I think this works unironically. My mother is an avid gardener and can spend 8 hours a day gardening. When her life circumstances allowed for it, she hired a once a week gardener to do the tasks she didn't like (or had difficulties doing as a small woman), and still gardens the same amount. I've teased her for hiring a gardener, but she swears it's a huge help and boost to her gardening quality of life.
Executing people guilty of serious crimes is good and just. They should have a proper trial, and the crimes should be sufficiently serious, but execution is no more or less "barbaric" than the alternatives. As Adam Smith said, "mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent."
> Executing people guilty of serious crimes is good and just.
Wrong. It's barbaric and primitive.
> execution is no more or less "barbaric" than the alternatives
Yes, it is. People make mistakes. People have infinite possibility to grow, change and contribute to society. Snuffing everything someone is out because of an arbitrary society rule that ultimately does less harm than murder is indefensible.
> "mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent."
Taken as far to defend murder it becomes nonsense.
Rape, murder, drug smuggling, terrorism are not mistakes you accidentally make. These are serious crimes destroying lives and the offenders do not deserve a second chance.
Drug smuggling doesn't always destroy lives, sometimes it's just giving people something that shouldn't be illegal in the first place. Rape can very much be a crime of passion and a mistake. Terrorism can be the result of indoctrination. Rape while less likely to be a mistake also doesn't deserve the death penalty.
Yes, all these offenders deserve a second chance. Extreme penalties to set a deterrent are not justice. Just barbarism. Very primitive people.
> Yes, it is. People make mistakes. People have infinite possibility to grow, change and contribute to society. Snuffing everything someone is out because of an arbitrary society rule that ultimately does less harm than murder is indefensible.
Putting aside statistics on actual reform instead of fantastical infinite possibility, as I understand this policy mostly serves to deter foreigners from attempting the potentially very lucrative business of smuggling drugs into Singapore. Even if Singapore didn't take the "barbaric" approach of executing them, they would have to either host them as prisoners on their already very limited land, or go through the process of deporting them to their home country, where they might not even face any consequences and just try again. Why should they bear this burden for people who have no ties to Singapore and will never contribute anything to it?
> as I understand this policy mostly serves to deter foreigners from attempting the potentially very lucrative business of smuggling drugs into Singapore.
So what? That's not a justification.
> Why should they bear this burden for people who have no ties to Singapore and will never contribute anything to it?
Singapore is perfectly able to control their borders better than most countries. It's not like the US where it's relatively easy to sneak in. 'They might come back' is a poor justification for murder.
> what makes _your_ opinion better than mine, or that of the Singaporeans?
Because I believe it can be supported and be shown to be objectively correct. Not that I'm willing to put in the effort when it already took this much for you to realize I was stating an opinion though.
> Okay, why should they? Drug traffickers are perfectly capable of not attempting to smuggle drugs into Singapore.
If you think casual murder is fine because it's convenient, I don't think there's much for us to discuss anyway. We clearly have drastically different values. I'll just take solace in the fact that Singapore likely won't survive another 100 years.
> Because I believe it can be supported and be shown to be objectively correct.
Out of curiosity, How can your argument "be supported and shown to be objectively correct" ?
It seems the evidence is actually the other way around. After introduction of the death penalty in the 90s, the average net amount of opium trafficked to Singapore famously dropped by ~70%.
I do not support the death penalty myself, but primarily for ethical and moral reasons to preserve our humanity - which is constantly under attack. But not "objective ones" since the evidence clearly supports the death penalty for "objective reasons". For these positions, objectivity should be left in the gutter.
> After introduction of the death penalty in the 90s, the average net amount of opium trafficked to Singapore famously dropped by ~70%.
If we introduced the death penalty for minor shoplifting, minor shoplifting would probably drop by a huge percentage. Would that justify it?
> But not "objective ones" since the evidence clearly supports the death penalty for "objective reasons". For these positions, objectivity should be left in the gutter.
I disagree. When you evaluate all the pros and cons, I think the evidence is solidly against the death penalty.
> If we introduced the death penalty for minor shoplifting, minor shoplifting would probably drop by a huge percentage. Would that justify it?
Of-course it wouldn't - but you are precisely reinforcing my point. Because opponents can claim via evidence that the death penalty is effective for this, if you argue on the basis of "facts". Thus, objectivity should not be used as an argument for an ethical and moral human principle. Such principles stand by themselves to maintain the sanctity of the human soul - no justification needed.
> but you are precisely reinforcing my point. Because opponents can claim via evidence that the death penalty is effective for this, if you argue on the basis of "facts".
I don't believe I am. The death penalty being effective at reducing a crime isn't itself a sufficient justification of the death penalty.
> Thus, objectivity should not be used as an argument for an ethical and moral human principle. Such principles stand by themselves to maintain the sanctity of the human soul - no justification needed.
We do have objective arguments though; ultimately everything can be quantified by the amount of harm or good it does.
> Because I believe it can be supported and be shown to be objectively correct.
Then that's not an opinion, it's a proposition aiming at fact, and you should back it up rather than restating it loudly and more slowly when asked for justification.
It can be both. There's such a thing as opinions that coincide with facts. Until I put in effort to support it though, I only offer it as an opinion.
> you should back it up rather than restating it loudly and more slowly when asked for justification.
It's a fair amount of work to do so, and I haven't seen anyone worthy of putting in such work. This site isn't great, from a practical point of view, for that type of lengthy debate, either.
>and I haven't seen anyone worthy of putting in such work
So aside from the subhuman Singaporeans who should be violently forced to adopt your ethics, it is also everyone on HN that is far below your golden ethical level and not worth of effortful discussion (but definitely worth moral lecturing and grandstanding), got it.
> So aside from the subhuman Singaporeans who should be violently forced to adopt your ethics,
I didn't use the word subhuman, I used the word barbaric, and that's more regarding the authoritarian regime in power.
> it is also everyone on HN that is far below your golden ethical level and not worth of effortful discussion (but definitely worth moral lecturing and grandstanding), got it.
There's plenty of people who I could have a great, in-depth, reasonable discussion with, it's just that you're not one of them. Even this reply of yours is mainly bait, reliant on twisting things to get a reaction.
You're one of those commenters who needs to have the last word...this unproductive discussion is still going to go in for a few more replies yet because you can't let stuff go. I'm guessing my comment offended you because you live in Singapore and like it, is that it? All of this is just defensiveness?
> execution is no more or less "barbaric" than the alternatives.
You'll need to put more thought into it. Imagine your kid traveling somewhere, smoking pot, flying back to Singapore, getting randomly checked and facing consequences.
“Any Singapore Citizen or Permanent Resident found to have abused drugs overseas will be treated as if he/she had abused drugs within Singapore. Consumption of a controlled drug is an offence and a person may face imprisonment of a minimum of 1 year and up to 10 years, or a fine not exceeding S$20,000 or both.”
What about longer rest periods? For example if I wait 1hr between sets I can do full weight again without dropping down weights with a 2-5min break. In fact I can get multiple more sets in and significantly increase my total volume if I spread a workout over a day (which is easier with WFH). Any thoughts on this? Is there not enough muscle fatigue with this approach?
Hard to stay warmed up that way. What you’re describing is how people tend to get big without the gym (lifting heavy things through the day) but they also tend be pretty active in between (think farm work).
But as long as you’re not going so hard you risk injury, it might be great overall. Could be really good for your mental state.
> And LLMs slurped some of those together with the output of thousands of people who’d do the task worse, and you have no way of forcing it to be the good one every time.
That's solvable though, whether through changing training data or RL.
Context matters, what profession you’re in matters, what the power imbalance is matters. Who the person is and what they are like matters and the situation does too.
A workplace where no one swears, ever, sounds shit.
I started my career in the UK around 2010 and it could have been normal banter at that point but I feel workplace relationships have generally become more corporate and risk-averse since then and it wouldn't be acceptable in most office environments anymore. I suppose everyone will have a different experience.
Everyone certainly does have a different perspective.
Personally, I've never worked anywhere in Blighty where giving and accepting piss taking and creative insults isn't the norm. Anybody offended by this will be politely told to develop a sense of humour (of the type spelt with a 'u').
Depends on where you want to draw the line.. I definitely prefer teams where you don't have to play oral minesweeper all day. It just results in everyone being obviously two faced.. If I do something very stupid, it's fine to snap and call me a dickhead, as long as we keep getting along the other 99% of the time. It's even fine to do it lovingly when I'm doing minor stupid activities. Of course there are limits but for me it's very far from 'do it once and I'm running to HR'
Maybe I'm just extremely lucky with my coworkers, but I've been working for 25+ years, and it's never occurred to me to call a co-worker a dickhead. It really should not be that hard to keep it professional and avoid insulting people.
"Not calling someone a dickhead" should not take constant cognitive load or feel like "playing minesweeper" all day.
Of course it depends on the context, but firing someone over one offense of calling someone a dickhead is quite reactionary and punitive. Grow up. Sometimes people say things they regret in the moment, it doesn't mean someone and potentially their family should be affected. This is why you have policies, writeups and whatnot. Not jumping at the chance to fire someone.
Might just be 'cause I'm Serbian (we swear a lot, and the swearing tends to be very vulgar) and also grew up surrounded by Aussies, Kiwis, Brits and Irishmen, but to me "dickhead" barely registers as an insult or even all that unprofessional. I obviously wouldn't go around calling just about anyone a dickhead unprovoked, but I've been a part of plenty of teams where we talk to each other along those lines. Hell, I've had my fair share of "Cunt"s thrown around too. Obviously there's a cultural element at play here though, so what might be okay for me won't be for someone else.
That said I really don't think something like this warrants dismissal, unless it's a frequent problem. Obviously we shouldn't be going around and insulting each other for no reason, but are bosses really so fragile that they can't deal with a single instance of their subordinates being sorta mean to them and calling them names?
I worked at a public company in the Netherlands (TomTom) that employs many people from different countries and cultures, and many LGBTQ+ people as well.
In all earnestness, without any malice, my American friend (who I'd worked with before and at TomTom) asked a group of co-workers if anybody wanted to be his guinea pig for some new software, and boy that didn't over well with the Italian guy! He profusely apologized and explained what he really meant by the term "my guinea pig", and things were just fine, plus he learned not to call Italians "guinea pigs" (with either the hard or soft "g").
That same friend eventually left the company for a much better offer, but later TomTom rehired him with a huge promotion and pay raise because they really loved his work and desperately needed him, and he was irreplaceable. He was rehired and promoted to CTO, and finally he was having dinner with a bunch of the TomTom founders and executives, including the CMO Corinne Vigreux and her husband the CEO Harold Goddijn.
Then Corinne Vigreux said something blatantly transphobic, which she obviously meant as a slur (unlike his "guinea pig" faux pas that he immediately apologized for), so he called her on it, and she would not take it back or apologize, and that incident led to him suddenly leaving the company.
That was after TomTom spent huge amounts of money to initially recruit, then later rehire and retain him, he designed and implemented key parts of their infrastructure, and they even prominently featured him in many of their recruiting videos and magazine articles and LinkedIn posts, saying how much he liked working there -- many of them are still online at TomTom's recruiting web site!
But thanks to the inherent power imbalance, her executive level privilege, and the nepotistic advantage of being married to the CEO, she got away with it scott free, and they hushed up the reason he left).
He lost his dream job, and everyone else was left wondering why he suddenly disappeared for no apparent reason, after being so pleasant to work with, performing so well, and being so frequently exploited as a recruiting spokesperson, and interviewed as a representative of the company. (I am not exaggerating that if you google tomtom + his name you get pages of unique interviews and articles over many years.)
Corinne Vigreux drove him out of his job for speaking out against her intentional slur, when she clearly said and meant it in front of several other people, when she's the one who should have been reported to HR and punished for what she said, not him.
Over many years, TomTom spent a LOT of money recruiting, relocating, then re-recruiting him, they loved his work. I originally recruited him by introducing and recommending him to executives, managers, and HR. I still have the enthusiastic emails I sent with and about him, which they acted on by giving him an offer he couldn't refuse and relocating him. I never got any recruiting bonus, since I was a contractor at the time I recruited him. I just wanted the opportunity to work with him again, and cherished the opportunity to get the old band back together in Amsterdam.
The manager I recommended him to, who hired him and worked closely with him, was shocked and dismayed to hear about the actual reason he suddenly left. Especially because the company culture as a whole is definitely not transphobic, and I know current employees with trans children who were also quite shocked to hear about Corinne Vigreux's bigotry. TomTom certainly gives a lot of lip service to inclusivity on their web site.
Introducing the LGBTQIA+ Committee: How TomTom is empowering inclusive action:
But after the derogatory transphobic bullshit Corinne Vigreux said in front of witnesses, which was clearly in violation of company policy, culture, scientific facts, and just plain human decency, I believe she morally owes TomTom a refund of all the money they spent recruiting and relocating and hiring him twice, as well as all the money they had to spend replacing him.
Because she can CERTAINLY afford it. She might even learn to keep her bigoted mouth shut and transphobic opinions to herself, or grow some thicker skin if she can't bring herself to be do that, merely being polite and respectful to her own employees, instead of being bigoted and vengeful. And not to be so blatant about taking advantage of her nepotism and exploiting the power imbalance and her husband.
Not just because of all of TomTom's money and reputation she burnt at the altar of her ugly bigoted vanity, but because of how difficult her bigotry and nepotism make it for TomTom to recruit and retain good people: a problem she recognizes and publicly talks about herself. The transphobia's one thing, but losing high level talented employees because they stand up to transphobia or any kind of bigotry is much more systemically worse, and should be actionable by HR.
>In fact, she thinks, the lack of talented staff is “the biggest issue most organisations are facing. You have to fish in a bigger pond to fill those gaps. So of course you should look at women too”.
Apparently not trans women, nor people who stand up to her transphobic bigotry either.
TomTom certainly hasn't been doing well under HER leadership (just google the ill-fated sports watches and "TomTom Bandit" that you've probably never heard of -- maybe the product name was too honest about the cost of its subscription service).
But being married to the CEO has its nepotistic advantages, like being able to say whatever she wants in front of everyone, and then get rid of anyone who has the guts to stand up to her and call her out on her bigotry.
People grow and learn and one of your primary jobs as a manager is to help them do so. We're all human and mess up - one dickhead seems like a cause for a warning. Multiple dickheads suggest someone isn't learning, and _that_ is a good reason to fire them.
> Calling someone a dickhead in any professional environment is unprofessional
The fuck it is. There is a while bunch of preconditions that need to be met first. (for example, if you're working as a teacher, its probably unproffesh, but as an engineer[a real one, not a software engineer], you need to call a spade a spade.)
You can't have "professionalism" as a mask to allow abuse or general degrading treatment at work.
crucially the person in question used dickheads non-pejoratively, it wasn't an insult. However the employer didn't follow procedure either.
> Should bosses also get one free insult for their employees too? Obviously not.
If their employment contract requires it, sure. This worker's contract guaranteed them a warning in this scenario. They are protected by that legally binding contract. That's the entire point of it.
Even outside a contract, consequences for actions should be proportional to the harm of those actions. "You called me a mild insult in the heat of the moment after years of productive employment, so I'm removing your livelihood" is not.
Yes, the type system basically replaces a degree of unit tests. You no longer need unit tests that are basically just type checking. And it's more comprehensive too. It's much easier to have incomplete test coverage without knowing it than an invalid type system. With such a type system, the app will fail to compile. Of course, you still need unit tests for many other things, but the type system does remove a class of them.
Whether typechecking or unit tests is "better" is really a question of taste.
I'm sympathetic to the issue of services getting worse, it sucks, but
> If an API delivers very solid results one day and crap the next and I spent a lot of money, how does that work? There are many people on reddit/youtube speculating why claude sometimes responds like a brilliant coder and sometimes as if it had a full frontal lobotomy. I see this in Cursor too.
This seems like an incredible over-reach. There's no predatory behaviour here. You're free to cancel at any time.
It's an incredibly fast moving field, a frontier field in software. To say that, in order to charge for something, you are legally bound to never make mistakes and have regressions, is an incredibly hostile environment to work in. You'll stifle growth if people think experiments might come with lawsuits unless they're positive it leads to improvement.
If they decided they were going to lock everything to gpt-2 and refuse to pay back any people who bought yearly subscriptions, sure I would be agreeable to considering this a bait-and-switch hoodwink. But that is clearly not happening here.
> Because memory bandwidth is the #1 bottleneck for inference, even more than capacity.
But there are a ton of models I can't run at all locally due to VRAM limitations. I'd take being able to run those models slower. I know there are some ways to get these running on CPU orders of magnitude slower, but ideally there's some sort of middle ground.
