My rationale given on another comment is when writing web apps, everything comes in as text so you have to parse/convert and validate parameters anyhow.
Dynamic makes a lot of sense for web programming. Static should definitely be used in high risk software where its life and death, medical devices, rockets, nuclear plants, etc.
If you’re checking and validating inputs into a method and you’re writing web applications where everything is text over HTTP, having type checking notations, etc. are a bit overkill.
Cisco still exists and was a winner for a long time. The company that emerged hugely successful out of the dot com era was Amazon, they dominate ecommerce today.
Take a look further back to the Personal Computer era in the 80's into early 90's. There were tons of PC makers out there, IBM became dominant but they haven't been in that business for a long time now. Microsoft was the enormous winner coming out of that.
When grandma starts talking about GPU's and NVIDIA stock, this AI bubble might be at its peak. I think if history rhymes with past lyrics (that whole history doesn't repeat but rhymes thing), its more likely that a software company (OpenAI, Google, Microsoft) is going to be the dominant player emerging from a potential bubble burst.
A potential pin-prick to the bubble (looking into my crystal ball): pricing for AI - once companies realize their runways are running out and they want to turn a profit of some kind to stakeholders they will need to raise prices to offset the energy and hardware build outs. Customers may realize they aren't getting the productivity to offset those increased costs and hold back budgets on AI spend. Or chip tariffs depending on TACO volatility.
Isn't that true for other companies that survived the times? That the bubble created extreme highs before it burst and now the companies have grown more naturally?
The key thing no LLM or AI is capable of is innovation. The basis of all their inputs came from humans. If a company needs to pivot, good leader(s) can execute that and have tremendous impact, I wouldn't trust AI to come up with that strategy.
The reason AI/LLMs are talked about augmenting/replacing people who code is because LLMs are really good at well defined, structured text output and there is a large amount of training already done. Let the LLM/AI do the tedious, repetitive parts of the work and let the engineer spend their energy on harder problems.
Pattern recognition. I don't mean the ability to do regular expressions. I mean the ability to recognize patterns in software development, organizations, and trends in the industry. It helps recognize when you've seen something similar before and know a good approach to dealing with it. This would include design patterns (like Gang of Four), integration patterns, architecture patterns, etc. There are a lot of problems out there that have stable, known solutions to them.
Learning n8n a little more for some automated tasks on a hobby project. Maybe try re-learning sketchup to diagram some home improvement/woodworking projects.
Probably overthink buying a mini PC to run Ubuntu on to do homelab like things, like running n8n or other docker images on like plex. Then probably abandon the idea and watch something off a streaming service, lol.
> The fact that the owner can keep it going is a testament to the maintainability of combustion engines that don't have high tech computers in them.
New engines with modern ECUs are every bit as maintainable.
The ECU doesn’t make an engine less maintainable. Modern engines would have more moving pieces such as variable valve timing but otherwise they’re very similar in concept and maintenance.
One part of maintainability is cost. And a simpler mechanical engine without proprietary ECUs is going to be cheaper to maintain, provided parts are available.
If someone encounters issues with an ECU and it needs replacement at $1k-2k they might just consider the costs and that being a down payment on a new vehicle vs. repairing. Labor costs more than parts for complicated electrical/computer/engine problems. Electrical issues in modern vehicles don't appear to be easy to troubleshoot, sometimes require proprietary tools. A simpler mechanical engine could be DIY repaired and running, check out the "low-buck garage" youtube channel and the $2 Jeep series as an example.
I'm not advocating something like going back to computer-less, inefficient, stinky, loud cars, just pointing out that when we add computers to things, it makes them less maintainable to the average person.
> I don't think anything with mechanical moving parts is going to last that long, with regular usage, and have original parts.
I know of at least two cars with 800k km with original engines. Both GM small blocks (Gen 2, multiport fuel injection so computer-controlled). Neither engine has been opened since they rolled off the floor in the 90s. They’re not particularly efficient (only about 270HP out of 5.7L) but if taken care of, they probably will go forever.
Definitely an exception, though. Very little else on those cars is still original. But it can be done.
There are definitely a few engine designs out there that won the design lottery in terms of longevity. I know a guy that has close to half a million miles on a Jeep Cherokee with the old AMC 4-liter straight six, and the only engine work done other than plugs and wires is replacing the water pump at 250k. I've got ~186k on my Jeep with the same engine, and it doesn't even burn any oil yet.
When do specific actions taken by the current US administration cross the legal line into treason or other legal lines where defense against domestic enemies is warranted?
When they cross the constitutional definition of treason:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
I would argue the three branches should rarely be aligned with each other. They should follow the Constitution AND keep checks and balances on each other. Neither of the branches should have absolute power over the others. This opinion, although not an expert one, is because of what is currently happening in the US and the lack of wisdom being employed.
The point of checks and balances is not obstruction for the sake of obstruction. It is that no branch should be subservient or overly deferential to the other branches.
For example, Congress should not do everything the president wants just because he's the president as is happening now.
Congresspeople have said out loud that the job of Congress is to ask "how high" when the president says "jump". Congress last year backtracked on immigration reform because the Republican candidate demanded it. Congress just took vacation early because the president needs a break from the stress of being on a sex traffickers contact list. Congress has allowed the executive to destroy congressionally mandated departments without challenge.
Each body of government should be protective of their own power and responsibility and fight against other branches illegally usurping it.
I recommend reading Federalist 51, and perhaps 53 and 76. Also John Adams "Thoughts on Government".
I don't think they're doing it just because he says so, they're doing it because they are aligned with him. 40% of the country also agrees with him and 15% don't care either way.
Ultimately, this is the government the people have chosen, those of us in the other 45% have waning political power and cultural influence. Not really much can be done at this point besides hang on for dear life and hope the pendulum remains functional enough to swing back the other way.
What you're describing is the least of your problems with Trump. In a Westminster system, the leader of the party in power is basically the head of government, the head of state, and the leader of the legislature all rolled into one. And it works without destroying democracy. I genuinely believe that good can come out of American political parties becoming single leader parties. The democrats should do the same, honestly. The fact that Trump has completely eliminated any internal distinction within his party, and deemed it vital that his R-mates have to do exactly what he says, is not what concerns me with Trump.
Well, we don't have a parliamentary system, and our executive has more power than a UK prime Minister, I believe. What you're advocating for is a vestigial legislature to do the will of the king (in the US system).
Between a two party system, a gerrymandered House and a useless Senate, the last thing we need is an absolute ruler.
The British PM isn't "basically" or in any way the head of state or of the legislature. The monarch and the House of Lords still exist and the latter should and very much do assert their power.
You believe that the monarch has any vestigial power?? If the PM calls the King to prorogue Parliament, they HAVE to do it. And the House of Lords has given its authority to the House of Commons.
A British Prime Minister has more power than an American President.
> You believe that the monarch has any vestigial power??
I believe they are the head of state and that they carry out the functions of the head of state in a way that is consistent with comparable states such as Ireland or The Netherlands.
> And the House of Lords has given its authority to the House of Commons.
No they have not. The 1911 Act is alive and well. It is occasionally called into question but the Lords have retained their authority. And all of this is to say nothing of the courts etc.
> A British Prime Minister has more power than an American President.
This is neither here nor there in regards to the claim made above. They are not "basically" the legislature...
If you believe the British Monarch has the leeway of the elected Irish President, oh boy, you have drank the kool-aid of the monarchists who are adamant the monarch is needed.
The reality is the British monarch acts, and only acts, under recommandation of their Prime Minister. The King could not deny the letter of credence to a nation without advice from a PM, or accept letters of credence without advice as well.
That means the PM effectively controls the Head of State, and when you control the Head of State, you are exercising their power.
> oh boy, you have drank the kool-aid of the monarchists who are adamant the monarch is needed.
I have to say before anything else that this comes across as extremely condescending and not at all in keeping with the site guidelines. It's unlikely that I will give a further response after this.
> The reality is the British monarch acts, and only acts, under recommandation of their Prime Minister.
You mean similarly to how the president acts under recommendation from the Taoiseach?
> The King could not deny the letter of credence to a nation without advice from a PM, or accept letters of credence without advice as well.
You think the president could do this in the ROI?
> That means the PM effectively controls the Head of State
Ok? There is more to being head of state than your cherry picked examples. In nether case are they the same role and to reiterate: the House of Lords and the British court system are very much not without authority.
edit for clarity: My point is that faux-witty slights at communities to suggest nothing is wrong with a government is intellectually shallow and appeals to authority without making any point itself.
You misunderstand what an argument from authority is if this is your justification for it. It's not "authority" meaning they can tell you what to do but instead meaning they are an expert on the subject matter. It is valid when a consensus of experts all say the same thing but if there is not an expert consensus then it starts to become more questionable.
In this context, if many independent legal experts and scholars are looking at the decisions being made by the three branches of government and saying there could be bad ramifications, the argument from authority falls flat; there is another authority saying the first authority is wrong.
We are waaayyy passed that line. We are, for just about every definition, living in an authoritarian state. Trump has immunity, from the Supreme Court, support in the house and senate, support of the media, and enough support from the military.
Freaadom isnt free. I think americans forget that. They are waiting for someone else to come save them, which will NEVER happen.
You've just rephrased 'The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants' (just an observation, not taking stance here, esp. as an outsider)
That has not yet been shown. When it comes down to it, I wonder what the military will do. Will they uphold their oath, which is to the Constitution? Or will they obey the President, as commander in chief?
It is being shown daily. You're forgetting how things work in authoritarian states. In those countries, the military is AT ALL TIMES a risk for a dictator. They must be mollified somehow, lest the trucks with the armed men come rolling towards the palace.
In those countries, the military top brass will voice concerns privately, will leak unhappiness with the regime discreetly to other factions in the country. The US military is completely silent and subservient. This means Trump has their support. No one in the military complained when he bombed Iran or sent them to LA, for example. For all we know he did it for them. So Trump does not fear the trucks with men, and so has military support.
They are, generally, propping up the regime. So long as the media continues to report this regime as a temporary and normal occurrence, regardless of whether a specific media outlet labels this as positive or negative, it supports the regime.
He is held to a much different, lower standard than other politicians. I respect the NYT but we had articles near-daily about (Biden's ) age and capacity for office, because decent people (Democrats) care about that sort of thing. Donald Trump daily shows he is mentally unfit for office and a terrible, lawbreaking citizen - but because it's expected of him and his party, it gets said and then we read about a cute cottage in Nantucket as if it's all citizens should be doing.
We should be organizing general strikes, shutting down cities and more. January 6 wasn't wrong for being violent, it was wrong because it was done for fictional pretenses.
Trump is a headline generator. The media undoubtedly supports him.
Epstein headlines are big engagement vectors, yet haven’t seemed to bring about any sort of accountability. They can report on things that make him look bad, and he remains in power, with his supporters still supporting him despite the evidence presented.
> Trump is a headline generator. The media undoubtedly supports him.
Isn't this like saying "doctors are pro heart disease because it keeps them employed"?
> Epstein headlines are big engagement vectors, yet haven’t seemed to bring about any sort of accountability.
True, but accountability for who exactly? There are a few people who are known to have been on the island - Prince Andrew, Bill Gates. No real accountability for them so far. Then there's a lot of suspicion around political figures like Trump and Bill Clinton, but no hard evidence. The fact that the Biden administration took no action here either suggests that either there's not enough evidence to actually do anything or prominent figures from both parties are implicated. I'd love to know the truth but I suspect that Epstein is going to be our generations JFK assassination and people are going to be spinning conspiracy theories about the situation for decades while the truth remains murky.
> there's not enough evidence to actually do anything
The fact there isn't enough evidence for a criminal conviction does not mean the public does not have a right to full transparency from the government. There is such a thing as public opinion. If Clinton is credibly implicated, we deserve to know so we can form a better opinion of him. Same for Trump.
It declared the president to be immune from prosecution for actions falling within the scope of his office.
It did not declare that the president cannot be impeached. It did not declare that the president cannot be criminally charged for what he does that exceeds the scope of his office (though it's a high bar to prove it). And most of all, it did not declare that whatever he does is automatically constitutional.
It declared that he is literally above the law for anything that the most devoted loyalist court can consider part of the job.
He could order the assassination of rival politicians for national security purposes and we would get a 6-3 ruling that nothing can stop him except the GOP congress.
> Didn't the Supreme Court declare anything the administration does, legal..?
No.
> Or was that just for the president?
Also no.
It established a three-branch approach to whether the President is immune to criminal prosecution for acts that, ignoring any immunity he might have due to being President at the time of the act, would be within the domain of potential criminal prosecution, in which (loosely):
(1) Acts relating to a narrow set of core Constitutional powers of the Presidency are given absolute immunity,
(2) Other official acts have a case-by-case analysis for immunity weighing whether allowing prosecution for the kind of act involved would impair the functioning of the office,
(3) Acts that, despite being committed while President, have no official character have no immunity stemming from the fact that they were committed while President.
The distinction is irrelevant, and if you read the ruling - any evidence that proves difference between the three is inadmissible in court. It is impossible to challenge grounds of the Executive saying that any and ALL actions he takes is within the capacity of an "official duty". The ruling makes clear that we simply HAVE to take their word for it.
One must understand that the more safeguards we have to enact retribution in these cases, the better. You're not supposed to point to one after loss of another - you're supposed to point towards as many as possible. Before last July, the courts were the one we pointed to the most, and they are no longer nearly as much at our disposal as they were before then.
It doesn't invoke sovereign immunity through a loud roar, but from an understood nod.
this is a largely meaningless distinction, immunity covers all the most concerning Presidential misbehavior (i.e. abuse of the powers of the office) while leaving him vulnerable to prosecution for petty personal crimes like getting in a fist fight or something.
I don't know. I feel like this isn't it. If having armed masked bands of military police kidnapping citizens to concentration camps or dismantling the government to purge it for ideological reasons or trying to retcon Epstein isn't it, then editing a website definitely isn't it.
probably nothing that relates to information on a consumer website. even bringing up treason in this context is so wildly alarmist that it detracts from your credibility.
What you have stated is almost the same as call Vanguard, all those options are the same in the sense that they all involve investing, leaving it alone for a long time. Its just the vehicle thats slightly different and tax advantages.
I wouldn’t consider those options needing much motivation or research. The key with all of them is investing early and leaving it alone.
If one is clueless with investing and taxes in general, and they call vanguard, their eyes will glaze over. It would be like me explaining software development to my 85 year old father.
I do agree people should call vanguard. But just blindly following steps they give you is unlikely to be productive if you don’t understand why you’re doing those steps. Furthermore, those people who don’t understand _why_ will freak out every time there’s a huge market correction. They get scared - because they don’t understand any of it.
I’m also curious, do they offer financial advice for your accounts outside vanguard? Genuinely curious since i’m unsure.
I’ve think the “call” part is a bit from the past, should be a setup account online with Vanguard, put it in VOO or VTSAX or the equivalent low fee market index fund and leave it alone.
Replace Vanguard with any other firm but the key is picking low fee ETFs and leaving them alone. Vanguard tends to have a reputation for the lowest fees.
Dynamic makes a lot of sense for web programming. Static should definitely be used in high risk software where its life and death, medical devices, rockets, nuclear plants, etc.
reply