We don't even know if Socrates not writing his teachings was a principled stance to begin with, so "Socrates was right" is a shaky place to start your argument. Also "Socrates said writing is bad, so don't write in this piece of writing that you didn't force me to buy" is one of the weirdest pieces of circular logic I've ever come across.
Even if we take for granted that it was principled, it almost certainly wasn't pointed at marginalia. The argument (that Plato put in his mouth, through written text, no less) is that writing that substitutes for internal recollection can't answer back. It's an argument against outsourcing a thought to fixed text. A margin note is the opposite: it's the reader talking back to the text.
You have a personal preference about buying unmarked books, and you retreat to a Grand Unifying Socratic Theory whenever someone challenges it.
> it almost certainly harms their own understanding of the book
What? For all people who ever mark up a book in the margins or highlight passages? How could you possibly know that?
> they're doing something that is guaranteed to harm overall human knowledge
Also what? Human knowledge is necessarily a collaborative effort. Reading a text with another person's notes alongside it is just another way to engage with it. I'll maybe grant you highlighting since it's been shown to not help with retention all that much.
We have a deeper understanding of some of the most famous thinkers in history because we have books that they marked up to help us understand how they engaged with specific texts. This is invaluable for "overall human knowledge."
Herman Melville marked up his copies of Shakespeare's works and that shaped how scholars read Moby-Dick. Did he "harm overall human knowledge" by doing that?
There is line that connects gov't subsidies in wealthy countries for the last 50 years funding private R&D to poorer countries being able to afford it. Arguably the poorer countries don't get to make the "decisions based on economic reality" in favor of solar without the subsidies in wealthy countries happening first. There is also an argument to be made that the R&D isn't finished and it still makes sense to subsidize it to drive the cost down further.
So you're erecting a straw man and attacking that. My assertion is that policing in the US has structural issues that need to be addressed. I disagree that it's helpful to remember that it could be worse as evidenced in other countries. That's irrelevant to the original assertion.
Also the argument that there are proposals on how to address structural issues in policing that you deem "ridiculous nonsense" is a straw man that does not address my assertion.
I've never understood the "be happy you're not in authoritarian Russia" type of argument for papering over the shortcomings of circumstances here in the US. Like, ok? Why are we comparing ourselves to places that are worse? Shouldn't we be striving to make things better relative to our own ideals and standards?
> you're essentially the new guy on your own project
Holy shit that's the best description of this phenomenon I've heard so far. The most stark version of this I've experienced is working on a side project with someone who isn't a software engineer who vibe coded a bunch of features without my input. The code looked like 6-8 different people had worked on it with no one driving architecture and I had to untangle how it all got put together.
The sweet spot for me is using it in places where I know the exact pattern I want to use to solve a problem and I can describe it in very small discrete steps. That will often take something that would have taken me an hour or two to hand code something tedious down to 5-10 minutes. I agree that there's no going back, even if all progress stopped now that's too huge of a gain to ignore it as a tool.
This isn't a Getty Images initiative, but rather being run by the Getty Museum which is under the Getty Trust. My partner actually works on some of these systems at the Getty and you're right, it's daunting. The sad part is that the Getty gets to do these kinds of things only because it's one of the best endowed institutions on the planet with funding to pay researchers/archivists/developers to do this work. There is so much more that is locked away at large, medium, and small institutions that would be available for the public, but just isn't because of lack of funding.
I really like the pipelines feature in Heroku. Being able to automatically deploy to a staging environment from main and then be able to promote that exact slug to production is pretty cool. I’ve yet to find a tool that has replicated that experience or something like it without getting in the weeds with Docker.
As far as I know it’s not possible to have separate environments where you’re guaranteed a bit-for-bit match going from staging to production in Render. You have to build for each environment, which if your builds are deterministic should be fine, but I’ve definitely seen that go haywire where you find out your build is in fact not deterministic in some subtle way.
But doesn't what you're describing reinforce the author's point? Tech firms in Canada aren't paying high enough wages to keep talent in their pool in order satisfy profit milestones rather than pursuing growth. That's the exact difference in mindset the author points out.
I should have been more clear. That was the point I was trying to make. Anyone I've talked to about using firearms for home defense likes hollow points because of the damage they do to a home invader, not how much safer the rounds are because they stop.
They're designed to prevent going straight through by expanding inside of soft tissues. One of the effects of that is increased tissue damage. So they maybe they weren't "designed to cause maximum harm" but that's certainly one of the effects over a full metal jacket round.
Then imagine that the audiologist is being paid to force the patient into hearing advertisements rather than working with the patient to understand what sounds they want to hear. Does that fix the analogy?