“You don’t have to worry personally because I’m sending u somewhere beyond extradition,” wrote back the responder believed to be Bannon less than two minutes later.
Epstein died about 7 months later. It takes on a sinister tone in retrospect, but given the amount of time between the two events, I wouldn’t jump to conclusions.
Software development has the advantage of happening in an environment where the cost of failure is relatively low. A bad change might be caught by the test suite before it ever sees production. If it does get to production, there might be consequences, but not the kind that typically kills people.
In fact, I think software engineering in general should lean into this idea on most things. Don’t try to ignore failure, but catch failure as fast as possible. Things like medical devices and aeronautic software should continue using formal verification methods, but the rest of us should iterate fast.
Iterating fast doesn’t work for other things. I’m a programmer by trade, but I have enough electrical knowledge that I once took up a contract for designing a PCB. I tried to do the “one thing at a time” approach, and it just doesn’t work very well there. Non-trivial PCBs will have errors in them the first few times you try them, and you’ll need to go back for a redesign. In software, that potentially takes minutes or even seconds. But in PCBs, you have to order out to a company to make them and wait at least a week for them to turn it around. Even if you have equipment to do it yourself, it still takes hours. You just have to batch up your changes. (Electrical simulators can potentially help with this, though.)
In government, the effects of policy could take years or even decades to work out. Single change at a time would be a stranglehold on the ability to fix problems.
It does in an indirect way due to having more parties.
Let’s say you have $1M to try to buy off some politicians with campaign funds. If there are only two viable candidates, you give $500k to both. Now you’ve bought both parties and can win no matter the outcome.
If there are three or four or five parties, though, you have to guess who is going to win. You can’t split it up that many times and still have much influence on the politicians in question. Your funds can be easily swamped out by grassroots groups. Your guess based on polling can also end up being dead wrong when some party makes a sudden surge in the final weeks.
That said, it’d still be better if we ditched Citizens United and publicly funded elections.
That’s bionic reading. It helps some people (like those with ADHD) focus on the text better.
Our long nightmare of commodity hardware and open ecosystems is finally coming to an end!
You mean the AI slop that is the entire post?
It’s not a bribe if you do paperwork.
(Joking, but not really. It’s impressive how much shit you can get away with if you file the paperwork.)
For satire to work, it has to be based on something real.
My worry now is that the American working class hasn’t learned how powerful it could be, and liberal capitalism will reassert itself with slightly more social safety net. At the very least, we should end up with European style social democracy, and even that seems like a low bar.
Rats know which way to run on a sinking ship.
I wouldn’t automatically assume everything was consentual. Not considering the source. Things like “lost a bet” are on the table.
I don’t think that’s true. The only two examples of a woman trying to run for President have been against the same cult leader. He didn’t even get the popular vote the first time (which a lot of people seem to conveniently forget), and he barely won it in the second example.
The vast majority of America would be generically fine with a woman as President, even if they don’t vote for her. The only thing lacking is a cult-like draw, and that’s not something you should aspire to.
Let’s just take the W on this one, ok?
Waiting to be Gerald Ford.
Morally, yes. Legally, it’s going back to the companies, and they’ll pocket the money and walk away.
This is something like the Vance couch fucking situation. Mark Epstein has already said the “Bubba” in question was not Bill Clinton (though his phrasing suggests that Trump blew someone, and there are photos). That said, it’s already a thing. Let’s just take the W on this one.
To wrap it all together, password managers do have inherent flaws, but it’s better than all alternatives for passwords so far. The real argument is that passwords in general are a shitty authentication scheme.
It’s something like Kleenex. It’s a specific brand, but got used generically. The rivet pattern around the crotch is the company’s trademark (and they’re not shy about suing others over it), but there are canvas kilts out there otherwise.
I secretly like the taste of cherry Nyquil.
If you’ve ever wondered who Mountain Dew Code Red is for and why that concoction keeps showing up, it’s for people who like cherry Nyquil, know that it’s weird, and also know that it’d be a bad idea to chug Nyquil.
I assume he doesn’t wipe for the same reasons.