I think the rules written in Clean Code are mostly a response to the kinds of bad code that Martin had to deal with. I think compared to the bad examples he cites his rules are an improvement.

Ousterhout mostly pricks holes in these rules, based on the bad code he has seen. But he’s not infallible either since he wrote wrong comments on his own code, which is a bit of a self-own.

I don’t think it’s entirely possible to provide one set of rules that can be universally applied. You need to adjust your code to the problem you’re solving, your audience, your programming language, etc… You’ll always find counterexamples where doing something a little different works better.

Code should be self-explanatory, but a good informative comment can go a long way. Long methods should probably be broken up, but not always and not beyond the point of usefulness. I’ve seen examples where the UB version read better than the JO version, and vice versa.

The value for me in these discussions is finding out why people write what they do, and what they prefer to read (and why). That helps me think about how I can best structure my code for readability. But there’s no point in setting rules and becoming dogmatic about them.

“May have existed”?

Molotov himself inadvertently implied their existence numerous times in his conversations with Chuev (Molotov Remembers; Molotov-Chuev interviews between 1970-1986, published 1993).

Khrushchev acknowledged their existence in his memoirs, which nobody disputes the provenance of, and which were published in the West in the 1970s.

The CPSU itself acknowledged their existence at the end of 1989, and published their copy of the text in their official journal.

The literal Soviet documents, held by the General Department of the CPSU Central Committee, were located after the archives were declassified in 1992, and have since been published widely.

No party seems to dispute the existence of the secret protocols. If you have a single credible source that does, feel free to cite them.

The judge found that the prosecution didn’t prove he was recklessly speeding and had to convict him of a lesser offense, which came with a cap on the sentence she could give.

On appeal the court did find speeding was proven and he got 15 months jailtime + a 4 year driving ban.

Not sure the pose is the primary issue here…

The more serious answer to that is that someone then needs to decide what “competent” means. Should a human rights activist be disqualified from office if they’re terrible at math?

Morality tests are even harder to make apolitically. It’s another avenue of attack that could be used maliciously.

Sounds like an improvement over the current US congress already.

I am, but you can use a custom analyzer to stop it from compiling if misused. So you can actually stop a caller from writing that and walking away :)

It’s not impossible, at least in C# I know you can mark objects that need to be RAII with some custom attribute and enforce correct usage patterns with a custom analyzer. You need to write it yourself but it’s not impossible that way.

IIRC storage started rapidly rising even before AI, due to those stupid proof-of-storage cryptos.

I do a lot of security work and iOS RCE vulns are typically patched same day with all devices in support getting that security patch at the same time.

The ones you know about, yes :). We know there are complete firms actively exploiting iOS devices though. With Android the security community can figure out what the flaws are and patch them, with iOS it’s a black box.

Android, it’s heavily dependant on the device manufacturer etc, no? So many forks of Android plus countless handsets never get an update as they’re out of support.

Most devices are legally required to get X years of security updates, and most manufacturers do push those out fairly quickly. Maybe not all the same day, sure, but they do go out.

I do remember a fair few exploits for iOS devices that allowed an attacker to take over a device without any user interaction, and most mentioned they were actively being exploited by malicious (state) actors.

All I think however is that the price of the exploit doesn’t necessarily correspond with how secure the device actually is, but rather it’s based on the value that that exploit might hold. US entities would probably also offer more than EU entities, whereas for Android it might be the other way around.

If it turns out that it gets ruled as copyright violations, you can bet your ass they’re going to reform copyright law instead of rolling everything back.

That means that they believe there’s more value in having those exploits, not necessarily that they’re harder to find. Though I imagine it’s at least a little bit harder because iPhones are closed source. That does also mean that if Apple doesn’t discover the vulnerability, it’s unlikely to get a patch. With Android, these security issues are found more easily, but also patched much faster. Which I suppose makes an Android vulnerability also worth less, since you get more limited use out of it.

People willing to nosedive a plane into the ground don’t tend to be in a great mental state.

Extremely wide screen. It’s not great tbh.

Turns out I need to eat my words a little bit here. Airbus does have a plane that uses computer vision to take off and land, and taxi on the ground. And there’s systems to visually detect other planes in the sky to help with collision avoidance. But they’re not in passenger airliners yet because when the regulations were written decades ago, neural networks weren’t big yet so it apparently says that every line of code needs to be directly traced back to a requirement, which is hard to do with weights. This is being revamped as far as I can tell, but not just yet.

My point is that neural networks are already in use in modern planes, exactly what you called tried and tested before. Those applications can be a far cry from what you know as “AI”. This stuff has existed for decades now.

Well that was also discussed, the person who suggested not having an AI disclosure was against it being used for advertising, but was also open to having a general one that didn’t allow the company/model. Not sure that discussion has concluded yet btw.

This is about OpenAI testing new, unreleased agents in their own sandbox on specified tasks. Not about the model that gets released to the public.

Quokkas are adorable little shits, I’d love to have one as a pet.