No, but there are a lot of them, and principal and staff engineers, and solo folks who would get to set the culture if they ever succeed.
A lot of people's taste making comes from reading the online discussions of the engineering literati so I think we need old folks yelling at clouds to keep us grounded.
"It's a big club and you ain't in it". Obviously the problem is the club is too small, that's why for most of the people it is true that they are not part of it.
"Half the population is stupider than how stupid the average person is". As if somehow there's not a single person exactly on the median. In fact there is probably a huge number of people there, and within a margin of error of it.
How do you figure? I don't have a problem with Carlin, but with people who quote him as a source of wisdom.
The commenter who quoted him here in the thread meant to make a joke and I didn't get it? I thought he quoted him as a point against the law we are discussing.
> "Selling is legal, and fucking is legal; but selling fucking is not legal."
I don't get it. The literal interpretation is a clear joke, as you say. So what's the point that it is making?
To be clear, I think the law discussed is stupid. I also think the argument that if both parts are legal they should also be legal together is wrong. What am I avoiding?
I am quite acquainted with Carlin. If there's anyone that can have their absurd logic repeated back to them, it would be a comedian. And That Right Soon.
If you are not an insider with special info and special access, no matter what you do in the market, you eventually lose to the insiders. So, if you blur the details a bit, you're just giving your money to these people.
The rational move would be to just not participate in a market where insider trading happens. I don't really understand why people aren't avoiding these markets like the plague.
I find it very hard to understand why so many people and institutions are still participating in markets that are obviously full of insider trading. It's basically just giving money away to the insiders. Why do people do this?
You're a fund manager. What's the alternative? Throw your hands up and tell your customers to take all their money back, you don't want to get paid anymore?
Exactly. Barter is super insanely expensive in comparison with the most manipulated paper markets; thus, if you closed the current markets, the participants would be very highly incentivized to create a new one, which would likely be worse on all accounts.
It's their job and if they're good at it, they still win / earn money. Someone who's staying eyes glued to the price charts on 12 stacked monitors will be the first to see a trend and buy/sell immediately after the action of the insider trader.
Institutions do not stake their own money and are somewhat averse to the direction of the market. As for common people, they're generally not known to do the most rational thing.
How many of the billions of people alive have your perspective? How many of our leaders even, given the news in the last... let's say two weeks. But you can look at thousands of years of history and to me it still seems that people and their leaders don't share your view of "infinitely complex arrangements". I mean they might think such of themselves, but of "others", obviously not.
The story mentions some "official rules". Consider that we also have official rules and behaviour that does not obey them.
I dare suggest your own view might be reductionist.
I read it as being able to see the future, which is still bullshit par excellence. The future is just around the corner as it were, but us normal people cannot see it, on account of both it being the future, and around a corner.
It's depressing to see how the system works. Sure, now there are different kind of terms in a contract, some are material terms and some are... immaterial? And conveniently, you can change some but not others in such a way that the banks and powerful corporations always come out on top.
I never heard of a corporation being forced to point out explicitly which lines in their long terms and conditions document have changed. But it's a well known obligation for regular citizens, because material terms.
> that the modifications are actually disclosed to the counterparty before they sign
Does Microsoft explicitly draw your attention to the fact that Copilot is for entertainment purposes? No, it buries that in a long document hoping you won't see it, and advertises it as the complete opposite, but it's ok when they do it, because those are not material terms, whatever that means. It means it's ok when the big guys do it, in the end.
Material terms are things like price, term, or anything that would change the nature of the overall agreement.
When corporations do it (i.e. change TOS) they need to send you notice of the new terms because it's no longer a change, it's a new contract that replaces the old one...if you agree to it by continuing to usetheir service after notice.
The guy sent the bank a contract. It was the first contract between them, it wasn't a "new contract" (as opposed to the old one? no such thing), it wasn't a "change" to an existing contract.
Why did he need to highlight some terms? How do you mean "change the nature of the agreement", change from what? They didn't have an agreement before this.
> because it's no longer a change, it's a new contract that replaces the old one
What sophistry is this? Of course it's a change. Most of the contract is the same, it's not like Paypal changes it's business to selling shoes. They do the same things, and the terms are mostly the same, only they make some changes. There's nothing supporting your claim that it's a new contract.
> things like price, term, or anything that would change the nature of the overall agreement
That's everything in the contract. Which parts of the contract don't affect the nature of the contract? Why are they there? What the hell is "the overall nature"? If a fee for something changes from $1 to $2, as I understand the english language, "the overall nature" of the contract doesn't change. Just a fee. It's a detail. But this is exactly what you list as "material terms".
And this is why most programmers should stay away from law...
He changed the material terms of the contract so the other parties‘ obligations and rights were substantially different than what they had thought they were in the original version. In the U.S. his actions would have resulted in him being bound by the contract but the other party not being bound.
Doubling the price of a contract is a material term. Basically anything that would make someone change their mind about entering into the contract is material, but price and term are always material by law.
Stuff that isn't normally negotiated isn't material, like jurisdiction for disputes.
Yeah except you're completely misunderstanding their criticism of this entire thing. This has nothing to do with "lack of knowledge" and everything to do with criticising the premises and framing of the law in Western societies.
The game being reset makes sense - time and resources have been spent to make it happen, and it's best to get as much value from those resources as possible.
Of course this means learning the lesson of how the first defeat happened. You reset so that you can learn more lessons. If they ignored the lesson of the first defeat, that's stupid. But the reset itself makes sense.
The reset isn't the problem, the entirely nerfing the Red team is the problem. The US took steps to fail to learn from the exercise before it had even finished.
I can see the following technology replacing motorcycles for communication:
(works up to 20-30km, a bit more if needed)
a) preinstall your fiber optic cable between points A and B (say AA platforms that need/want coordination for distributed passive/multistatic tracking of intruders)
b) when it is torn, send a fiber optic drone from A to B and use its line to replace the torn one (those are flying in Ukraine with bomb payload, now just use its fiber optic reel, you can reuse the drone; not durable, but very cheap and fast repair of radiation-free communication lines)
Today's technology offers so many opportunities ...
Wouldn’t a WiFi mesh network be more reliable in war-torn areas? If you just need communication then actual “internet” is incidental and probably a security risk - just having a fairly secure local mesh network, with nodes covering hot-spot areas, seems like a good idea - it can cross areas where fiber isn’t reliable because of all the war, and it can potentially remove the need for some by-hand communication.
Wifi mesh makes sense in a densely populated area, not over mostly desert.
Also, communication over longer distances (even few km) will add so much latency that it will be unusable for coordinated AA targeting.
Furthermore, all that radiating will just invite bombs from the attacker.
Maybe I was not clear enough about the goal: not "robust command and control communication network", but more of:
quickly and temporarily set up a high-bandwidth low latency communication network to accomplish AA ambush using coordinated mobile passive sensors (a quick radar burst might for initial acquisition might be useful, but probably not necessary).
I was not talking about light-speed motorcycles. That was an artifact of
imperfect war simulation.
The relevant concept is undetectable (by electronic surveilance) communication usable for tactical warfighting. Real life motorcycle messengers are a partial (detectable, high-latency) solutions for which there are currently (not at the time of that war exercise) better options (e.g. the one I presented).
You can nitpick that due to imperfection of the exercise (allowing red team to use light-speed motorcycles) the whole result of the wargame was compromised. To which my answer is: That is a nitpick, real-life offers the red team enough options to achieve the same results without relying on physically impossible feats.
Most recent example: Isrealis are learning to cope with fiber optics drones in the southern Lebanon, to great detriment to their Merkavas.
both in Ukraine and elsewhere there is the fiber optic challenge.
shouldn't it be possible to lock-in amplify imagery of known fluorescent centers in the main types of fiber optic?:
flash/flood the scene with appropriate stimulation wavelength for suitable fluorescent center, take a picture (and observe the emission wavelength), then take the same picture without the flash, repeat this N times and add all the ones with the flash present and subtract all the frames without so one can observe the exact paths of the optic cables...
It seems one could mass produce a cheap detection and imaging platform that can aid cutting all the umbilical cords cost-effectively.
"shouldn't it be possible to lock-in amplify imagery of known fluorescent centers in the main types of fiber optic?"
In Ukraine, there are areas densely covered with fiber optic lines, almost all of them old. How would you detect and cut only the active ones?
A brightly flashing drone examining and cutting fiber optics lines would
a) be slow and very obvious, easy to disable
b) need a lot of battery power for all those flashes, and risk getting tangled in branches when cutting
On the other hand, if you can easily remotely detect the fiber optic cables, it might be useful for quickly detecting them and tracing them back to the operator.
Yeah, and? Not everyone is in control of the culture of the organization they work in. I suspect most people are not. Is everyone on HN CEOs and CTOs?
reply