mmillin

I think a lot of the loss of shame is a result of multiculturalism. The more cultures you accept, the fewer behaviors you can openly shame.

As a benign example, eating food with your hands rather than utensils. In some cultures this is rarely ever tolerated, in others it depends on the food item, and in others still you might always eat with your hands. These will be at odds and you have to decide what is OK to shame and what isn’t.

I think we as a society bias against shaming in seeking inclusivity, but some things can be lost along the way as well. To use the eating example again, eating with your hands instead of utensils may be more likely to spread disease (or maybe it needs to be coupled with a stronger shame against _not_ washing hands). I don’t know what the right approach is to strike a balance here in a multicultural society.

At some point every non-secured place you can store data online will be used as an agent swarm message board.

I see a lot of people below arguing that this isn’t the fault of the EU policy but the companies. I think that’s being overly charitable to the policy. While you can be rightly upset with the companies behavior, ultimately policy has to work with the incentives it creates. The policy in its current form allows for meeting requirements with annoying cookie banner opt-outs while keeping the lucrative business of tracking. If we don’t want that, the policy should be changed. Don’t expect companies to go against their interests here, even if some will actually be thoughtful and find a way to do so. The “Purpose Of a System Is What It Does” principle applies, and the purpose of the EU policy seems to be cookie banners for most sites.

I got strong feelings of Vernor Vinge’s work here. I’m not sure how managed to come up with such a close picture to where it now seems programming and security is headed.

Obviously it isn’t totally impossible, but it becomes challenging to know if it’s required or not. It’s hardest when it isn’t just throwing an error but instead defaulting to something only half-sensible. For example replacing a negative number with 0 or overflowing rather than panicking.

When it comes to assumptions about the input, ideally model them in the type system. If you can’t, explicit checks and throws are OK in my book. But don’t check-and-hide any errors. You’ll be hard pressed to debug the issues they’ll cause down the road, since it will usually be far from the implementation that you see the impact.

>Yet even with a lot of manual steering, that type of code does not come out of LLMs naturally, and even if the code comes out naturally like that, they will still attempt to handle now impossible errors.

This is something I’ve struggled to fight against in many PR reviews. Especially once already written, convincing someone that their excessive null checking is harmful is an uphill battle. Short of better modeling (and languages that allow for sum types to enable it), I haven’t been able to come up with a universally convincing argument against this kind of “shotgun parsing.”

Maybe it really just isn’t that big of a deal? But when actually reading through and refactoring a codebase I’ve always found it frustrating to manage these unnecessary checks. Sometimes they’re nearly impossible to delete safely once present without first adding some kind of logging or broad investigation.

This is so cool, going to have to check out all of the posts in this series. I recently got a manual knitting machine (a basic round one, non programmable) and have really been enjoying the process.

Learning about the more advanced machines, even the manual ones, is fascinating. If computers weren’t around, I’m sure I’d be doing something with knitting professionally instead of programming.

This is a topic I’ve been wanting a book on for a long time. We’ve done so much work to eliminate the need for maintenance for the masses through things like planned obsolescence, renting instead of owning, and appeasing the hedonic treadmill. I can’t help but feel through this we’ve lost a lot of collective skills in patience and ownership as a result.

I’m looking forward to reading this.