I'm about the same. jj is kind of perfect for that. Example:
# I've finished something significant! Carve it out from the working "change" as its own commit.
`jj commit --interactive` # aka `jj commit -i` or `jj split`, depending on how you prefer to think of it: making a commit for some work, or splitting a separate commit out of the working change.
# Oops, missed a piece.
`jj squash --interactive` # aka `jj squash -i`
# Let me look at what's left.
`jj diff`
# Oh right, I had started working on something else. I could just leave it in the working change, but let me separate it out into its own commit even though it's unfinished, since I can always add pieces to it later.
`jj commit -i`
# Wait, no, I kind of want it to come before that thing I finished up. Shoot, I messed up.
`jj undo`
# Let me try that again, this time putting it underneath.
`jj split -B @-` # aka `jj split --insert-before @-`. @ is the working change, @- is its immediate parent(s), @-- is all grandparents, etc.
# Note that instead of undoing and re-selecting the parts, you could also `jj rebase -r @- -B @--` to reorder. And in practice, you'll often be doing `jj log` to see what things are and using their change ids instead of things like `@--`.
# I also have some logging code I don't need anymore. Let me discard it.
`jj diffedit`
# Do some more work. I have some additions to that part I thought was done.
`jj squash -i`
# And some additions to that other part.
`jj squash -i --into @--`
# etc.
There's a lot more that you could do, but once you internalize the ideas that (1) everything is a commit, and (2) commits (and changes) can have multiple parents thus form a DAG, then almost everything else you want to do becomes an obvious application of a small handful of core commands.
Note: to figure out how to use the built-in diff viewer, you'll need to hover over the menu with the mouse, but you really just need f for fold/unfold and j/k for movement, then space for toggle.
# I've finished something significant! Carve it out from the working "change" as its own commit.
git add -p
git commit
# Oops, missed a piece.
git add -p
git commit --amend
# Let me look at what's left.
git diff
# Oh right, I had started working on something else. I could just leave it in the working change, but let me separate it out into its own commit even though it's unfinished, since I can always add pieces to it later.
git add -p
git commit
# Wait, no, I kind of want it to come before that thing I finished up. i didn't mess up, this is standard procedure
git rebase -i <some older commit ref> # put commits into the desired order.
# I also have some logging code I don't need anymore. Let me discard it.
don't know what jj does here
edit files
or
git revert -p
# Do some more work. I have some additions to that part I thought was done.
git add -p
git commit
git rebase -i <some older commit ref> # choose the right place and then tell git to squash into the parent
# And some additions to that other part.
git add -p
git commit
git rebase -i <some older commit ref> # as above
you list a number of different commands that i do in git always with the same sequence of commands.
i don't see how jj makes those examples any easier. it looks like maybe they help you get away with not understanding how git works, by instead giving you more commands that do specifically what you want.
I kind of feel like people know how to human, and how the humans around them human, but someone they've never met but only heard about or seen on TV or in meme posts? No clue at all.
Sure, we know the hotshot CEO of COMPANY_NAME_HERE has to put on his pants one leg at a time, but the similarity ends there. They're different, they won't fall for the stupid tricks we fall for. They don't have trouble getting out of bed or ever worry about what their kids are up to. They have CEO spouses that don't ask them to take out the trash or think about which yogurt to buy.
On the flip side, if they do something bad, that's because they're evil. A deep dark evil totally unlike the banal lameness of the people around us. They don't do stupid shit when someone jerks their chain and they get all worked up. Why would they, they're surrounded by money and other powerful people and have servants feeding them brilliant insights all day long. Everything they do is planned and calculated and they think through the damage they're doing to people in excruciating detail.
There's only one species of humans on Earth, and we're all dumb as shit.
> Sure, we know the hotshot CEO of COMPANY_NAME_HERE has to put on his pants one leg at a time, but the similarity ends there.
That’s probably because we know consciously or subconsciously that in order to get and maintain a position of power at a multibillion dollar firm the person either never had a moral compass or quickly had to find ways to justify ignoring or compromising it.
Any one of us who has worked for one of those companies is pretty confident the person running it views other humans not in the way you describe, but as numbers in a spreadsheet who can either justify their continued employment by other numbers in a spreadsheet or not.
Most of us can’t imagine viewing and treating our fellow humans that way.
You are still falling for the evil genius trap. The truth is all of us treat our fellow humans this way, see Singer's drowning child. We're simply not wired to care as much about even large groups of people when they are not people we regularly interact with.
Evil is boring because it is so usual. With the small power I’m given I choose not to recycle, I jaywalk, I say the “R” word in private conversation. If I were a line manager I would play favorites and skip mentorship opportunities if I were tired or busy. As a middle manager I might forget the names of some of my indirect reports and unwittingly pit teams against each other. As my power increases, the fallout of my human actions has larger and more “evil” sounding consequences.
Remember that 99.9% of people do not consider themselves to be the bad guy, yet more than 0.01% of people are bad guys. Almost no one identifies with evil, yet evil is a string that runs through every beating heart.
>Remember that 99.9% of people do not consider themselves to be the bad guy, yet more than 0.01% of people are bad guys. Almost no one identifies with evil, yet evil is a string that runs through every beating heart.
"estimate the prevalence rate of psychopathy in the general adult population at 4.5%." [0]
You do most of humanity a disservice by lumping them in with that cohort that may or may not identify themselves as evil (I have no idea) but are certainly capable of deliberately and with calculation behaving in ways that most of us would label with the "E" word.
It's the transparent subtext. Like, blindingly transparent.
GGP's comment is talking about how CEOs are special or different than we are. That is, that they're not just evil, but that they're evil geniuses. It's just Great Man Theory with a Snidely Whiplash costume.
"Mental Retardation" used to be a common term signed into law and documents but was removed in ~2010. Since then, it has become more of a slur than a description.
> The truth is all of us treat our fellow humans this way.
Nah, I think it is more common of a cultural thing in individualistic societies. I know plenty of people who are worried about the future outlook of others they have never met. For example what phones and social media is doing to our children, or the state of the economy for young people.
I don't think it has much to do with individualism/collectivism. A lot of people are worried about a lot of things beyond themselves; most eventually realize it's bad for mental health and grow out of it, some pick a cause or three and act to make things better, and then there's also the lot that signal worry because it makes them look good.
Of course this is a process, so especially with younger populations, you are going to meet a lot of people worrying about random issues big and small, because it takes time to process it and learn the coping strategies.
I really don't think the collectivist societies are that far ahead. People just invent out groups. India's castes, China's Uyghur's, Japan's castes and treatment of Korea and China, etc. Religious out groups, ethnic out groups, cultural out groups, linguistic out groups, etc. The list is just as long.
I think you'd need to present some stats that compare how much the ultra-wealthy and normal people donate to altruistic causes (adjusted for income) to make that argument
Uh, no. That you believe that is more indicative of your proclivities than anyone else's, and also indicates the people around you are such that haven't challenged you to disabuse you of the notion. It isn't normal. It isn't okay to treat people as just numbers or means to an end, and Dunbar's number is not a license to be a psychopath to people beyond the handful we actively maintain relationships with.
You should treat people empathetically. You should treat the failure to do so by people as something noteworthy and concerning. The fact we as a society seek to optimize for elevating psychopaths for personal gain is part of the problem we've created for ourselves, and to be quite frank, was probably hijacked as early as the founding of the United States into a really problematic, if value creating cornerstone of society that could probably use a good deal of sunlight being shone on it for disinfection and rot clearing purposes.
Two people see an opportunity to make money. One of them recognizes the venture would harm the people involved and decides not to.
The other either does not see the harm (so not a genius) or simply doesn't care (sociopath?). That person does the thing and makes the money.
That person is either some level of naive, some level of evil, but certainly not an evil genius.
> That’s probably because we know consciously or subconsciously that in order to get and maintain a position of power at a multibillion dollar firm the person either never had a moral compass or quickly had to find ways to justify ignoring or compromising it.
Maybe. But I suspect that we tend to view those people that way because they play the I Am A Special Human game in public, especially around those they want to impress / are afraid of, and they really aren't very different from the rest of us at any time. We do the same shit when we're around people we want to impress / are afraid of.
I do agree that the situations such people are in will influence them. They'll have to get used to making decisions that make a big impact on a lot of people's lives, and they'll start thinking that such things are more normal than you and I ever will. I just don't think it changes them all that much.
> Any one of us who has worked for one of those companies is pretty confident the person running it views other humans not in the way you describe, but as numbers in a spreadsheet who can either justify their continued employment by other numbers in a spreadsheet or not.
Okay. But I would do the same, and I'm farther from being a CEO than anyone I know. I can afford to care. If I were thrust into such a position, I would have to squash that caring in order to not cause a great deal of harm to those people I care about. Don't let a doctor operate on his/her own children.
But get me and the CEO sitting in comfy chairs and shooting the shit after work, and I don't think there'll be much of a difference between us. My jokes will be a little funnier, and he'll be more confident and less awkward. But that's just me, not blue CEO blood.
Tell you what. Give me a billion or two dollars and I'll go to a billionaire's hangout. I bet they'll make the same stupid wisecracks, talk about basically the same crap the rest of us do, and get indigestion from eating the too-rich food.
I don't exactly disagree with you. Power changes people. It is tempting and easier to become amoral and accustomed to some pretty messed up stuff. It just doesn't change everything about them. In particular, they have the same dysfunctional thought patterns, they make the same sort of cognitive errors, they struggle with the same shit.
> Most of us can’t imagine viewing and treating our fellow humans that way.
I can.
Perhaps it's not that I have a higher opinion of the CEO/billionaire class, it's that I have a lower opinion of all of us. Nazis were not uniquely evil. I think that's become even more obviously true of late. (Did I just invoke Godwin's Law? So be it.)
Your entire point of humans being clumsy and stoopid and not inherently evil is generally true but for this benign incompetence is why all the discrimination layers, from scool grades to referals, etc. exist.
Whould you give a physician making life-or-death decisions and opsi-budget before you walk away? No. Then where do you draw the line until this irresponsible behavior becomes evil? Evil is defined here not by the individuals intentions but by the outcome.
Would you agree with me, that all the decision makers and elites sabotaging renewable energies and sustainability are evil? Keep in mind, they all might have their clumsy excuses.
All your analysis does is ignore what folks' actual concerns are.
Of course everybody eventually has to take a shit and has dumb jokes.
You're just ignoring some very real differences in how folks relate because of their circumstances and declaring that those of us who understand those differences are dumb.
You're not a temporarily embarrassed billionaire. Having hung out with them, their concerns really are very different than say, the line cooks and journyman HVAC electricians.
While it's tautologically correct that the billionaires also have to have lunch at some point in the day, the specifics of it are vastly different. But more importantly, the ways in which they make their basic livings are fundamentally different in ways that lead them act differently.
That's the difference that folks are point out, and ignoring it just makes you look ignorant of some basic facts about the world.
I agree. It would be great if we were all to keep our guard up and recognise the Germans were fathers sisters and daughters as well, yet they were also consumed by evil.
From a distance I disagree with how Israel conducted itself in Gaza but I have no doubt any other western country would do the same if 1000s of their civilian citizens including children were kidnapped and murdered.
I always imagine what I would feel if some people in a music festival near Guadiana river (Portuguese Spanish border) went through what the Israeli citizens did. I would feel like being evil.
That is by the way why I don’t watch the news. I know all the far flung evil deeds are not for the “other”. They are in my heart and everyone around me.
After all Eischman was just following his moral imperative of obeying the law.
The US does not set out to capture civilians, while the hamas does. It matters. All the rest of the comment makes no sense in light of that.
Also you omitted the part where I said I disagreed with what Israel did. But as a human I believe we are evil like that, and I am really sorry about it.
I was part of CEO recruitment process (sadly not FAANG-like, so maybe it wasn't "so much"-level yet).
Amount of people who are both seriously willing to take the job(considering pressure) and have necessary skills is not very high. Tbh same is truth for any management job - a lot of competent people prefer calmer life.
Obviously for the very top compensation is bonkers and there's fair share of frauds that ended in the position for various reasons, but if you want someone reasonable pool shrinks quite fast.
I may not be _that_ competent, but the calmer life is worth sacrificing a fair few dollars for. For each job I've changed, I've gone to a lower paying position, such that I'm currently still on $10k (around 8%) less than I was earning... 5 years ago, two jobs ago, which was probably about the same as the job I left 6 years before that. All previous jobs were worth leaving.
Parenting, maintaining a long-term relationship, playing (two, kinda) sport(s), home-labbing, keeping up with the state of the world, all take time and I enjoy all of them. It allows me to enjoy the work I do too, to not resent it for all the other things I could have been doing.
I'm in a position of privilege to say any of this, but I've also been careful and relatively well planned with my finances in order to reach this point. I'd be kinda f'd if I was out of work for longer than 6 months, but I'm sure I could re-plan and re-organise priorities and spending to minimise the damage (but we'd definitely be f'd if we both were out of work...).
Have you considered being paid $20 million for one year, and then staying home with family for the next ten years? Even after taxes, you'd still have much more of both time and money than a career in, say, air traffic control.
Following Boeing example you given below - it's not like the guy was given offer to become a CEO out of the blue & had to endure year to be set for life.
He was slowly climbing through the ranks of huge organization over the span of almost 30 years. Given later revelations I certainly wouldn't call it easy or calm - likely even morally challenging sometimes (not admiring anything here - simply any position of power comes with this kind of issues - no matter you're playing for good or bad guys).
Taste of Boeing shareholders for execs is whole other discussion, but I really don't think there's huge crowd of people both willing and capable of filling those shoes.
Maybe, if that was even offered as an option. I doubt I'm that competent, however, and just the fact I have that doubt probably excludes me from the possibility.
Hell, I would gladly take any job where "failing upward" was the rule. Do it for a few years, fail, and then move on to the next higher level opportunity.
Most job levels fail downwards, but once you get to a certain level, for whatever reason, nearly everyone fails upwards. I think "director at a FAANG" and "VP at a medium sized company" are about the level where roles start defaulting to failing upward.
>Amount of people who are both seriously willing to take the job(considering pressure) and have necessary skills is not very high.
I don't believe that. The average CEO is going to have perhaps ten direct reports. I'm willing to bet nearly every one of those is capable and up for the job.
In my past I got high enough to barely touch the ceiling of a multi-billion dollar public company. I routinely had 1:1s with directs to the CEO. Not one of them would be willing or able to take that CEO job.
Just the amount of public facing interviews on CNBC would disqualify half and the other half wouldn't want to do it. They were already being paid very well.
If everyone actually came together and decided that they are not worth paying what they are paid now the compensation would likely normalize to a few multiples of other roles.
But lot of compensation is just magic money out of air that is stock valuations so the stock holder just gives slice of what they think they made. So as long as they financialised system exist so will extreme compensations.
Since most of it is magic money, I'm not sure how much sense is there in evaluating them on it. I.e. if I were suddenly worth $1B, but 90% of that was in a mix of assets I can't do anything with, and some bullshit Wall Street fake money that, at this scale, disappears the moment you look at it, then the actual money I could use would be much, much less.
They are just humans, but if they wield more power, more responsibility should be expected of them. Not just for the business they represent, but also for the society they have an outsized influence upon.
Yaay! I get a chance to bring up IOED - the illusion of explanatory depth [1]
We kinda know how something works, but if we had to draw it out, we’re stumped. The classic example is drawing a bicycle or explaining how a flush works. (You might be able to draw it, or explain it, but that doesn’t obviate the point)
Aw shucks, we never thought of that. Here we were, dedicating every one of our developers to speeding up the build, and we never thought to increase our user share instead. In retrospect, that was pretty dumb! Ok, sorry, we'll get right on that.
Seriously, what is with the trend of assuming that anything anyone in a project does, it is assumed that it has been the main goal of the project and all other objectives have been abandoned? "Firefox's frontend designers are doing frontend design work instead of implementing WebUSB which would immediately reverse their declining user share trend and make billions of dollars worth of donations! What are they thinking?!!"
(I'm gonna get a lot of hate for this post, aren't I?)
I mean, if you could donate directly to Firefox development and not for "anything Mozilla wants to waste it on that day", maybe the donations would go up.
Yes, and in this case they pointed at the function, so a 1-bit model ("yes") would be correct. But it's not that bad. First, they included a test with a false positive. The small models got it right, Opus got it wrong. Second, they asked for an analysis. Look for "Exploitation reasoning, single follow-up prompt:" in the post. It's hard to tell how good they were at a glance, though apparently the full logs are available so you could pull them up.
Anyway, it seems like they erred in the up-front claim "small models found the vulnerability we pointed directly at!", but the findings are at least somewhat stronger if you read through the details.
The small models didn't match Mythos at exploitation. They suggested plausible exploits, but didn't actually try them out so I can't tell if they would have worked. Deepseek R1's sounds pretty convincing to me, but I'm not a good judge. (I'm more in the space of accidentally writing vulnerabilities, not seeking them out or exploiting them. Well, ok, I have a static analysis that finds some, at least.)
Speak for yourself. The bitter taste is what I like. When I don't like a cup of coffee, it's always going to be for being too sour. (Which can be masked pretty well with milk or a substitute, mind.)
I agree with your main point, though. I hated coffee most of my life. Even the smell made me feel ill. At some point, I flipped. I've always liked tea, fwiw.
I guess I don't hate beer as much as I used to. Still don't like it, though. Maybe another few decades?
If I were to invent something like bitcoin, I would use your exact logic to decide to burn the keys. I couldn't trust myself, so I would remove the possibility of agonizing over it. Obviously, I still might feel regret, but I'd choose the potential regret over the potential agony.
Hell, even if I didn't burn the keys initially, I might do it as I observed it starting to take off. I'd be more attached to the idea and its success than to the idea of being filthy rich (and at risk of jail, extortion, and murder). It would feel like a giant middle finger to the parts of the system I disliked.
CO2 is going to be neutral for the peels. You're just transporting it from where the oranges grew to where they were dumped. The CO2 benefit is purely from the trees and other biomass that grow where they wouldn't be growing before.
As for methane, that's a good question. Orange peels are better than most things because the limonene inhibits methane producing bacteria. But you'd still get quite a bit in the deeper piles (that produce the anaerobic conditions needed for methane production).
Spreading them out more would help, but might interfere with the beneficial effects.
China could definitely do this, to offset the minuscule of the destruction they do with the dark fishing fleets around (and possibly in) protected marine areas.
Why is your intention relevant here? Sure: in the US if you kill somebody accidentally then you'll be convicted of manslaughter instead of murder. In your situation, intention is relevant to whether the school decides to throw you out or just discipline you in some way.
But intention is irrelevant when understanding what harms the site will cause. Plenty of sites have been created for noble purposes, and achieved great things, and yet still ended up driving some users to suicide. "Oops, I didn't expect that to happen" might make someone punish you less, but it's not going to change what was built or what effects it had on people.
I mean, at that age I did some stupid shit too and thought it was cool. I'd even get defensive and double down when someone challenged me by saying I had fucked up and hurt people. Hopefully you're still just in that defensive stage and you'll be able to see things more clearly when you get some distance from it.
Hint: if this continued to be popular, there is no way you could control it. (Never mind that you clearly had little interest in controlling it thus far; you've basically stated that your opinions on what is serious vs trivial harassment are all that matter, and when you could get around to deleting things is soon enough.) You would be directly responsible for trashing the school's social environment and harming a lot of people -- many of whom aren't male and/or whose daddy and mommy are not in the military. You don't get to decide who is and isn't vulnerable.
Please learn something about human nature and what people do when given the power over people they feel rejected by or superior to. Especially when the attacks are anonymous.
# I've finished something significant! Carve it out from the working "change" as its own commit.
# Oops, missed a piece. # Let me look at what's left. # Oh right, I had started working on something else. I could just leave it in the working change, but let me separate it out into its own commit even though it's unfinished, since I can always add pieces to it later. # Wait, no, I kind of want it to come before that thing I finished up. Shoot, I messed up. # Let me try that again, this time putting it underneath. # Note that instead of undoing and re-selecting the parts, you could also `jj rebase -r @- -B @--` to reorder. And in practice, you'll often be doing `jj log` to see what things are and using their change ids instead of things like `@--`.# I also have some logging code I don't need anymore. Let me discard it.
# Do some more work. I have some additions to that part I thought was done. # And some additions to that other part. # etc.There's a lot more that you could do, but once you internalize the ideas that (1) everything is a commit, and (2) commits (and changes) can have multiple parents thus form a DAG, then almost everything else you want to do becomes an obvious application of a small handful of core commands.
Note: to figure out how to use the built-in diff viewer, you'll need to hover over the menu with the mouse, but you really just need f for fold/unfold and j/k for movement, then space for toggle.
reply