All sorts of questions - "What's the best way to do X?", "How would it impact security?", "Why we need this?", "What happens if this fails?", "Remind me how this works?", "Am I thinking in the right direction?"
Even more questions to the business / CEO ( Why this, why now )
"why", "how", "can we", "who can"?
Just try to be humble in the world where nobody knows anything (including yourself)... :)
One could do worse than asking for major decisions to come with a (ultralight, readme like) platform/product enhancement proposal (PEP).
Then, in a group, probing together for 12 factor app or AWS well architected type principles as well as something like BSA security principles, gets you a very long way.
The framework doesn't matter, just something to cause a beat of design, ops, and threat modeling and "rugged manifesto" thinking.
Also visas expire, so why not simply implement better checks for new visas. Most of the 55M visas are probably fine, so you have to spend an exorbitant amount of resource on finding very few issues. It's much cheaper to add additional check to new visa applications.
55M is also just a crazy amount of visas for a country with 350M citizens. Especially given that I'd guess that a large amount of people travel to the US on a visa waive program.
Why can't they retain stories like Dredd, The Minority Report and Continuum as fiction? They were supposed to be warnings, not user manuals. Something being possible doesn't always mean that it's a good idea.
PS: This rather useless comment is actually an expression of frustration. We are a population of more than 8 billion. Why are such concepts even tolerated?
Yes, literally the first thing I thought of was "oh, another government LLM use case." Exactly the same crap doge was doing.
Whatever contractor is working on this is probably salivating at the opportunity to refine capabilities. I still think at some point this is going to be used to field questions like "ok, show me the top 10 citizens in this area who regularly engage in X online behavior."
Its a fair question, not sure why you are being downvoted. I don't buy organic. The primary reason for me to consider it healthier is just that the animals are fed (supposedly) on pesticide free feed. My opinion rests on that. If you are speaking from a pure nutrition perspective I would say nothing.
There are others that I am sure would argue for other reasons such as the reduction of drug resistant bacteria for the good of all but I'm not sure that really plays out. It only works if the amount of organic sold far outstrips non organic. It also means intentionally paying more for the good of the commons while the majority don't.
Redbook | Senior Founding Backend Engineer | Remote (Americas) | $150-200k + up to 0.75% equity
Redbook is the new software of reference for cattle feed yards. We're digitizing the $90B cattle industry, the largest vertical in agriculture. We have built the only cloud-based product in the industry that connects field operations and financials. The market is resonating with our solution with more than 50 customers using the product. We plan to completely change how farmers manage their businesses and money.
We're hiring a Senior backend engineer to help us integrate with other agtech products, build new features, and improve scalability. Upcoming projects include integrating feed yard software and hardware, fintech offerings, user-facing RBAC, performance improvement, and much more!
Redbook | Senior+/Staff Founding Engineer | Remote (Americas) | $170-250k + up to 1% equity
Redbook is the new software of reference for cattle feedyards. We're digitizing the $90B cattle industry, the largest vertical in agriculture. We have built the only cloud-based product in the industry that connects field operations and financials. The market is resonating with our solution with a backlog of go-lives and almost 50 customers using the product. We plan to completely change how farmers manage their businesses and money.
We're hiring a Senior+/Staff engineer to help us improve scalability and performance, build new features, integrate with other agtech products, and lead technical projects. Upcoming projects include integrating feedyard software and hardware, performance improvement, user-facing RBAC, fintech offerings, and much more!
Hamas directly and intentionally targeted civilians. Israel is doing what it can to limit civilian casualties while destroying Hamas. Hamas is making that very difficult by blending in with the population, putting command centers under major hospitals and so on.
> Hamas is making that very difficult by blending in with the population, putting command centers under major hospitals and so on.
If there's a command center under a hospital, then you don't bomb the hospital. The fact that your enemy is using "human shields" doesn't mean that it's justified to bomb and kill everyone, including the shields. Now every relative and friend of the innocent people you killed has a reason to pick up a gun against you.
Obviously this puts you at a disadvantage. Instead of bombing targets on a screen from the comfort of an air-conditioned office in Tel Aviv, you'll have to send special forces in on the ground and probably take a lot of casualties. But you demonstrate to the civilians that you're not just killing them indiscriminately.
> Israel is doing what it can to limit civilian casualties while destroying Hamas.
You should really read the parent article at the top of the page. It doesn't support this statement and the court ruling was created from a mountain of evidence.
They hunted down, shot, and killed multiple of their own, underwear-clad civilian citizens who were all the while waving white flags and loudly surrendering in hebrew [0]
Imagine the sort of intentional targeting we don't get to see, because the journalists are killed [1] or the internet is cut [2] or the power is cut [3] or because everyone hiding is terrified to even move, knowing anything moving will be shot on sight [4], even surrendering Israeli hostages [0]. What a nightmare.
Known (indeed, willing) indiscriminate killing of civilians (especially in civilian areas, yikes) is as much a war crime [5] as "intentionally targeting civilians", even if one shouts "get out of there!" or "human shields!" or "terrorists!" or "it's comin' right for us!" in a Calvinball-style declaration whilst doing it.
For more detailed analysis of how Israel seems to be ignoring their obligation to protect Palestinian civilians, I recommend consulting the full ruling [6] from the ICJ, the literal judges of this matter.
Not picking a side or trying to punish anyone, I'm just highlighting that the difference in the number of victims is quite significant. It would be quite a different situation if Israel had killed only sightly more Palestinian civilians than Hamas' did in their attack. Actually, I suspect that this ICJ order would not have occurred, and that there wouldn't be such widespread accusations of genocide.
I think you are reading mmuch more into that reply than is warranted.
It’s simple fact more people have now died due to Israel’s actions.
That doesn’t mean they necessarily need to be punished for it. The international community doesn’t really need to.
If this is anything like the other 10 times Israel did one of their “Let’s provision some extra terrorists” exercises, they’ve already guaranteed that they’ll deal with two or three more decades of the palestinian population hating their guts.
I mean, sure, you can retreat to arguments about whether it's a personal accusation or just an abstract idea, or whether I can substantiate use of the combined pharse "genocidal colonizer" (which of course I can't). But we both know that's hairsplitting.
The point I was trying to make is that there is a large population of people[1] out there who AGREE with you on virtually every practical, relevant point of public policy or international relations.... but who will never make common cause with you if they perceive your goals as the invalidation of the nationality of nine million people. There's no solution here that doesn't involve Zionists, just as there's no solution that rejects Islam.[2]
[1] And in particular people with significant influence over the Israeli policy you want to see changed!
[2] Realistically there's just no solution, and it would do well for everyone involved to recognize that and resign ourselves to the policy of just reducing immediate harm as what amounts to a BATNA.
Both those accusations are colorable and have non-inflammatory interpretations.
For example, sociologically speaking, Israel is a settler-colonialist state. What activists don't acknowledge is that the concept of "settler-colonialism" was invented to describe the distinction between extractive colonialism, of the King Leopold of Belgium type, and the long-term sustainable kind, of the New Zealand type. It was a way of working out why some human migration seems to "work" and others don't. Later --- I think probably in part due to the abuses of "settlers" within Israel, in the West Bank --- the term became an epithet. I suspect it's used largely by people who don't know the meaning.
Similarly, there's a colloquial meaning to the word "genocide" that doesn't intersect with the legal meaning. It's any campaign of mass violence directed at a race or creed. That meaning is dilutive of the original concept of genocide, which really did mean an effort to erase (through murder, sterilization, or kidnapping) an entire ethnicity. But it has meaning nonetheless.
However justified the military operation of Gaza might be, it would be difficult for a supporter of the IDF to argue that it doesn't consistute mass violence targeting Palestinians, even if it pretty clearly doesn't have either the intention or the potential to erase the Palestinian identity (I feel like if you asked an activist selected at random for a percentage of Palestinians killed in Gaza, you'd get a double-digit number from most of them, which of course not even close).
This is like the arsonist talking about "a burning house". Whose flagged sub-thread is it? Why is it flagged?
> whether I can substantiate use of the combined pharse "genocidal colonizer" (which of course I can't).
Hold on. That is quite the lift and shift. You asserted the existence of "many" non-genocidal non-colonizers who are being repeatedly called genocidal colonizers by left-leaning Americans. When pressed to name one (1) of those many, you said that you "of course" can't substantiate the use of that phrase. (Whether that prevents you from naming one is debatable.)
Now you are asserting the existence of "a large population of people". How should we expect you to respond if I challenge you to name one (1) of that large population? I don't love chasing goalposts.
Please stop. I really don't know what you're arguing about or why. It feels like you want to argue with me as a proxy for the violence you can't affect?
Really I think I substantiated the issue pretty well. If you feel really strongly that there are not any accusations of genocide or colonization being made against jews in current discourse, maybe go correct the wikipedia articles I linked?
You really, truly don't see how people might be alienated by the kind of rhetoric, though? I mean, just look at your own tone in this subthread. Does that sound to you like a way to move me to your side of the argument? Ultimately that's really my point: people want to be angry. You want to be angry. But in this situation that just perpetuates the damage! Both sides are deserving of anger!
The best we can do is cool things down enough so people stop dying. And... you're making things worse, not better.
Redbook | REMOTE (US) | Founding Full-Stack Engineer (backend-leaning) | $125k-$200k + up to 1% equity
Redbook is a SaaS platform for cattle ranchers using Node.js, React, and PostgreSQL. We're looking for a founding engineer ($125k-200k salary and 0.25% - 1.00% equity) to help us build the product.
You would own a big part of our codebase, get to make technical decisions, and have the opportunity to have a big impact on the technical side. You will be joining the company at an exciting time - right before the launch of our MVP.
Redbook is used by ranchers on the field to help them in their daily tasks attending to the cattle and managing their business.
We have over 30 advisors who have continually confirmed there is a very high demand for the product we’re building. Cattle feed yards need quality software to help them accurately track what occurs on a farm (cattle feedings, movements, health records) and transform that into business + financial insights. The platform we’re building will modernize the industry and bring more satisfaction to both consumers and ranchers. We are VC backed and we are currently setting up our engineering team. Come bring the best that technology has to offer to a massive industry ($73B) currently underserved by software!
Yes. It's pretending. The best way to think about chatGPT answers is that it always invents the most plausible reply. With some different temperature it can provide slightly different chain of thought, but it's making it up based on its limited "thinking" capabilities and poor generalization, despite huge amount of knowledge. This is just the beginning and new generations of LLMs will continue improving.
