At another BigCo I am familiar with any external communications must go through a special review to make sure no secrets are being leaked, or exposes the company to legal or PR issues (for example the OP).
Likely it wouldn't get written at all. The most useful aspect of layered approval processes is people treat them like outright bans and don't blog at all unless it's part of the job description.
It raises an interesting point. Code review is as much about educating the author of the code as much as ensuring the quality of the code. Why invest time providing feedback to a brick wall? LLMs aren’t going to “learn” from your feedback.
It is a classic cooperation problem. Perhaps not prisoners dilemma. Perhaps not at individual scale. Probably tragedy of the commons.
Cooperation is not consuming fossil fuels. Defection is consuming fossil fuels.
If you cooperate and other defects you suffer climate impact and expensive energy (expensive everything, worse economic growth than others).
If you defect and other cooperates you suffer climate impact but at least you get cheap energy (cheap everything, more economic growth than others).
People, nations, corporations, etc don’t stop using fossil fuels because they incur a penalty against their competitors if they volunteer to and their competitors don’t.
The assumption here is that fossil fuels are actually cheaper. But an electric car pays back the higher upfront cost in fuel savings in significantly fewer miles than most cars will have put on them. Solar generates power at a lower cost per kWh than coal.
The fossil fuel industry has to be actively sustained through subsidies and government regulation hostile to alternatives. Maybe that wasn't true 50 years ago before the alternatives got viable and cheap, but if it's not true now then why did we stop subsidizing electric cars while we still subsidize oil companies?
Russia. They asked for a 'spheres of influence' world and forgot the USA's sphere of influence is the world's oceans (and South America).
Pressuring Russia's oil exports is the way the Trump admin is motivating Russia to come to the negotiating table. They apparently want the war wrapped up in time for the mid-terms.
That, and Trump likes being a strong king and wielding US might, right into the history books.
The US' days are numbered. Once the world rids itself of dollarisation, the US won't be able to export their inflation to the rest of the world. Maybe just to Europe and Japan, which in any case are vassal states.
Good luck finding more trustworthy and profitable economic systems.
The dedollarisation will hurt the US but since there aren't a lot of alternatives it'll be far less disruptive than anti-US groups would believe. There will be more of a spreading of risk than there is now.
It's the BBC. They're literally funded by the British regime using license fees.
To understand the connection between the British regime and Russophobia, refer to John Gleason's research captured in a book called "The Genesis of Russophobia in Great Britain."
I think a lot of web services talk about reliability in terms of uptime (e.g. down for less than 5 minutes a year) but in reality operate on failure ratios (less than 0.001% of request to our service fail).
Can you share more about education in the USSR? My impression is that for all its faults, education is one area where the USSR excelled, with very high standards and outcomes.
TP is largely correct - there was no “advanced track” or any kind of differentiation at a normal school systemically. There were “gymnasiums” - a kind of specialized schools starting grade 8 or 9 and only in big cities and you could apply if you test well and/or your parents knew somebody who knew somebody
Your impression is correct. OP's fallen into the classic trap of equating the American "left" (which isn't left at all) with socialism, and that with the USSR. It's all nonsense free association of "things conservatives dislike", from the same mine that yielded gems like "cultural Marxism" (another nonsense).
The distinction in the article really is between calling malloc for every added node in your data structure (“pointer”) or using the pre-allocated memory in the next element of an array (“index”).
This is only one of the advantages discussed in TFA. The others are those due to using indices instead of pointers (like smaller size, cache locality, range checking, possibility of data exchange between systems with distinct address spaces).
California has the opportunity to be a beacon in North America for environmental and climate action e.g. by expanding solar production, finishing the CAHSR, and other projects like expanding and electrifying mass transit and commuter rail networks, but they are their own worst enemy.
California has already fallen behind both Texas and Florida in new utility grade solar. As for CA-HSR, no comment. But if you don't want to wait, you can buy a ticket today and ride Florida's new high speed rail between Orlando and Miami.
The fact that Brightline can take you from Miami to Orlando is wonderful, and I'm really happy Florida is embracing more efficient, less dangerous, and less stressful forms of transportation.
But using it to make a subtle jab agains CAHSR isn't really fair -- they're two very different projects (for one of them, it's genuinely a stretch to call it "HSR") in two very different regions.
Yes, it's harder to get big projects through the red tape in California than it is in West / Panhandle Texas or Central Florida. Go take a drive through those regions and you'll quickly see some reasons why, besides just NIMBYism, Californians are a bit more protective of their landscapes. If a massive wind project were proposed across large swaths of the Texas Hillcountry, you'd see a lot more push-back.
> But using it to make a subtle jab agains CAHSR isn't really fair -- they're two very different projects (for one of them, it's genuinely a stretch to call it "HSR") in two very different regions.
Well, CA HSR doesn't exist. It's missing the R part of the HSR. So that must be the one it's a stretch to call "HSR".
Brightline is too slow to call it high speed. But we have it today which is worth something unlike maybe some year with all the other options - so brightline gets the win today. things are likely to change in the future but I don't see anything I'd bet on (but I only bet very sure things)
> or one of them, it's genuinely a stretch to call it "HSR"
How fast is California's HSR?
That's both sarcasm and an actual question. It doesn't go anywhere now but I keep hearing it's speed get downgraded as they encounter the real world. Plus, the goal of LA-SF is practically abandoned and now it takes you from a place you don't want to be to a place you don't want to go.
You really can't compare the two because one exists only as a goal and the other is an accomplishment.
In US terms it's very fast. The US lags behind other developed countries in rail, but I hope it can improve. And, if it improves with electric propulsion, better.
The climate problem is an emergency. Reaching net zero in 2100 is going to be at least one more century of suffering for our offsprings than reaching net zero in 2040.
And things that are a net improvement do not preclude other things that are net improvements. It is a tactical blunder to attack people who are improving things, for not improving them "enough". The journey of a thousand miles, etc etc.
Rather, become one of the people who's improving things – or, if somehow your only skill is attacking, attack the people who are making things worse.
By the by, "net zero" is not enough. The vast majority of offsetting schemes are little more than accountability laundering and on-paper games, not translating to any concrete offsetting in the real world. We need gross zero.
> things that are a net improvement do not preclude other things that are net improvements.
That's a good framework to think about things. Going all-in on renewables implies keeping fossil fuels around, because storage tech is several breakthrough behind. Renewable proponents like to point out that every kWh not produced with CO2 emission is still a win.
Yet deploying renewables means they flood the market with cheap electricity when the weather is good, hurting the profit, thus viability, of (i.e. precluding) stable low-carbon sources (in other words I'm butt hurt about nuclear).
> The vast majority of offsetting schemes are little more than accountability laundering and on-paper games, not translating to any concrete offsetting in the real world.
A case I heard is that they count the carbon captured by planting trees, yet ignore it when the carbon is released back to the atmosphere in a wildfire.
