Power companies are all privatized in Arizona as well, and it doesn't have this problem. Electricity rates are also half as much, and its power grid is far more reliable. California is what happens when the democratic party has absolute power at all levels of government. The politicians here will give you an earful about how important pronouns are, but they couldn't care less about land and resource management.

Fireworks were illegal in Arizona until 2010 where they're now permitted on and around four different holidays. Haven't had any wildfires that I'm aware of, except occasionally somebody might burn their own house down, usually because they threw away the remains before soaking them in water.

Part of the law stipulates that they can only be used on private property with the permission of the property owner. Between setting them off in an area far more controlled vs going out in the desert to avoid getting caught as people used to do when they were banned entirely, I'd take the former.

Given the very dry conditions in Phoenix, the desert is definitely kindling ready to be lit. And it does catch fire. The main difference, from my observation at least, is Arizona just does a hell of a lot better job of land management. All resource management, in fact, especially water management. People here in California just love electing incompetent politicians, and love to overpay them even more for a job poorly done.

Why ask whether china is eroding the lead; rather than whether the incumbents are maintaining it?

Maybe my faith is weak and if I were huffing the dumb money I'd understand; but it looks awfully like our boisterous little hypebeasts promised that, this time, unlike all the other times in 'AI' we could totally brute force our way to the AGI Omnissiah; briefly tried copium in the form of hoping that competitors would be intimidated by their capex(because there's basically a generation of VCs who think that failure to reach monopoly is indistinguishable from losing); and finally proceeded to speedrun commodification because it turns out that nobody actually had any plan for what would happen if this alley started looking visually impaired even after we plundered the entire internet to feed it.

I realize that it's more fun to focus on what the sinister chinese are doing than what our glorious golden boys are not doing; but let's do the latter anyway; especially since this is one area where you can't just please chinese factory slaves as an inherent price advantage. The guys mechanical-turking out 'training'/'classification' tasks will all go wherever to scrape up the cheapest labor available, then stiff them on promised payments; and (while the process is pretty porous) being not-china is definitely still the best way to get access to premium TSMC processes; and at least not-worse for most of the rest of the most interesting ones.

Either LLMs are fundamentally a technology where being the first mover is a dumb idea; or the 'leaders' are actively fucking it; because, unlike some of the cases involving rare earths mining or finding fast fashion sweatshop sites, this was theirs to lose.

I assume that there's a research OS somewhere that has discovered that this is much harder than it looks for anything nontrivial; quite possibly even worse than the problem that it is intended to cure; but looking at the increasingly elaborate constructs used when sudo is intended to be a granular delegation makes me wonder if the correct approach lies down the path of better permissions rather than ad-hoc lockdown logic.

There are some cases(eg. password-change or login tools often both reflect granularity limits in credential storage; and make reads or edits on your behalf to parts of files that you wouldn't be allowed to touch directly; but also do things like enforce complexity or age requirements that would require a really expansive view of 'permissions' to encompass) where the delegate program is handling nontrivial delegation logic on its own; but in a lot of instances it's hard to escape the impression that you are basically bodging on 'roles' that can't be or aren't normally expressed in object and device permissions by building carefully selectively broken tools.

I obviously don't blame sudo for that; its scope is letting you run a particular thing as someone else if the sudoers file allows it; but a lot of sudoers files might as well just say "there are no roles on this system between 'useless' and 'apocalyptic'"; and that feels like a permissions design problem.

Of note; probably not one to try to NT yourself out of; I'm not sure that you can build a sufficiently expressive set of permissions on classic UNIX style ones; but I've yet to see an NT-derived system that didn't boil down to 'admin-which-can-be-SYSTEM-at-a-whim'/'little people' regardless of the wacky NT ACL tricks you can get up to.

I'm curious if it's a case of the alternatives being tried and largely found to be worse; or if (along with a number of other OS design/architecture fights) the whole thing has mostly been pushed out of mainstream relevance by the degree to which you can just pretend everything inside a worker VM is basically at a homogeneous privilege level if you don't want to deal with it.

I can't comment on where sudo itself lives on the spectrum from aggressively solid implementation to really-dodgy-smell-around-the-edges; but it seems like its purpose is a fundamentally tricky problem even if its execution were impeccable.

The basic "user is authorized for root; but we'd prefer he be thinking and logged when he uses that authorization" is reasonably cogent use case; but it's more of a reminder than a security barrier. Then you get into the actually-interesting attempts at limited delegation and determine that you'd basically need a different userland for a lot of purposes: aside from the modest number of things(often with setuid already in place) built specifically to carefully do a very particular delegated function on your behalf and provide you with nothing else if they can help it; very little aside from garbage kiosk UIs or web or database-backed applications with user and permission structures mostly orthogonal to those of the underlying OS actually tries to constrain the user's use of the application(within whatever context that user is operating; generally having a privilege escalation is considered bad).

Half of what you run considers having an embedded shell to be a design feature; so including any of that on the sudoers list essentially means being able to chain arbitrary commands from that sudoers entry; and the other half doesn't outright intend to include a shell but would require some really brutal pruning, likely of important features, to prevent being able to chain a couple of interactions into having the ability to run whatever. And that is assuming that sudo itself is working entirely correctly.

TFS reminds me of militant vegans who still insist that eggs are unhealthy based on poor research done in the 60s. The fools are still married to the long disproven idea that dietary cholesterol leads to cholesterolemia, and were pissed off after the FDA removed the cholesterol RDI.

I always look to people with degrees in 'community development' to tell me whether there are enough spooks in my computer science or not; it's just good sense.

If it's dissociality and/or disinhibition without an LLM fetish it's just an ICD-11 personality disorder.

Saying that, much less in public in a way that suggests you either think that it will be helpful or that people will view you as being helpful, seems like strong evidence of an AICD-11 personality disorder.

Why, exactly, are we listening to someone who passed through software engineering on his way into management claiming that software engineers(presumably now his direct reports) are the most spoiled profession and how it's just terrible that nobody is willing to spend several years working for peanuts to get experience(because the argument from race to the bottom is persuasive now?)

He then meanders over to the theory that if you are a real actually-good software engineer your job is clearly safe, because AI isn't set to replace you; ignoring the fact that entire teams, competent and all, get wiped out when the money sloshes a different way all the time; and 'AI' has seen some cataclysmic levels of frankly irrational money sloshing by some mixture of conmen, cultists, and the good old 'animal spirits' of that definitely rational market.

It's basically the same story about 'web developers' who learned how to knock together some HTML at a bootcamp somewhere, or 'IT' back when that was something where the money attracted some people who had no interest, warmed over and presented as novel; with a side helping of boundless(but notably vague) optimism about all the cool new AI-things that are being created that will need real engineers at some point.

Honestly, it's almost impressive how he manages to be so grating while being so vacuous.

This is a very basic part of software development and always has been. There's always some framework, API, or concept that you have to learn to get some particular job done. They're paying you because you have the aptitude to pick up new skills quickly. I've only been doing this four'ish years and found that out before I even started (I am entirely self-taught -- no CS to speak of -- the only credential I can offer you is that I'm paid within the top 5% of software engineers at roughly $277k gross on my last W2, likely going to be over $365k this year.) Employers already expect that you're going to spend only 25% of your time writing actual code at best, with probably another 50% reading documentation, watching youtube videos, etc. If you can't do that particularly well, then you'll never be a good engineer, and you'll get paid accordingly.

Experience does translate to value for exactly this reason. On the flip side of that coin, no employers are just going to offer you a raise because you learned a new programming language or something like that (in the four years I've been doing software development, I've already picked up six languages and written a fair bit of code in each of them, so go figure.) Again, that's just part of your job description. If you think you deserve more pay, then ask for a raise. If you don't get one, but you still think you deserve more anyway, then go apply for another job, either within the same company or with another company. If your employer really feels that they can't afford to lose you, they'll offer more. It's really that simple.

I say this often and can't understate it enough: If you went into software development for the pay and only the pay, then you always were going to have a bad time. People like that have historically been weeded out during big recessions, typically having a CS degree that they thenceforth don't even use. From the sound of what this guy is arguing, basically the only people who will remain software engineers are the core group of people that typically even last through recessions.

The word "seems" in the sentence "They are drawn to it because they feel burned by the traditional system and want a fresh start with something that seems more modern and less manipulative." is so load-bearing I can only hope that the author is also a structural engineer.

To a darkly hilarious extent 'fintech' is more or less entirely regulatory arbitrage with a light skin of 'apps'.

So, on the minus side we've got people trying to game the system. On the more-minus side; the way they are trying to game the system suggests that peer review has, at least in part, been farmed out to chatbots because it's easier. Fantastic.

"A tandem charge the size of a solar system" isn't really the reassuring correction I was hoping for; to be honest.

Could you be any more of a stupid fucking conspiracy theorist? I already showed this to you last time:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fapnews.com%2Farticle%2Ftru...

To my untrained eye, that wound looks very superficial. I say that because I've had a similarly copious amount of blood from being scraped by a skeg while surfing. All I really felt was a mild amount of pain and was in the water for another three hours before realizing I was even bleeding. A bunch of people were freaking out when they saw me and called over a lifeguard, which I didn't think was necessary. All he did was wrap it in a little bit of gauze, and the word "superficial" is exactly what he said.

I've also had basal cell carcinoma removed from my ear. They had to remove it layer by layer, pretty deep as well, likely deeper than Trump's bullet wound, and it bleeds quite a bit. People only notice the scarring from it if they're specifically looking for it, and even then they have to take a pretty close look. Trump is old and wrinkly, it wouldn't be surprising if such scars are even harder to see in his case because it's hard to tell the scars from ordinary wrinkles, especially with his obvious spray tan likely concealing pigmentation differences normally seen in scar tissue.

More importantly, people like you who obsess over this are just incredibly stupid. Alex Jones level stupid. Though in your case, I think you especially obsess over holes, including ear holes, which are almost certainly the only holes a person would have that are small enough for your dick.

What else do you want? His birth certificate? His tax records? And how did that satisfy you? Even if you did get them, odds are you'd say they were fake, the doctor was paid off, they were altered by aliens, or some shit like that.