I know, which seems absurd to me. Like, TUIs are 1) a solved problem, b) performant, and c) right there, on every single computer in the world. (Someone please correct me, to point out that there's some weird OS somewhere that doesn't have a shell, so I can say "Yeah, but does it run Claude?")
Is there an engineering-based reason, or is it that the AI knows React, so it's easier to vibe, and damn the user experience?
Ha! Where I'm from a "dolly" was the two-wheeled thing. The four-wheeler thing wasn't common before big-boxes took over the hardware business, but I think my dad would have called it a "cart", maybe a "hand-cart".
Yeah, that guy got unnecessarily personal. Let me try.
You're right that civil judgements (and, though you haven't mentioned it yet, reputational brand damage through public exposure) are important checks on harm, but they break down in particular circumstances. In the first place, they're not a fair fight: corporations are able to limit, or even prevent, access to the court system by forced arbitration, jurisdiction changes, or intentionally running up attorney fees beyond what any plaintiffs can afford to risk. They also have ($£€¥, again) larger megaphones than any individual can reliably command.
The toy example of glass in a soup can makes for a perfect case, but civil suits are impossible to pursue where harms are long-term, diffuse, cumulative, or simply too difficult for a jury of lay-people to understand. For instance, we all know that lead is harmful, but when multiple sources of lead exist it's impossible to prove (to the standard correctly required by the courts) that this company's lead caused your particular illness. It's similarly impossible to prove that any particular cancer-causing agent caused any particular cancer, even when we know statistically that it has raised the cancer risk profile of millions of people, and therefore been a causative factor in many deaths.
If we insist that the only mechanism for redress be individual companies held to account in individual cases, we either give up on the idea that corporate behavior can be aligned with the public interest, or (worse?) we make sure that politically-disfavored companies will be scapegoated by the media or the courts, while better-connected players get away with anything at all.
Please allow me to forestall one possible counter-argument: if you, as my Libertarian-ish relatives do, reject outright the idea of "public interest", then we won't have much to say to each other: our world-views are simply too different. Otherwise, I'm interested in what you have to say.
I don't know the precise legal mechanisms for handling diffuse harms like the ones you describe. Determining the best means of applying the principle of suing corporations in practice is an very complex question that belongs to the philosophy of law. My task here is only to establish the nature of the principle and to show that it is practicable.
That said, here is my principle: at any time, the government is orders of magnitude more powerful than any corporation. I think it is proper, in some cases, for the government itself to act as a plaintiff, to aggregate evidence, bring suit, and prove causation statistically. I can't delimit that role precisely, but I side with you that in some cases only the government has access to all necessary evidence.
And no, I don't agree with the idea of "public interest." Any claim that "the public interest" supersedes private rights means that the interests of some men are to be sacrificed to the interests of others.
> the government is orders of magnitude more powerful than any corporation.
As a practical matter, that's untrue in many, many places around the world, and there are no reasons why it couldn't become true in the USA, or any other advanced democracy. Even if you don't think that is yet the case where you live, can you at least agree with me that many leaders of / investors in large corporations want it to be, and are working towards that end?
I think your position in your second paragraph is at odds with your position in the third.
I do agree. In many places, governments are weak, captured, or
corrupt. But those are mixed economies, in which state and corporate
power fuse into one corrupt swamp: corporations lobby for regulations
to crush rivals, officials sell favors. That's not evidence that
economic power equals political power, it's evidence that abandoning
the principle of a government limited to retaliatory force produces a
cold civil war of pressure groups. The solution isn't more regulation,
it's total separation of state and economics.
> your second paragraph is at odds with your third
No. The government acting as plaintiff is still retaliatory force:
harm occurred, the state helps identify the perpetrator. That's not
"public interest" overriding private rights, it's the government
protecting individual rights by standing in for many individuals who
share a common injury.
And yes, corporate leaders want political power. That's cronyism. They
want to use force because they can't win in a free market. It's a road
to dictatorship, but the road is laid by the principle of "public
interest," not unlimited profit motives.
There's no such thing as "the public," only individuals. When one
treats "the public" as a blank check to override private rights, one
is really saying: some people get sacrificed to others. The taxi
industry lobbying to ban Uber isn't about safety or competition.
"Affordable housing" mandates that force landlords to subsidize
strangers aren't compassion. This institutionalized cold civil war
won't end until the state stops pickign winners.
> standing in for many individuals who share a common injury.
Sounds like a synonym for "public interest" to me! Is that a semantic difference, or do you think there's something substantive to it?
I'd like to know how you'd handle the case of a new industrial plant (let's even say it's a brand new technology) that will exhaust lead into the atmosphere. Does the government have to wait until there's demonstrable harm, and then lodge a suit in court? Isn't it... cleaner (for want of a better word, and no pun intended) to have a law in place that says "No Lead-spewing (as defined by [reasonable technical standard]) Allowed", and prevent it being built altogether? From another angle, under which paradigm would hypothetical investors prefer to operate?
In fact, and this is true, industry often requests regulations be put in place, because they'd like to be certain that their investments won't be subjected to the uncertainty of (private or public) litigation. Yes, this can be malign (in the cases of corruption, or regulatory capture, or incumbents freezing out smaller competitors), but at its most basic the request can be seen as benign: "we'd like to comply with community standards; please write down what they are, and we'll follow them" - no violence required or implied. It's also, and to my way of thinking more importantly, a way to break out of prisoner's dilemma equilibria, where all players can agree the sector as a whole will be better off without defectors, but appeal to an outside, neutral party to keep themselves honest.
I'm also curious about what seems to be your premise that The Courts are separate from The State. That's not how I think of them at all! I mean, aren't they, kind of by definition? After all, if one ignores a judgement - even civil - isn't the ruling ultimately enforced by, well, Force?
> Is that a semantic difference, or do you think there’s something substantive to it?
"Public interest" today implies a conflict with private interests: a new sports arena, "affordable" housing, protecting domestic jobs. So no, government-as-plaintiff doesn't count.
Personally, I'd define the public interest as interests common to all men: freedom, not sacrifices of some to others. But that's not the modern meaning of it.
> Does the government have to wait until there’s demonstrable harm
Anticipating harm is proper when the decision is irreversible. Example: nobody has a right to physically block a public entrance. That's a right violation you can prohibit in advance. Same with pollution: objective laws ("you may not emit substance X beyond concentration Y") set a clear boundary without dictatign production methods.
But there's no harm to anticipate in, say, Lightning vs. USB-C.
> your premise that The Courts are separate from The State
If you got it from the way I contrasted courts with regulatory agencies, I actually contrasted the way the state can wield force: retaliatory (proper) vs initiatory (improper). Other than that, the courts and state aren't separated.
Yeah, I think our difference on "public interest" is semantic. I wouldn't even quibble with your "interests common to all" definition, so the next step would be to draw lines about what, in practice, that means. Frankly, I think we'd agree about a lot of it: sports arenas and (at least in the abstract) "protecting jobs" don't count for me, either!
You are correct about where I (over) interpreted your view of the court system. Apologies for that, and thanks for the clarification. However, I still don't think I understand the distinction you draw between "retaliatory (proper) vs initiatory (improper)". Would you then say that there shouldn't be a permitting / approval system (because that's anticipatory), so enforcement should be limited to taking pollution readings and acting (in retaliation, natch) after a facility is built? Even if you can sustain that position in principle, I think it would be impractical, across a number of dimensions, in reality. But, it's possible that I misunderstood that point, so please explain further.
I also note a segment from one of your earlier comments, where you advocated for "total separation of state and economics". In my view this is utterly impossible. Regulating pollutants is an intervention that (properly, we agree!) works to the economic disadvantage of pollutors. Even more fundamentally, a (functional, large scale) market economy depends entirely on the state's ability to adjudicate and enforce (at least) contractual terms. I don't think your view can be sustained.
Here is “that guy.” You won't convince them with practical examples, because this is a matter of principle. Freedom and independence from the state are more important to these people than a few people suffering from lead poisoning. From their perspective, living a free life and then dying of lead poisoning is still better than being subjugated by the Leviathan.
> your second paragraph is at odds with your third
Well, well. That didn’t take long.
The teenager was a carefully chosen comparison. The state’s authority over the citizen is similar to a parent’s authority over their child. This is quite humiliating and emasculating. And I agree with libertarians on one point: if the state is against you, you don’t stand a chance. A healthy approach to this has two components. (1) You make sure that the authority is benevolent or at least allows enough leeway for a good life. (2) You create enclaves of freedom. The teenager hides his weed and smokes it secretly, or smokes his cigarettes on the way to school. The citizen leaves some income untaxed and runs a red light now and then. What does the teenager who categorically rejects parental authority do? Run away and become homeless? The difference between them and an adult is that the latter should have enough sense to realize that the romantic notion of a life free from the burden of authority ultimately leads to sadness, coldness, loneliness, and misery—or, if it succeeds at all, merely re-establishes structures in which forms of authority are entrenched. Libertarians feel most oppressed by the state every time they have to wait at a red light or obey a speed limit. They fail to see that, in doing so, they are submitting to a principle of order that is necessary for road traffic to function at all.
> Is that a semantic difference, or do you think there's something substantive to it?
That is a very important point! Philosophers distinguish between the particular and the universal. Libertarians recognize only the particular and reject any notion of the universal, because it negates all particularities. For them, a group is always just an accumulation of individuals. A genuine community—which consists precisely in the participating individuals restricting themselves to some extent for the sake of the community—is inconceivable to them as something positive. Hence the infamous Thatcher quote: “... and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families ...” That is an ideological divide that cannot be bridged through discussion. I’ve gone over this enough times already.
I've argued (mostly offline, for my sins) with far more libertarian-ish people than I care to have, and I think piekvorst has a) been a more congenial conversational partner than you gave him credit, and b) approached the subject from a slightly different angle than I'd expected, so I'm still enjoying the interchange. In particular (read our latest replies to each other, if you care), he's in favor of regulating lead pollution, so he's miles ahead of certain of my relatives in both principles and practicalities!
But... Yeah. I'm in much more agreement with your point of view, and he's still Wrong On The Internet, so here we are. :-)
> You won't convince them with practical examples, because this is a matter of principle. . . . Libertarians recognize only the particular and reject any notion of the universal, because it negates all particularities.
You describe people who advocate freedom as both mystics indifferent to reality and pragmatists without principle. Which is it?
Where do I claim that libertarians are pragmatists? They do have principles—just the wrong ones. Incidentally, I don’t think they’re really concerned with freedom, at least not in the Kantian sense.
I don’t think that either libertarians or Kant are genuinely concerned with freedom. My position is closest to classical liberalism, with different philosophical foundations.
The Wind is Rising, by HM Tomlinson. It's a diary of the first year or so of the second world war. It has an unforgettable first line: "All we hear from Berlin is the music of marrow bones and cleavers," and is similarly vivid throughout.
It looks like you can borrow it from archive.org, but I suggest buying a physical copy. It was printed in 1941 - and I don't believe ever had a second edition - so it's on thin, wartime paper, which adds to the experience of reading it. It's like something pulled out of a time-capsule, a tangible relic of the time it covers.
Interesting how there is so little information about this book online. It’s a good reminder of how a ton of stuff basically still isn’t on the internet and is still only accessible in old books.
On the other hand, Patel's emails "appear to show a mix of personal and work correspondence". We already know that people in government - this isn't a partisan point: folks of all factions do it - use private communication channels to discuss "official business" specifically to avoid mandated disclosure and archival requirements. If (and I emphasize "if", because we don't yet know if this was the case), if Patel was doing that, and especially if he was sharing / discussing classified material, then the facts of the case would bump right up against what Clinton and Powell did.
Fun fact: queen bees can be artificially inseminated, and most commercial queens are. Beekeepers prefer naturally-inseminated queens, because they're stronger, but "nature" can't keep up with commercial demand.
You're correct about "breeding more" not being trivial, but they do it on an industrial scale. In really broad strokes: in late winter, in preparation for pollination season, they feed their hives intensively (with sugar syrup) and add extra brood boxes for the queens to fill with eggs. Then they split the hives, leaving the old queen in one box, and adding new queens to the box(es) they take off. Voila! Double (or more) the hives.
Pollination is where commercial beekeepers earn their living, by renting out hives of bees to farmers. Honey production is not necessarily an afterthought, even though it doesn't really turn a profit - it's worth doing because you'll be putting the bees on nectar flows for the summer, anyway, so you won't have to feed them, and extracting (some of) the honey covers transportation costs - but all the money's in pollination.
I could keep going and going - queen production and hive splitting are fascinating topics on their own - but I'll stop before I risk boring people with an over-long comment. I have commercial beekeepers in my family, and I've worked (summer / vacation jobs, when I was a kid) every part of the process.
(This is all in a USA-ag context. Beekeeping is - very! - different in other parts of the world.)
It certainly does for the bees. All of the hives are in very close proximity, traveling thousands of miles on trucks, for days at a time. The bees are under a lot of stress, mites and diseases spread among them, and some hives don't make it.
Transmission to other insects? I don't know, but I kinda doubt it. Verroa mites were introduced and spread by commercial bees back in the '60s or '70s, but they're entirely endemic at this point. Some native bees are / were harmed by them, and others - based mostly on grooming behavior, actually - aren't much, or even at all, at risk. As someone above pointed out, native and honey bees mostly have different food sources, so they aren't generally in close proximity to each other. Furthermore, the bee diseases of which I'm aware are really, really specific to bees, so I doubt that, say, butterflies or ladybugs or something would be harmed by anything bees carry. I could be wrong about that, though: I'm no expert.
By far the worst threat to native insects, however, is the destruction of native plants and natural habitats. Urban encroachment and landscaping are minor factors (and please plant native plants in your yard: it's great to do), but what's harmed native plants the most has been the farming practice that comes with Roundup Ready™ and similar crops. Previously, fields grew (native) weeds, and had margins where native plants took advantage of irrigation runoff and fertilizer overspill to run wild. Now, farmers broadcast spray weed killer over everything; their genetically-modified crops are immune, but every other plant in the vicinity is destroyed.
While I'm on the subject of bees, my beekeeper uncle doesn't believe Colony Collapse Disorder is a thing. Or, rather, that it happens, but has thoroughly mundane explanations, and any kind of mystery about it has been ginned up by the media, or by beekeepers looking for compensation from the Ag Department. His explanation is that bees are fed, split, and trucked more than they ever have been. (New pesticides maybe, too, but he doesn't think they're much of a factor, since they're not sprayed during pollination times, when bees are in the fields.) All those things stress the bees, and weaken hives; weak hives (as they always have been) get taken out by wax moths and diseases.
His opinion is that old-time beekeepers haven't changed their practice, despite putting their bees under greater stress, and that young (and most amateur) beekeepers don't understand bee behavior well enough to minimize stressors or notice the signs of distressed hives. He innoculates for disease waaay more than he did forty years ago, minimizes feeding (honey is much more nutritious than sugar), and I've rolled up to bee yards ready to load the trucks, only to have him - based on his sense of the weather, and how the bees behaved when he cracked open a few hives - wave us off because the bees wouldn't cope well with moving just then. I don't know enough to evaluate his theory, but I give it credence, because his hive yields aren't any different than they have been for the last fifty years. CCD just isn't an issue for his hives.
Anyway, there's my over-long comment, and I've only got started. Bees are fascinating creatures.
This is me. I tend to order projects onto their own desktops[0], each with several app windows open. With an external monitor there's plenty of space, and... Yeah: with command-tab thoroughly committed to muscle memory it usually doesn't matter much if they end up on top of each other. If it does, I'll put them next to each other. Stickies usually go out of my eye-line to the left side of the screen, so I'll keep that otherwise clear.
I sometimes maximize something - other than video calls: those are always full-size - on the laptop screen, but otherwise not at all.
I can see how a full-screen IDE makes sense, but I don't use one, so I always want a couple of terminal sessions running alongside my editor.
There are vanishingly few contexts in which I find full-screen helpful. Not criticizing anyone else, or recommending my way of working, but it's what works for me.
[0] I would like better support for desktop management: naming and shortcutting, particularly. Years ago I tried some (I think it was Alfred, or a predecessor) add-on that promised that, but it was super flaky. Does anything exist that works well?
This is me almost exactly. Windows pile up being whatever size feels appropriate, organized only by virtual desktop. If screen #2 is a laptop screen or the program in question is an IDE with a billion panes I might resize it to fill the screen, but otherwise it’s rare. I practically never use full-on fullscreen.
It’s so ingrained I tend to get frustrated on other desktops, which are nearly all built around the Windows mentality of keeping displays filled to the brim with tiled or maximized windows.
Even on the handful of times with maximize/tile on macOS, it’s with a gap of a few pixels of desktop peeking through so it doesn’t feel as “boxed in” and claustrophobic.
Morels contain several volatile compounds which cause gastric distress. (Forgive me for not looking it up at the moment, but one of them is/was a compenent of rocket fuel, which teenage me loved.) They have to be thoroughly cooked to burn those off. Or else dried.
Specifically for soup - which is, arguably, their best use - most people won't saute morels long enough before adding liquid, so it's always best to use dried for that. Otherwise, standard, boring, dry-sautéed + butter until tender works great, and has never given me a hint of upset.
The instructor of your friend's mushroom course may have been giving maximally-cautious advice, rather than trying to communicate nuance to the general public. That's often a wise choice. :-)
PS. If you're at all interested in foraging mushrooms, buy a copy of All the Rain Promises and More, by David Aurora. (If you're elsewhere than North America, buy a local guide, too, but still get ARPM.) Aside from the mushroom content it's wonderfully entertaining.
Sure. So try to reproduce on a current build, and close with a "No longer reproduceable on ___". That'd be good practice. Closing silently because no one can be bothered to evaluate at all is horrendous, and creates the user expectation that "no one looks at these, so I'm not going to keep reporting it" which "justifies" developers closing old bugs.
I agree with you about that, but why would an ill-defined report be kept open in the first place? It shouldn't be. Give the user an opportunity to provide more detail - for my own use I have some auto-text "scripts" set up, to make prompt questions easy - and then auto-close after a few days.
[Edit, answering my own question: they're left open because they were ignored to begin with.]
I write excellent bug reports, the vast majority of which (I'm thinking of one service-provider in particular, may they live in shame) get ignored. Or escalated and ignored; somehow that feels worse, though I don't know if it should. I guess it's the hope. It's the hope that kills you.
Why (especially if the answer above is 'yes' / 'most') do we collectively think Anthropic built such a heavy interface?
reply