biimugan

Haha, yes, that's what I meant. Written in haste :)

I don't quite understand your argument here. In your first pin I'm struggling to find a single building that isn't leveled, or at least severely damaged. Even buildings far away from the city center in the boonies are leveled.

What belief is being expressed in your comments? That if someone wins a military conflict, any action they took is justified? That seems like either moral relativism or ahistorical, blind patriotism. The Soviets also won that war -- does that mean they were justified in their constellations of gulags?

If anything, the more apt historical comparison is to the Czechoslovakian and Polish partisans who wanted nothing less than to harry the Germans on (or within) their borders before the war. The British and French ambassadors (i.e. Qatar, etc) took great pains to try and convince the Polish and Czechoslovakian governments to restrain their partisans from attacking German people or positions, since they suspected Germany would use any and all provocation, no matter how small, as a casus belli. Anyone who's read a bit of WW2 history also knows how often the German government attempted to engineer exactly these kinds of events to justify their aggression.

It sounds straight out of the Likud playbook, doesn't it? But in what universe does an attack that kills 1000 people, a good number of them active duty soldiers, justify killing and maiming over 100,000 civilians and leveling hundreds of thousands of buildings? If the shoe were on the other foot, this implies Hamas also has the moral imperative to do just the same to Israel. That's moral relativism for you.

Perhaps Europe had a better understanding of this topic when they instituted the Geneva Conventions and other international humanitarian law after the war than we do today, 100 years out, trying to now claim none of it actually matters and the means justify the ends.

For work, I primarily use Gemini CLI, and the one real awkward part of plan mode is that the harness can't run commands, even exploratory ones. So when I'm giving the harness a task in plan mode, it can't experiment and is either blind or relying on its training data and/or any other context (e.g. source code, documentation) I give it. And it often gets things wrong operating that way (depending on how detailed the context ends up being).

For example, the ability for the harness to call into a Python one-liner just to experiment is pretty powerful. If I'm asking it to use D2 to build an SVG graph, it can write some Python to introspect the XML to see if things appear to be placed correctly (size, x-y coords, etc.). Which is a pretty cheap way for it to experiment and verify its results before I deign to examine the rendered SVG with my own eye balls.

It requires GitHub because it forks the submission repo to keep its own immutable copy. It's just using GitHub as a costless datastore. It was probably just done that way to keep things fast and simple and get something out there as quickly as possible. There are only 15-16 verified submissions so far, so it's not like this needs something complicated yet

What's the availability story? Docker Hub has pretty severe rate-limiting even if you're not an anonymous user.

A "genuine ownership stake in the AI compute that's making things happen" sounds to me like corpo-speak for "taxpayer-funded bailout of my unprofitable company". After all, if everyone has a stake in AI, and AI crashes, then everyone (not just OpenAI) loses their money

This isn't a binary distinction -- safe vs unsafe. Things you put in your body have a risk profile. The risk profile of raw milk is much higher than pasteurized milk, regardless of how hygienic you think you're being. Cows step in mud, their own feces, the feces of other animals, dirty water, and many other things that can splash up and onto (and into) their udders, contaminating their milk with pathogens.

Letting people make their own choices always has its limits, regardless of what people say (rather casually on the Internet). When nearly all health systems in the world work through the healthy subsidizing the unhealthy, we should be attempting to limit preventable illness.

In any case, I don't think there's any country or state that bans drinking raw milk. If you're on a farm and you want to drink your own milk, go ahead. Just don't claim it's safe enough to sell, because it really isn't.

Yup. I never even use activate, even though that's what you find in docs all over the place. Something about modifying my environment rubs me the wrong way. I just call ``./venv/bin/python driver.py`` (or ``./venv/bin/driver`` if you install it as a script) which is fairly self-evident, doesn't mess with your environment, and you can call into as many virtualenvs as you need to independently from one another.

``uv`` accomplishes the same thing, but it is another dependency you need to install. In some envs it's nice that you can do everything with the built-in Python tooling.

In addition to what others have mentioned, it also just makes it easier to come back later to a code base and make changes, especially refactoring. In many cases you don't even really have to add many type hints to get benefits from it, since many popular libraries are more-or-less already well-typed. It can also substitute for many kinds of unit tests that you would end up writing even 5 years ago. If you're an infrastructure engineer or data scientist that's usually just writing a lot of glue code, then it greatly helps speed up your output (I've found)

Just run the code that provisions the infrastructure? Sandboxing is the least of your problems. You would need to fully mock out all function executions and their results to have a hope to properly execute the code let alone govern what's happening without affecting a live environment. And even still, there would be ways to fool this kind of introspection, as I mentioned. In an enterprise environment where this kind of governance is mandatory, that's not acceptable.

In any case, regardless whatever clever method you try to use, even if you're successful, it's not as straightforward and easily understood and extensible as OPA policy. Let's say you succeed in governing Rust code. OK, but now I have developers who are writing in Python and Java and TypeScript. What now? Develop a new, customized solution for each one? No thanks

I agree somewhat with the proposition that YAML is annoying for configuring something like a workflow engine (CI systems) or Kubernetes. But having it defined in YAML is actually preferable in an enterprise context. It makes it trivial to run something like OPA policy against the configuration so that enterprise standards and governance can be enforced.

When something is written in a real programming language (that doesn't just compile down to YAML or some other data format), this becomes much more challenging. What should you do in that case? Attempt to parse the configuration into an AST and operate over the AST? But in many programming languages, the AST can become arbitrarily complex. Behavior can be implemented in such a way as to make it difficult to discover or introspect.

Of course, YAML can also become difficult to parse too. If the system consuming the YAML supports in-band signalling -- i.e. proprietary non-YAML directives -- then you would need to first normalize the YAML using that system to interpret and expand those signals. But in principal, that's still at least more tractable than trying to parse an AST.

Are we already forgetting the Lebanon pager incident? It only happened last year. It seems perfectly rational to question the home country of a spyware company (of all things) when that country has in recent memory infected the supply chain of commodity electronics to booby-trap pagers and walkie talkies to explode and kill their putative enemies.

Let's also not forget that that country's paid spokesmen (both Israeli and American) were joking for months about those explosions, even lobbing it as a threat to their perceived enemies -- on live TV no less!

I think people should be highly skeptical of articles like this, even without knowing anything about the subject in question. No byline/author. No citations/links to the studies in question. Confirmation of preconceived notions that people would like to be true (e.g. the sun as a wellness remedy instead of damaging to skin), including unfounded "just so" stories and claims about evolution, diabetes, and other unrelated topics. Named individuals seem to "specialize" in sunlight as a wellness remedy (seems like a big red flag to me). No actual physical theory as to how it could be true (more vitamin D reduces death by up to 50%? how? your body only needs so much vitamin D and it's not actually all that much).

And sure enough, if you look up any details on the studies in question, they are highly questionable. Vastly different populations studied with very weak controls. For example, sunscreen use -- both chemical and physical, i.e. hats -- was not controlled for. Seems like a big problem since that's the primary claim being made! And it seems like such an obvious thing. It makes one wonder why it was omitted.

The facts of the "status quo" of sun exposure dangers, on the other hand, have quite a lot more going for them, both in terms of study quality and in terms of physical explanation/interpretation. UV radiation physically damages DNA, even when you don't burn. Tanning is a response to skin cell damage, so any additional melanin production in your skin is indication that your DNA is being damaged. Damaged DNA means when your cells reproduce, they reproduce the damage and/or otherwise mutate. If that damage or mutation happens to be cancerous, then you have a big problem. Tanning, contrary to what people seem to think, doesn't inoculate you against skin cancer or damage. It merely helps absorb a higher percentage of UV radiation -- meaning your skin is still getting damaged, just at a slightly lower rate (a helpful, though marginal, evolutionary advantage).