joefkelley

I happen to have worked on exactly this at Google. No, we don't train on restrictively-licensed code to the best of our abilities.

This reminded me of one of my high school computer science assignments- simply to find all words in a single boggle board. And try to optimize your solution a bit. The point was to teach about recursion/backtracking and data structures. The intended solution was roughly: start at a square, check if your current prefix is a valid prefix, move to a neighbor recursively, and emit any words you find. Trying to optimize naturally motivates a trie data structure.

I found it to be at least an order of magnitude faster, though, to invert the solution: loop through each word in the dictionary and check whether it exists in the grid! The dictionary is small compared to the number of grid paths, and checking whether a word exists in the grid is very very fast, requiring not much backtracking, and lends itself well to heuristic filtering.

Yeah I guess wokeness and cancel culture are what you complain about now when your life is so free from challenges that you have nothing else to complain about.

The burden of proof is on the person making a positive claim. So I didn't think I really needed any more argument than "the article's argument is insufficient for me to believe their claims". I wasn't trying to make any more general point about censorship or social media.

I don't have a problem in general with a ticketing system for the government to request specific kinds of moderation. There do exist valid carve-outs of free speech, and I see no reason why government and industry couldn't collaborate on that. If it were used to censor political speech, then yes, I would have a problem with that. But I haven't seen evidence of that.

The evidence presented in the article does not match the claims.

The emails they include show that there were meetings between DHS and Twitter and between DHS and Stanford, on the topic of election integrity. And that there was a Signal chat (I guess this is kind of sketchy).

But there's no evidence of censorship or anything politically-motivated that I can discern.

Do you feel that a language has to have something at the language level to prevent NPEs?

In my experience, Scala does pretty well without it.

I guess is your point that the language should make it impossible to write bad code, not just make it easy to write good code?

> 3) Don't transparently download and install stuff without user interaction, regardless of where it comes from!

This is an interesting one. I totally get your point. But also users are terrible about updating their software if you give them the choice. Automatic updates have very practical security benefits. I've witnessed non-technical folks hit that "remind me later" button for years.

I'll hedge this by saying I can only speak for the teams I've worked on, plus my somewhat limited understanding of company-wide policies.

The answer to both questions is no. If you opt out, your data is not used for modeling or targeting or anything. Perhaps some internal reporting that isn't used for anything other than like PMs wanting to understand user behavior? Even that I'm not sure about.

If you are identified as being in market for something based on activity and then opt out, you will no longer be classified as being in market. That classification will be deleted- though perhaps not immediately but within some reasonable time frame, say 24 hours or so.

I think each couple has a slightly different balance on what level of collaborative decision making they can expect, and this is actually a big factor in compatibility.

For instance, I take your approach for most purchases under two thousand dollars or so. If I want to buy myself a new computer or whatever, I'd mention it to her, but ultimately I'm probably going to get it even if she thinks I shouldn't. I know some couples where this isn't the case, even if they have the means. Their price threshold for making the decision together is much lower.

But on career changes we make decisions together. For instance, she recently made a change that will result in her making less money, especially in terms of long-term career trajectory. But her stress level and overall happiness is much better. And she knows that my income was a good amount higher anyway and it ultimately won't affect things like when we retire or our quality of life that much.

But then it would be pretty shitty of me to change to a lower-paying profession down the road without her OK. She has sacrificed her earning potential with this kind of commitment in mind and maybe wouldn't have if she didn't know she could count on me to make future decisions with her collaboration.

I'm not saying either end of the spectrum is necessarily better. Just that there are pros and cons and it's more important to be in agreement.

Ah! Thanks for explaining, that makes sense.

I could be wrong (I'm not a finance guy) but this isn't my understanding of how fractional reserve banking works.

If Apple deposits $200 billion and the ratio is 1/10, then the bank can loan out $180 billion of that 200; it must keep $20 billion in reserve - 1/10th.

In your scenario, the bank has negative $1.8 trillion in reserve.

I'm with you 100%. I thought censorship meant "not allowing you to speak". I guess now it means "not actively helping you profit from your speech".