In September the Russians accused the Ukrainians of having repairing downed Geran drone airframes at the Lviv LORTA plant, transferring them to Yavoriv, and launching them unarmed into Poland. They presented various evidence like serial numbers, photographs of silver-tape repairs, claims that a Ukrainian SIM-card was used, lack of impact destruction, etc.
What's true though? I don't believe that I have a way to find out.
Usually you can find out. There are probably radar records showing them coming from Russia. But people aren't that interested and it's hard to keep up with the firehose of falsehood coming out of Russia constantly.
There's no real solution other than long-term tariffs. However the President doesn't have the power to do it and Congress doesn't have the willpower. 6-month flash-in-the-pan efforts can only cause chaos.
I don't like the title. The article actually describes the process of proving that dqlite does not have the same bug as SQLite, using a TLA+ specification. The SQLite bug fix was entirely separate from what is described here.
Are they gatekeeping to protect against AI "slop" or are they gatekeeping to protect an inefficient and non-scalable review process against velocity?
I've seen policies like this in various places and they do not generally seem to be based quantitative measures of code functionality, security, and efficiency.
There are other approaches to take to deal with large numbers of incoming PRs: improved CI, AI-readable standards for AI code, better static testing, AI first-pass review, etc.
It's fine to enshrine hobbyism into your code review policy to keep things fun and human-scale. On the other hand, where projects actually matter, it is necessary to think about code review as part of an industrial process with inputs and outputs, one where this sort of thing has no place.
In my experience success in a project isn't about the amount of code that can be produced, it's more about the thoughtfulness behind features and fixes. A lot of the work going into reviewing pull requests is understanding it in the context of the project's broader goals.
This gets a lot harder when there is a giant wall of text that the pull requester doesn't understand and can't really discuss outside of asking AI (and probably getting "The reviewer is right to push back - I was too aggressive in my blah blah blah" as an answer).
A lot of (but maybe not all) pull requests are fundamentally a human to human task, even if there is a lot of technical details involved.
Part of this is an argument for size limits on PRs.
Another part is "how do we communicate project goals and ideals and standards?" The answer to that, I'd argue, is not simple, and will inherently run into scale issues. It's something that needs to be tackled as you move from a bespoke craft project to an industrial project.
Now, maybe you never move. It's okay and good for hobby projects to exist. But let's be clear about the choice there.
You can review that user’s trade history. It’s a bit weird for sure, but they didn’t just stop in to bet on those. They’ve bet huge sums on every prediction relating to Iran, Israel, sp500, recessions, etc.
They’ve been betting for 2 years but only recently starting profiting a lot.
If they're smart they'll have multiple accounts with bets each way netting to ~0 on all kinds of topics, and just omit the losing trade on the information they actually have.
That will always be true for some individuals. But the sector isn't going away. Everyone is retooling right now and it's hard to tell what this generation of AI is even going to do to jobs. I strongly suspect that the companies that manage the retooling most successfully will be hiring more people not less.
I'd be interested in more details about the 17mph collision as well. Was it a dead-center collision with a pole after hard braking? Was it a mirror clip or a curb clip or something similar? There seem to be a wide range of possibilities.
The people most susceptible to consensus mirage are, by the very nature of the beast, the ones least aware of it happening to themselves. Any opinion that you find yourself praised for by any of the groups in your social circle is infinitely suspect.
> Any opinion that you find yourself praised for by any of the groups in your social circle is infinitely suspect.
It is insidious how easily we divide ourselves into rival tribes. For too many it's not enough to feel belonging within a group, they/we crave others to look down upon or fight. IMO we are our best when we can debate ideas dispassionately, without defining ourselves by them.
What's true though? I don't believe that I have a way to find out.