community” isn’t very good at philosophy and the “lifestyles” we endorse end being the positions of culture-war conservatives (ie transphobia on the basis of “scientific reality”) or economic libertarians and white supremecist freaks like Moldbug.
I’d also like to be able to say I’m against ideology, but really I’m not. You can probably guess my perspective by what I devalue in my comment above. We are all reflections of our effect on the world, and I think the effect of the three “movements” above has been negative.
I don't think there's any guarantee that browser vendors will continue to support WASI 0.1 indefinitely; Once multiple versions of the standard are in play, codebase supporting them simultaneously explode in size. None of this gets into the likelihood that, once WASI hits 1.0, the prior versions very well could be "retired".
And keep in mind that the perspective of the author is that things will only get worse from hereon, with regard to WASM.
I was wrong about debug vs release; It's the difference between 4.0MB & 893KB on a ~500 LOC rust codebase (per cloc).
I want to observe that your suggestions don't undermine or refute my point about problems that WASM adoption faces. This serves to underline that the developer experience needs work. Opinions may differ on how much. Also that "developer experience" runs on multiple axes of concern (bin size, perf, accessibility, utility of language, etc).
It's hard because, a lot of this stuff (async WASM, effect-driven WASM, GC in WASM, etc) is all driven by the desire to push these concerns out of wasm bytecodes, because it explodes the binary's size.
I have a pretty trivial webapp written in Yew and I stopped working on it once I saw that the wasm artifacts were weighing at 4MB (uncompressed) for relatively little functionality. THIS is what is driving the next round of "work" on WASM: to wring more functionality out of a system (WASI 0.1) designed as a drop-in replacement for emscripten output. As an aside on this point, the author is waaaay in front of their skies with basically all of their critiques around ByteCode Alliance; A lot of innuendo to basically serve a rhetorical point that isn't really true (WASI 0.1 is "good enough"). It has drawbacks! That's what the iterations on the protocol are exploring!
And this tech is cool and all, but right now a reasonably-vanilla typescript react app w/ a modern bundler (ie including stuff like router, redux, oidc, etc) is beating the breaks off of a similar app in Rust or C#/Blazor in terms of bin size. And there's no perf or API-surface argument that overcomes this. And it has chilling effect on developers when they reach for this tech.
I’m interested in this because I’m writing this LC dialect as a deliberate, extensible IR with a targeted “bottom-dialect” (a System F, if you will) that can be translated to any number of lower representations.
My goal is use it as an extensible dialect that can be built up to any arbitrarily complex dialect of LC (Calculus of Constructions, Algebraic Effects, etc). Those “higher dialects” themselves can be targets for some “front end” language that’s palatable to end-programmers.
There’s a lot of thoughtful insights here in this paper, namely the idea of “combining steps” to optimize/remove IRs. This also corresponds to the same practices in eg Koka (which goes straight to C or wasm/js; heck maybe they cite this paper?)
I personally reflect on this because I think an extensible IR is just a stop-gap to an optimized process, allowing you to “grow” the language semantics you want, but ultimately you’ll have to rewrite bc of perf. This happened with rustc, as well.
The author is an experienced federal litagator and former AUSA. He writes frequently on first ammendment topics, which are of great interest and import to the USA'ian Hacker News community.
If you don't like his opinions, let's hear your arguments.