I do try to learn how systems work and remove "abstractions" as much as I can. I do that with coding and my personal life.

Actually baking is a good example, I used to be really bad so I spent time learning. I don't do it every day but now I understand how bread is made. I bought a 3D printer so I could print parts to fix stuff myself. I learned to do my own oil changes, I learned how engines work, etc.

My point is that I try to learn more, not less, which is what AI is trying to achieve

The person who grows the wheat understands how to grow the wheat. The person who grist the flour understands how to grist the flour.

And I would understand how to bake bread from scratch.

Now in the entire chain, we will get to a point where no one knows anything.

He's right about interest rates. But he's missing the point behind the debate: whose policy choices got us to where we are today where this is necessary? Republicans.

Not just Trump, Republicans as a whole. They are not fiscally conservative at all, and their culture wars and religious crusades are going to bankrupt the nation.

They'll sell you up a rope to corporate donors asking for deregulation. And we've seen exactly what happens when there is money to be made at the expense of other people's lives: spoiler alert, people like money more than they care about other people's health.

Why is it necessary to legislate it if it's nonsense? If there is no culpability, why would there be any threat?

It was necessary because a group of billionaires (Joyce Foundation) decided they were going to do a run around congress and engage in lawfare for their goals.

It’s nonsense to pretend it came out of no where for no reason.

It's astoundingly trivial to abuse.

If people could imagine it being used against them, maybe they might understand. Like labeling the Republican party a terrorist organization because they sponsored Jan 6 insurrectionists.

> If you use git for packages, then your repo becomes the package boundary. You no longer have the option of producing multiple packages from one repo, or even one package from multiple repos.

What does this even mean?

I'd argue that having the source to build the thing is more important than the artifacts. Release artifacts are more of a convenience. If the thing doesn't build from the source given, what use is it?

Exactly my point. You assume the source is the thing you want to consume, but it isn't. Package registries are much more than a convenience and packages don't necessarily map 1:1 with source code repositories. Nor should they need to. You shouldn't have to build every dependency and care where their source code is.

Sure you want the source available, otherwise it's closed source, but ideally you never need to look at it unless you're a contributor.

git has really conflated the two concepts.

Correct way is to have everything as-if a source dependency, but a globally shared cache system that can automatically provide artifacts if that exact version of source has already been compiled.

Any system that can only consume manually built (and even in worst case, only tagged and globally pushed) dependencies is horrible for cross-module development, like large scale refactorings and the like.

This is exactly what I disagree with. It forces you to consider git your package boundary. You're now organising your source as if it was a package registry, when git can (and should) be orthogonal to that. Your problem with cross module development may even be because you're using git this way. If you want to do cross package development, having them in a monorepo and building two artifacts is the easy way. If that's not an option because the two packages need to be separate, you need a workflow that pulls the source together again.

To say nothing about hardcoded repo URLs (not resolvable identifiers), transient dependencies, URL schemes, and trying to pretend github is the only package source.

It makes it more accepted, because if everyone is doing it why wouldn't I do it?

Report that shit to your security officer

Their dining tables are pretty much all solid pine.

I think having my career be started in testing has broken my brain. Having seen so many different failure scenarios, it makes actual development difficult. Failure handling in particular is exceptionally difficult, especially when you're hitting low level filesystem errors.

If you can't write to the filesystem, almost everything you do in an embedded system will fail. So you can't undo a partial write. Your logging will probably fail too.

A relatively big database (a tier 2/3 database) that I was using handled this in a really bad manner: it'd just segfault. Depending on when this happened you could get data corruption and never be able to open the DB even in read-only mode.

It's one of the core principles of a database! And it didn't even do that correctly.

People are lazy. If you give people an easy way to "fill that void" they will do so, even if it's detrimental to their long term health.

No social media? People will still find ways to socialize. It might not be as easy, but they will do it. Maybe you'll even see a resurgence in social clubs.