Actually if I must be literal it’s a pretty big part of the culture out there. The playa is rife is with inside jokes that lately revolve around people telling you to have a terrible time, or saying there’s absolutely nothing at some place with a wink. Discovery and resilience is the point.
And sure, there’s a bit of old guard/new guard here, where the new guard is a bit softer about it. Personally, it was never my favorite aspect, but dismissing it says more about you than me.
>It's not wild to imagine Canada wants to protect a domestic food producing industry.
It's still protectionism, even if it's for a "good cause". During the mercantilist era protectionism was considered the obvious thing to do. After all, why would you want to make yourself poorer and enrich your enemies in the process? That doesn't mean it wasn't protectionism.
>I'd call this strategic, not political (although ofc it involves lobbying, again, like in every other country including the US)
For every policy that benefit some interest group there's almost always a fig leaf "strategic" justification for it. Jones act? It's to protect domestic ship building. Banning discounted medicines from abroad? They aren't been certified safe by the FDA. Tariffs on sugar? Food security and American Jobs™, of course!
The US dairy industry is heavily subsidized. Countries generally don't let another country dump heavily subsidized products into their economy if it competes with local industry (provided they have any choice).
Btw, this is analogous to the argument for positive discrimination:
Preferentially treat one group of people (non-white/women/Americans) even if in the short term the revealed preference of businesses is to hire a different group of people (white/men/immigrants), such that, in the long term, the first group of people can develop the necessary skills to compete with the second group.
The arguments can be the same but have entirely different hidden variables that make it fine to use the argument in one context and not the other.
Also, this ignores that the government works for citizens, no matter their race. Promoting racial equality among citizens is a function that the government might undertake. Pursuing policies that favor citizens over non-citizens falls in line with that same reasoning.
No it's really not the same because we have laws against racial discrimination, but it is the entire purpose of the state to represent the interests of its citizens above all others.
Yes, there is always a failure mode. But if do a search or have some result set, it is convenient to have paging work as close to expected as possible.
Say you are processing/shipping orders. You do the first page and then advance to page 2. The very next order may no longer be the next order that would have shown depending on how many orders came in. In fact if order are coming in fast it will be impossible to page through a search result. But if you incorporate the last I’d seen you will get something closer to what the user expects. Naive offset won’t give you this.
I just see in my usage that I can release tens of features a day, whereas I'd be able to release one or two a day usually. I don't know if it's 100x, but it's definitely more than 10x.
The biggest thing to get right is to let the LLMs do what they're great at (code implementation from very detailed specs, and code review), and you do what humans are great (architecture and making sure the high level of the implementation is sane). That way, you get the best of both worlds, and a lot of speed at high quality.
Does this speed of development only apply to the early stages, or will it slow down as the codebase grows? I have yet to see these 100x improvements (and the claims themselves keep getting bigger) on anything more than prototype scale, rather than month-long projects.
No doubt AI boosters will claim we have found an O(1) productivity enhancer that is somehow two orders of magnitude better than anything else before. This is entering lunacy territory.
reply