Trying to parse this comparison. Are you comparing the withholding of federal funds for certain classes of books to a revolution that installed an Islamic theocracy in Iran?
Can you elaborate on how you think these two things are comparable?
The former is "tax dollars can't be spent on books that depict certain content". The latter is "a revolution lead by Islamic theocrats installs a brutally repressive islamist regime that transformed an otherwise western country into a hellscape". You think these things are the same?
But more generally, all those little book bans in various forms, explicit anti-diversity and xenophobic rules, undermining the right to vote for the specific groups of citizens, etc. add up and point in a specific direction. There are quite a few popular people who would be up for a theocracy, and a lot of openly fascist people down with the brutally repressive part. Consider how the sexual content in the Bible doesn't normally get included in those laws - like it's not the sexual content that's actually the target here...
Nothing happens out of nowhere. We're at "concentration camps are accepted by many people" level at the moment. The direction of government is obvious, the speed and possible success are still up for debate.
Okay but this isn't a book ban. I'm not understanding what you're saying. This bill doesn't prohibit these books from being printed or sold or possessed. Did you even read it? Seems like you're pivoting to "prison camps for people in the country illegally means we'll have a theocracy soon". I'm not sure you've actually thought this through.
I know it doesn't prohibit printing and selling them... yet. It doesn't really matter, because this proposal for ban in schools doesn't exist in vacuum. This specific change in itself is not that important. But on the background of what's happening in general, what's not happening in terms of kids sexual safety, and which group is mostly involved in the whole issue - that's important.
And you somehow changed the "concentration camps" to "prison camps for people in the country illegally". I meant exactly what I wrote.
> Also the choice of quotes changing behavior is a thing in:
In those languages they change what's contained in the string. Not how many strings you get. Or what the strings from that string look like. ($@ being an extreme example)
> @ Expands to the positional parameters, starting from one. When the expansion occurs within double quotes, each parameter expands to a separate word. That is, "$@" is equivalent to "$1" "$2" ... If the double-quoted expansion occurs within a word, the expansion of the first parameter is joined with the beginning part of the original word, and the expansion of the last parameter is joined with the last part of the original word. When there are no positional parameters, "$@" and $@ expand to nothing (i.e., they are removed).
That’s…a lot. I think Bash is interesting in the “I’m glad it works but I detest having to work with it” kind of way. Like, fine if I’m just launching some processes or tail’ing some logs, but I’ve rarely had a time when I had to write an even vaguely complex bash script where I didn’t end up spending most of my time relearning how to do things that should be basic.
Shellcheck was a big game changer at least in terms of learning some of the nuance from a “best practice” standpoint. I also think that the way bash does things is just a little too foreign from the rest of my computing life to be retained.
Complex and bash script should not be in the same sentence.
If a script you have is becoming complex, that’s an hint to use an anemable programming language with proper data types and structures.
> After the massive X/Twitter layoffs (60-70% headcount culled) with X/Twitter still standing, this assumption was clearly proven false.
Twitter at the same time removed features to have fewer things to support. And didn't implement anything new (or really fix much) for ages. It's not the same service that was standing afterwards. And the "still standing" ignores the part where they started serving empty timelines, repeated messages from broken paging, broke 2fa for days, messed up whole continent access, etc. etc. They survived (and still had fewer problems than I expected), but it wasn't smooth at all - hardly a success too.
The thing is, as an outsider to Twitter but with 20 years of experience doing software dev including some time at internet scale web and mobile, I don't think that the basic "fetch a timeline" backend plus two front end apps and a web interface is that hard, a small team (<100 engineers) definitely could do that with modern cloud infrastructure. But that's not what the Twitter product was. We've just described nothing more than the bait to lure the product, which was advertisers running ads.
Most of the effort in the original Twitter- engineering and everything else- was about getting advertising revenue. That meant
1) Having good data mining to identify user interests to match ads against
2) Having a strong user experience like Meta Ads or AdSense for the ad buyers
3) Keeping the conversations such that advertisers wanted to be associated with it, both automated and manual censorship
4) Having good relationships with advertisers, both large clients and agencies
That was where the majority of Twitter's (dev and non-engineering both) effort was going, to bringing in the revenue from advertisers. When Elon Musk purchased Twitter advertising fell dramatically immediately, at basically the same time he gutted all of the people doing the advertising. That was why he tried "buying a blue-check" and so many premium features, because he got rid of all the infrastructure necessary to have a serious ads platform. And premium doesn't work, of course, as anyone with experience in the Internet world could have told him. Which is why the value of the company- and its revenues- have declined so dramatically since the acquisition.
Bluesky is basically doing the same thing as X right down to also not running ads, which is how they also manage to run on a small team. Last I checked they'd raised less than 20m, and have basically no revenue, so they are able to operate very lean. It's for the same reason that Twitter is a lot smaller now: ads are a huge engineering and non-tech effort. As Alphabet and Meta remind us, it can be insanely profitable, but you need a lot of people to get it right.
- they move their official residence and happen to stay most of the time at the "totally just rented" place in the same state anyway
- or keep telling everyone how they're going to move, but don't actually do.
Because let's be honest - if there wasn't a big reason to live where they do, and it wasn't a pain to work from another state, they wouldn't be there to begin with. They're paying the higher taxes because they benefit(ed) in some way.
They also benefit from being famous and threatening to leave.
> Claude Code seems to strictly be for the former, while typically the engineers who can maintain software long-term are the latter.
Given the number of CC users I know who spend significant time on creating/iterating designs and specs before moving to the coding phase, I can tell you, your assumption is wrong. Check how different people actually use it before projecting your views.
Yeah, I wasn't trying to say "These are the people who use CC, for these purposes" but rather what the intention seems to for Claude Code in the first place. I'm using CC from time to time, to keep up to date with what tooling is available, and also know people who use CC every day and plan a lot up front, sorry if I gave the impression that I meant that everyone using CC is doing that, was trying to get at what the purpose of the tool seems to be, which seems to be true today too, as the models continuously seem to steer you to "doing" and moving faster, not stopping and thinking.
Sure. There's always going to be someone opposing something. But I'm not aware of cases where a disagreement in an environment good for everyone was large enough that it caused the leadership/government collapse. Similarly on a small scale, the number of grumpy people at companies I worked at scaled more or less with how good things were for everyone.
In other words, if things are good enough, there will be more people disagreeing with the totalitarian part than with the overall conditions.
Foreign state-actors love to sow discontent in enemy territories. It doesn't matter what they say to rile up the population and cause instability -- they'll just do it.
Yup. When books get banned for containing actual sexual content, that gets reverted https://www.newsweek.com/bible-banned-texas-schools-over-sex...
reply