reillys

I think having some money saved does not make one petite bourgeois as I say in the comment above I think people who trade their time for money are working class. If you’ve saved enough money that you can retire you aren’t not working class, you are working class. The bourgeoisie do not need to work and so don’t retire.

He didn’t lay out a specific timeline though. So who is to say if this might come to pass? Also, perhaps his work and the development of more left leaning politics and policies actually slowed down the future he predicted. Finally I think people in the comments are deluding themselves about being petit bourgeois when they are more comparable to working class. Many of us have small savings but that does not mean we are not working class - having a million in savings means you might be able to retire, hardly being wealthy. I think a delineation that makes sense today is if you trade your time for money you are working class.

Are the working class not the majority of society? 1% of the population of most western countries are farmers. 1% are extremely rich and 98% are the rest of us.

Give examples of things he got dead wrong?

Knowledge in itself is good. We don’t need everything to have a direct commercial application. In fact most discoveries by their nature do not have directly applicable commercial applications.

He was sometimes successful.

He had tons of failure and failed in the worst possible ways blaming everyone all around him and not taking any responsibility and then he got a chance to rebound and was finally successful. It's complete scoreboard journalism, if for whatever reason at the end apple didn't succeed we'd just put him in the POS column. But instead cause he made some of that sweet green (at the end) we say he's amazing. That is what I don't get.

Well actually that brings up an interesting piece about how the US is structured. I think the reason your police can be more corrupt is because of the federated nature of policing.

Cops are usually only answerable to the mayor of the city (and sometimes the electorate) rather than higher ups in the government. So there is a lack of authority and control there. If they were answerable to politicians and politicians were actually responsible for their actions you could take very firm political actions against those politicians - but in the states nobody in the Cabinet or Government is responsible for law enforcement.

And I understand why this federated system was originally put in place, but this isn't the 1700s. In communication terms the US might as well be Iceland - you can communicate from one end of the land mass to the other instantly, so we don't need to have localized and federated decision making.

If I or somebody else was the victim of a crime I would 100% support using every available source of information to solve that crime. I think we need adequate controls sure, but mostly we need to increase trust in government and police forces so we know we can trust the relevant people with our data.

There is epic fear in the US about the government. That is the actual problem. Now the US gov is a shady piece of shit, so a lot of that is well founded, but that is the root of the problem. Solve that problem and actually trust the people who are supposed to be responsible and in charge to do the right thing and this data problem stops becoming as much of an issue. And no, building some kind of philosophical zero trust system is not going to solve anything, it is a prison you'll end up living in.

Encourage transparency in Police forces and Government with strong legislation and strong support for whistleblowers and punishment of infractions and you have yourself a system that people can begin to trust.

IANAL... The reason you can get a huge settlement in the talc case but not in this case is because people are purchasing the talc and so it is a product liability issue.

In the research case people are basing their care and procedures off another person's research. There is no direct payment from the person receiving the care to the researcher and so it is difficult to draw a direct line from Person A says X to Person B gets injured.

This blog post says 2 and a half minutes not seconds.

I know Bazel is a build system which distributes builds among remote machines.

In fact using any computer language you can achieve these goals - you just need to program it.

So yes you could probably do all the things with all the things, but Basel does not solve this problem out of the box.

I wonder why stripe didn’t “just use Bazel”.

To be clear the sync step is used for the test suite execution not only the one off command running - it’s just something we can also easily do because we have a hot env in the cloud

No you can’t.

They don’t work from your local development env and also work in your CI env.

Mostly Brisk was designed to run your complete test suite on every codes save (ie local save) but it also works great from your CI.

We can run entire test suites in seconds which is performance you don’t get with those systems you named (which are generally for building/compiling)

Decaf is simple to pick out by a person who is competent at tasting coffee. As easy as your red/white wine visual test. People in general are very bad at tasting and especially thinking and communicating about tasting. Plus also people may not know what decaf coffee tastes like or may have never thought about it before.