ironically, this means that a business that never took advantage of a single employee, never demanded or accepted overtime, always paid on time and in full, always met but never exceeded its obligations, is one that you can trust less than a business that frequently demanded overtime or deferred payment but was always open to satisfactory remediation. The first business you can trust under normal circumstances, but if they ever ask you to do overtime, there's zero precedent for how they handle it. With the second business you know exactly what you're getting into if you're lenient in any particular case.

with this in mind, the smaller unit should only ever trust the larger unit when there is precedent of abuse being remediated through paths the particular smaller unit is able to pursue. For example, if the evidence for remediation is a lawsuit and you can't afford one, you should assume that you're going to be betrayed the moment it pays off, and the larger unit will not suffer any consequences.

Relationships are usually 1:1 and even when they aren't there are usually very few people involved, business is almost always between groups with an order of magnitude difference in size.

@CoreFusionX you're entirely missing my point then. Yeah, good genes are a thing in relation to survivability. Genes that cause illness or weakness are bad, genes that don't are good. Clearly though, the ad in question didn't refer to Sydney Sweeney not being ill. You have to be purposely ignorant not to see the Aryan joke. But as I said, I still think it was a lame joke, not actual Nazi propaganda.

@CoreFusionX the key distinction is how you determine what "good" means. If you order people by a long list of more-or-less objective qualities and focus on the ones at the top, you're creating a really efficient inbreeding scheme. If you look for any healthy person who survives and has enough leftover energy to engage well in your choice of dating ritual, or if you have highly subjective standards beside these which are likely to balance out across the populace, then you are doing exactly what every other species is doing, and aren't breaking evolution.

The other part is that humans are uniquely extremely sensitive to inbreeding, probably due to a population bottleneck.

Speaking of controversial ads, I learned about this incredible Heineken ad from the Enron era recently:

https://youtube.com/watch/...

The ad in question legitimizes a concept that has been propagandized to hell without engaging with it, that's shitty mass communication, but it's hardly new, or unique. Ads capitalize on attention therefore they must be edgy.

"good genes" is a nazi concept. All evidence shows that evolution favours diverse groups with plenty of genetic variation to adapt to new niches.

Illnesses can and have been bred out of animal populations, but by doing so you are burning a lot of variance which causes other, purely genetic illnesses to surface.

The only genes that are desirable in a healthy partner, scientifically speaking, are whatever you don't have yet.

@AlgoRythm I recall seeing that in working code and being really confused, I thought it was a non-standard extension in some compilers.

@jccastro You would want to use GCC because you want GCC features such as ABI compatibility, or because your codebase is 270k lines of cruft and you wouldn't want to roll the dice on whether you managed to follow all the rules even if you had the budget, or because you have a greenfield project but you're counting on the abovementioned inevitable eventuality and trust GCC's governance more if you'll eventually have to depend on a specific compiler anyway. It's all subjective, but there are lots of reasons to prefer any specific compiler.

C/C++ are weird, because they have so little in terms of high level structure that pretty much the only way to guarantee that your code will work with every setup is to have it all in a single file.

Or you could chicken out, force cmake and clang, which would allow you to make assumptions, but it would once again force you to use a tiny subset of the language and associated tooling.

I mean, I guess you could probably insert yourself between the build tool and the compiler to read all compiler input and the related output and to force the compiler to generate intermediate files for you, then parse that to provide semantic features. Or you could use the clang server or whatever it's called, but then you didn't get rid of assumptions, you just replaced yours with someone else's.

How would a C++ IDE actually work? I don't mean a Visual C++ IDE which only works well on a small subset of popular C++ use-cases and features, I mean a real C++ IDE which supports all legitimate ways to write C++.

"Job security and inaccuracies causing problems"

The risk isn't that AI will replace us, it's that shareholders will settle for AI-generated code, bringing forth the worst possible outcomes for everyone involved.

Oh yeah, I forgot, but 15 of my most important childhood friends are managing to all be free the same night so I'm choosing that congregation over yall.

I hate immediate mode for everything more involved than the debug GUI in Unity. It attempts to achieve simplicity not by managing and gradually revealing the inherent complexity of rendering code but by pretending that it doesn't exist. If you want reactivity, we have a facet for that, it's called an observable, and the idea that Rust can't do observers is categorically false, it just doesn't have GC so you need to establish some higher ownership structure and prevent the event source and the handler from owning each other.

Ratatui?

and I mean in a few decades it may get better but until then people have and will lose their mortgages and homes, and overall live worse lives, because they broke a system tens of millions relied upon without a plan just so people could live out their imperial ennui.

@whimsical Well, it didn't really help that
- during covid they doubled down saying that they would get brexit done, raising the economic crisis to comical highs
- it quickly turned out that the Tories had no plan whatsoever how to replace Eastern-European labour, they legitimately thought either that Indians would be willing to travel to the UK just to work for minimum wage like during the empire, or that jobs like elderly care are paid so poorly because of the Eastern-European immigrants and not because UK families are unable to pay more.
- when the truckers completely vanished, the abject silence gave the impression that Boris Johnson completely forgot that the UK's entire freight business runs on Albanians and Romanians who could just as well work on the mainland once the UK didn't welcome them.

All publicly traded companies are maximally greedy, but growth companies have an additional short-term pressure to make short sighted decisions.

@jestdotty this!

@Lensflare Facebook needs to demonstrate exponential increase in revenue to maintain their valuation as a growth stock. You can't increase prices exponentially, so if they successfully adopted a paid model, _and even if their internal decisionmakers had the best intentions_ which we know they don't, it would only last so long before they had to return to abusing every bit of power they have in order to gain even more power.

@Lensflare the startups thrive on anticipation, it has to be a constant topic. We won't get rid of it until they completely run out of investor goodwill.

Louis Rossmann is a legend.

My favourite pastime is finding incredibly cursed APIs in the dotnet standard library.

@Lensflare

System.Reflection.MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().Invoke(this, new []);

Oh yeah and also the "health check" means doing an expensive query that returns an unbounded amount of data and then discarding the data.

@kiki universallyUniqueIdentifierVersion4()

It's really simple, the bug is caused by the sticky vote buttons so I just disable their stickiness.

The only hitch, but I'm sure that'll be fixed eventually, is that it's crucial for merge automation to be able to declare that it isn't sure how to resolve something, and an LLM in its current state will just bullshit something if a problem is beyond its complexity.