They had a 60 seat majority for like 8 months before Kennedy died. And as noted by other comments, one of those votes was a “no” if they tried to do any better.
But it was also partly a victim of Obama’s early policy of negotiating with himself to try and appear bipartisan. It took him too long to realize the GOP isn’t a good faith opposition party.
“Heulyn” pronounced Hay-lynn.
The PR isn’t public yet (it’s in my fork) but even once I submit it upstream I don’t think I’m ready to out my real identity on Lemmy just yet.
I just spent about a month using Claude 3.7 to write a new feature for a big OSS product. The change ended up being about 6k loc with about 14k of tests added to an existing codebase with an existing test framework for reference.
For context I’m a principal-level dev with ~15 years experience.
The key to making it work for me was treating it like a junior dev. That includes priming it (“accuracy is key here; we can’t swallow errors, we need to fail fast where anything could compromise it”) as well as making it explain itself, show architecture diagrams, and reason based on the results.
After every change there’s always a pass of “okay but you’re violating the layered architecture here; let’s refactor that; now tell me what the difference is between these two functions, and shouldn’t we just make the one call the other instead of duplicating? This class is doing too much, we need to decompose this interface.” I also started a new session, set its context with the code it just wrote, and had it tell me about assumptions the code base was making, and what failure modes existed. That turned out to be pretty helpful too.
In my own personal experience it was actually kinda fun. I’d say it made me about twice as productive.
I would not have said this a month ago. Up until this project, I only had stupid experiences with AI (Gemini, GPT).
The military is primarily compromised of poor rural folks. Conservatives outnumber liberals 2 to 1. I’m not sure what direction the other quarter (nonvoters) would break.
The military skews right. Strongly. That’s a big part of the problem.
If you’re in the US like me, we should be aware the problem isn’t bright lights; it’s that our regulations don’t allow for the European beam alteration tech that will dim sections at a time based on oncoming traffic.
Brighter lights are a huge boon to safety, but we need the corresponding tech to keep it that way.
No love for jetbrains?
I bet pardoning the 1/6ers qualifies as giving aid and comfort.
If it’s domestic, there’s at least some recourse available. Facebook was fined $5 billion for the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
When they own the platform they can use it to serve you catered disinformation.
They can have your data but unless they can also decide what you see as a result, it’s not the same thing.
That’s the difference.
But mechanically that’s just moving the confidence threshold to 100% which is not achievable as far as I can tell. It quickly reduces to “all objects are pedestrians” which halts traffic.
Franken should have been running for President. Smart, incisive, charismatic. Everything we needed.
Fuck.
According to some cursory research (read: Google), obstacle avoidance uses ML to identify objects, and uses those identities to predict their behavior. That stage leaves room for the same unpredictability, doesn’t it? Say you only have 51% confidence that a “thing” is a pedestrian walking a bike, 49% that it’s a bike on the move. The former has right of way and the latter doesn’t. Or even 70/30. 90/10.
There’s some level where you have to set the confidence threshold to choose a course of action and you’ll be subject to some ML-derived unpredictability as confidence fluctuates around it… right?
In the US the ruling party fills lifetime judicial appointments, which means the 4 years of conservative rule can have decades of lasting impact that will thwart any progressive policies that the next leftish government tries to implement.
I’m a pretty progressive guy and I don’t think there’s much in here to disagree with. The only nit I would pick is that inertia isn’t a great argument to keep things the way they are. That is, “we’ve always done it this way” isn’t a great reason to do anything.
Your framing of conservatism is in line with the Eisenhower era when we weren’t linked into this existential crisis about the concept of governance. But for the last twenty years (at least) the American right has been against the very idea that the government should govern.
The left is trying to argue about who it should serve, taking its existence as a precondition, and the right is trying to dismantle it without regard for who it serves. As a result, we’re pretty much irrecoverably talking past each other.
Working down the backlog requires investing in our judicial system, which the cons treat as growing the government and so reflexively oppose. So they’re at the heart of that problem, too.
This still makes me mad.
All Trump has done is fire people and write executive orders. And he’s had a largely friendly Supreme Court.