williamdclt

Ah, good point, I spoke too quickly (will I ever not fuck up anything that involves timezones...)

I'd guess that the Cuba side changes, so that all changes are localised to one airport, which is probably much easier than changes at every destination airport

I don't know... I tend to agree with you (especially in this case), but I can also see cases where that's actually not what I'd expect. My hometown has a square that everyone knows as the "tribunal square" (which used to be its official name), but that's not been its official name in decades and about 30% of people don't even know the current official name, yet I would expect a map to refer to it by its current official name and not "tribunal square".

Maybe not quite the same as in this case, the entity who names the square actually owns the square, which isn't the case in the gulf of mexico naming situation. But there is some grey area I think.

> That letter reads almost identical to internet hate comments

the corners of the internet that you frequent have much more eloquent haters than the ones I'm used to

non-philosophical answer: systems are considered "isolated" if the information leaks aren't exploitable. This is a moving definition, it changes as new ways to exploit information are discovered.

> asked

What's your point, "asked" as opposed to what? It proves that the capability is there, which means that agents can decide to do it by themselves (unlikely ATM, becoming less unlikely as AIs become more prevalent in complex systems), and more importantly they can be coerced to do it if they take any user input.

If application engineers did their job correctly, they have nothing to update because you should store future events as a wall clock time + timezone, not an instant (ie something like `2026-09-01T09:00:00, America/Havana`, not `2026-09-01T09:00:00-05.00`).

Which means that flight booking systems are _probably_ fine (they're probably the domain that cares most about timezones and time changes so they've probably modelled it right), but many systems are not fine because it's such a common thing to get wrong.

Definitely not only small cities. Only dense cities maybe, but I'm not sure that the causality link is in the direction you present: big european cities are dense in part _because_ of public transport. They couldn't be so dense without it, you'd need much more car infrastructure (roads, parking lots) which already decreases density, and people would more readily live further out given they'd already need a car anyway.

> If you can no longer use an LLM for reverse engineering without worrying about your account, that drastically reduces its value

...for a niche of customers, from whom the revenue is probably entirely negligible to OpenAI.

Not saying it's right, ethical or anything like that, but it's not "stupid"

Lack of awareness does not mean that it doesn't impact how the music is received. Non-musician not having the knowledge and skills for analysis does not mean it makes no difference to them.

It's like a non-cook not realising the role of MSG in a dish: despite the lack of awareness, they wouldn't enjoy the dish as much without the MSG

> One could say modern music is not "musical performances" then. A sequencer or drum maching playing isn't "a performance", it's a programmed loop.

The drum machine is not all of the performance. In pop you'll have at the very least a singer. Even if all of the instrumental is machine-made, having a live singer definitely makes it a "performance".

I agree with you, although other responders make good points.

Something I've been wanting in Typescript (and I guess it's the same thing here in Rust) is to type-check exhaustiveness of the known enum values, but also enforce that unknown values are handled. I've made utils for that but they're a bit awkward to use compared to native constructs like switch/case.

> because he was dumb enough to pick it up with his hand

Indeed. And what? People do dumb things, that's a given.