While the environment in which a person lives may dictate their value of their surroundings the real problem is a lack of hope. To further compound the lack of hope the local government has proven itself inept at solving the problems it is responsible to solve let alone the problems it is not responsible to resolve. That said it makes applying a "broken window" theory next to impossible.
I do hope and pray they figure it out. For the sake of those on the street and the honest person that travels through there daily.
Advanced Asian cities which combine rapid zero tolerance policing with the resulting social conformity don’t have these issues. There has been a rise in drug abuse but it tends to stay out of the public view, again due to policing.
I remember visiting nyc and seeing people shooting up in the street while the police were watching. Obviously the problem is lack of enforcement- and if petty crimes aren’t enforced even with just small punishments, then more serious crimes accelerate.
I think he's pointing out that people who commit serious crimes usually have a prior history of smaller, petty crimes that they were not given meaningful punishment for.
The data certainly supports this observation, and I can dig out supporting evidence if it's in doubt (at least in NYC, Dublin, and London. I'm not familiar with SF).
You’ve hit it on the head. A well written react app will have a lot of code that isn’t in hooks or components and is instead imported by those. That said anything to do with the presentation of the app should be within react, with important exceptions.
I was pretty late to switch from jquery to react- I didn’t switch over until after react hooks were released. The reason is simply that jquery works great and the issues with scalability can be solved with proper design. Of course once react hooks came out it was clearly superior to me than jquery and was well worth the switch.
When I’m developing an application, I could not care less about what tech it’s built on. I’d much rather just pick something old and familiar that’s stable, has a huge ecosystem, and has tons of common issues answered on places like stack overflow.
These flavor of the week types of posts are always worth a read because it’s possible that something else may supersede react eventually. But proper understanding of the render cycle plus use of the react debugging profiler has been enough in the apps I’ve worked on to make them lightning fast.
For code I’ve found LLM mostly useless, since if I don’t understand something I need to read the docs anyway, and the generated code tends to be buggy even in react.
Where I have found LLM useful is in generating text. Where I used to use a thesaurus I now use LLM to find words to name things in themed UX. But it’s not great at function or variable names, it tends to pick names that look good but don’t precisely describe what something is. LLM is also great at generating text for role play.
I had a lot more success writing some code and have ChatGPT document it than doing the opposite. The documentation tends to be much better written than what I would have done by myself.
Indeed because ChatGPT is excellent at writing text. And because I know exactly what I want to see even if I have a hard time putting it into words myself, I can easily catch the mistakes and hallucinations.
I don't get why there is so much focus on code generating AIs and so little on code analysis. Have AIs do code reviews, write tests and analyze the results, etc... LLMs are awesome at reviewing code, they are able to tell you what's unexpected. And what is unexpected has a good chance of either being a bug or some key element of the code that needs attention. I think I have seen a single article about that, out of hundreds that are about code generation.
No idea. Open source seems to come and go in waves. It has pros and cons as a business model. Personally I prefer working on open source because my GitHub becomes my resume, whereas in closed source interviews are needed to determine basic skills.
Most hacker news people aren’t experiencing any positive effects from inflation, since the tech industry is fundamentally about future growth rather than present income. Higher interest rates means less funding for ventures.
According to the economic stats, the average US worker is receiving raises that are slightly above cpi. Most workers aren’t professionals whether in tech or not.
The current situation is monetary deflation but price inflation. The same amount of money will buy more of the long term hard assets, but less consumer goods. That weirdness is due to government policy; large deficits on the one side drive up demand for consumer goods, and industrial policy constricts supply of consumer goods on the other side. Then in order to reduce the impact of these policies, the federal reserve constricts the money supply causing monetary deflation. So there’s less money, but prices are higher anyway.
Of course since there’s less money available for long term investments, at some point in the future the price inflation will worsen due to a reduced supply of consumer goods unless there’s countervailing effects.
Do you seriously believe everyone who use’s cryptocurrency is a fraudster? Your claim is ridiculous, in the USA alone over 34 million people own cryptocurrency and approximately zero of them have stolen billion of dollars of assets.
His level of stupidity has been shocking even to people who has a low opinion of his competence. Contrast his case with Do Kwon, and you can see why people thought he would escape imprisonment.
There’s no inherent conflict between morality and logic. Even with the vaguer definitions you seem to be using related to business processes, running a business that others (customers, regulators, outsiders) view as morally clean will always provide advantages over one that isn’t perceived that way.
You're referring to big-picture practices and conflicts, which are different.
Also, think about businesses where morality simply isn't a day to day concern of customers, not because they are rotten customers, but because their set of concerns is another facet of the benefit spectrum. "I am their customer because of X and Y." Not _your_ X and Y, but theirs.
In that light, perhaps you can see how much of a blind-spot crutch it can be to end up defending morality as a kind of forced issue by dint of your own subjective focus, which while commendable, isn't the point here.
It's an issue of what else there is.
This is also probably very difficult to understand if you yourself naturally focus extremely hard on giving a clean deal to your customers. As is common in that mindset, maybe you often find yourself the martyr, taking a loss here or there to quietly test your own generosity in that way, for example. Or maybe you enjoy mentally pairing yourself with "good people", those you rate via your conduct system as individuals with whom you feel more free to conduct the generous business that makes you see the world in a better light.
In such a case, of course you have a good argument for branding around that personality facet.
And at the same time, you are still way different from a lot of other businesses...
...which from even this beneficial-morality lens can't be said to come out the worse by some basic psychological calculus. "Be like me" still isn't a fair business assessment tool.
(I know it can be a bit of a frustrating heartbreak to have access to those morality tools, and enjoy demonstrating that benefit in a crooked world...and then hear that a successful business can focus on entirely different facets and psychological processes without cheating their customers...)
It’s certainly true that branding as morally pure isn’t usual beneficial, but even businesses that brand themselves as sinful or evil have internal processes to maintain moral principles. Often to a greater extent than non profits that are selling morality. An example: casinos request regulation to enforce rules about payout odds, while unregulated casinos create mathematical proofs that their outcomes are honest. They also often run programs to provide assistance to customers suffering from gambling addiction. These actions aren’t because casinos are “pure” or making sacrifices; it’s because the expected payouts to the owners are higher by enforcing these processes.
It’s also important to remember that customers are not the only agents that matter to an entity’s survival. Public opinion, regulators, employees, shareholders, etc also matter. One instance of this in crypto is the lack of assassination markets. There’s been theoretical work on how to build anonymous assassin markets since the early 90s but no one has done it even though there’s proven customer demand. Why? Because for someone with the ability to build such a market, there exist better options that have higher payouts due to lower regulatory enforcement, easier access to capital, cheaper labour, etc. Again being “pure” has nothing to do with it since people with those skills do build dark net markets that sell other illicit services which are viewed as not really wrong by a large percentage of the population and as less severe to regulators than assassins.
