How does this relate to domain-driven design? It seems to be at odds with it, because in DDD it's kind of expected that the same concept will be represented in a different way by each system? But to be honest, I didn't read the whole blog post because of the UML vibes.
It doesn't. It's a blessing that they avoided the term "ubiquitous language" because that's almost exactly the dual of this concept, although people who have only ever heard the words and not dug any deeper won't know what the difference is.
Seems to be enforcing ‘ubiquitous language’ at the machine level - not some kind of mathematical dual where one is invertible to the other - but enforcing soft skills as hard skills.
‘protobuf specs dont have enough information for us to codegen iceberg tables so we will write a new codegen spec language’
what makes a duck a duck?
when we know which tables we can find it in
Except that "Ubiquitous Language" is supposed to refer to terminology within a specific Bounded Context. In DDD it is desirable and expected that there is a mapping between them. This proposal tries to entirely erase Bounded Contexts. This is what I mean about people not understanding the words.
So in the sense of "what do we do about terminology not matching across an organisation" this and DDD are literal opposite solutions: one says "erase differences with a central definition (and bear the coordination costs)" while the other says "encourage differences with local definitions (and bear the mapping costs)".
That isn't the part of the argument that needs a source - pretty much everyone who is anyone in the public sphere seems to have death threats made against them and threats of extreme violence are actually pretty common at protests. Guillotines at protests are a reasonably common fixture for example [0]. That is the reason the standard needs to be someone actually doing something before the police get involved - people say all sorts of threatening things in political contexts. It's pretty scary but it is better to tolerate it and let people get their emotions out into the open. They generally don't mean it.
[X] has has been subject to death threats at a protest is a pretty safe blind claim. Particularly for politicians, public figures, rich people, identifiable races and political groupings. Some yobbo will write something stupid on a placard and wave it around sooner or later.
Maybe so, but it's still important to callenge okeuro49's claims. Extremist takes like that give off an air of believability despite being unsubstantiated. Relying solely on the common sense of the readership leads to situations where extremist views simply drown out the rest. It should not be seen as acceptable to present a wilfully distorted view of the facts.
JK Rowling is famous, wealthy, a public figure and female. I guarantee you she has received death threats and the police have shrugged it off as not a credible problem.
Whether they are public or not is more of an academic detail, but given the level of hostility aimed at her it is a pretty safe bet that someone has somewhere whether or not it was reported on the internet. If someone wants to die on the hill of every claim being cited then fair enough, at least it is a principled hill. But this is like asking for a cite that US political debate got heated. Rowling has genuine anti-fans out there, I've seen totally spontaneous wild hate sessions break out against her in my wanderings through the internet. It'll have spilled out into real-world protest somewhere.
The original claim was that people were carrying placards at a recent protest in London calling for the death of JK Rowling. It’s not obvious that this has in fact happened, and it’s reasonable to ask for evidence of it.
I'm just saying, I didn't even check before this comment. And who knew? bunch of death threats targeting Rowling with activists trying to make sure everyone can find her in meatspace in case the threat makes her quieten down. "Did she receive death threats" is really not the part of this to try and question. And if you want to make a point about did someone do it while at a protest - I mean yeah. Yeah they did. Maybe nobody bothered to record it, because that sort of thing is routine and boring.
If someone wants to attack the police response part that I have no idea about. Maybe they did respond and it was exemplary - that is the sort of thing that does need a source. But the death threats part is just another year as a public figure. There are a lot of death threats out there. And it'd spill over to placards.
EDIT And it turned out to be remarkably easy to find a citation, note the "decapitate TERFs" link 2 comments up. As expected. It's easy to tune out because in practice calling for the death of someone at a protest is in practice a pretty minor thing to do. Which TERFs do they want to decapitate if not Rowling? Is there fine print on the back of the sign that exempts her? Its Sky News so I I'll admit that is possible.
Ok, so lots of sources that don’t show what was originally claimed (i.e. someone holding a placard at a recent protest in London calling for the death of JK Rowling).
I don’t know why it irks you so much that people would fact check this particular claim. I agree that it’s not central to the original poster’s overall point, but it’s not ok to invent facts just because your argument could probably get by without them.
Some photos of the placards, including "Bring back witch burning ... JK" and "The only good TERF is a ____ one" with an image of a person being executed by hanging.
The TERF one was posted earlier but obviously doesn’t mention JK Rowling. As to the other example, thanks for posting a source rather than just expressing annoyance that anyone would be asking for one. I think it takes some Yogi-level stretching to reach the conclusion that the person holding the JK placard is “calling for the death of JK Rowling”, but it’s at least in the right ballpark.
I expect the holder of that witch-burning placard is very much aware that "JK" will be taken to mean "JK Rowling". It's no coincidence.
That so many of these activists are holding signs which advocate the torture and murder of women who disagree with them says everything about their movement.
Oh sure I agree that JK refers to JK Rowling. I just mean that the sign is probably an ironic reference to The Witch Trials of JK Rowling rather than an actual proposal to burn JK Rowling at the stake. It’s in extremely bad taste and I don’t endorse it. However, I personally don’t regard it as a case of someone advocating for JK Rowling to be killed.
The placard carried by the individual* said “bring back witch burning… JK”.
* I don’t see calling for such a thing as a typical female trait, but then again these protestors did also desecrate a Suffragette memorial, so I expect their ideas are a little confused.
It's an example of police ignoring death threats. It references Harry Potter, and JK Rowling is the most common target of the "TERF" epithet. In any case, it supports the claim that the UK police selectively enforce speech laws.
Ah so nobody called for the death of JK Rowling, but terfs in general, which she happens to be? A death threat by nonintrinsic affiliation if you will? Seems pretty stupid if you ask me.
Perhaps she could not make it her whole identity so that when people say "death to this specific type of bigotry", random people on the internet don't immediately make the logical leap to think people wish for her death specifically?
Hate speech laws are a very convenient tool for an authoritarian regime as their application is totally subjective. You could argue that saying "death to terfs" would mean only to end an ideology, but "death to Islam" would send you in prison as you are threatening muslims. In general, it's the same thing, but depending on the prevailing ideology, Police and courts can apply it selectively.
No, it's not the same thing at all, the same way saying "death to nazis" and "death to Germans" isn't the same thing. Being Muslim or a German is something you're generally born into because that's what your parents are, while the other two is something you actively choose to be a part of your identity as a full-grown adult.
A random dude you meet named Ahmed doesn't automatically translate into "he hates all non-Muslims", the same way a random dude named Hans doesn't automatically translate into "he hates all Jews".
On the other hand, openly affiliating yourself with terfs or nazis does automatically translate into you wanting some marginalised community to vanish or at the very least to make their existence more difficult than yours.
Following your thinking, given that no one is born muslim (it's a religion, apostasy exists), it's ok to say "death to muslims", just as it is ok to say "death to terfs"? If you tell me that the muslim religion isn't discriminatory, I'd like you to do some wikipedia reading about it first. You can start with the status of women, for instance.
The original post said that people had placards “calling for the death of JK Rowling”. It may be that the poster’s overall point does not rely on this specific factual claim. But don’t try to muddy the waters around this: it’s a straightforward factual claim and people are right to ask if it can be sourced. So far it has not been.
If there was a protest where people had signs that said “death to <slur>” while screaming “fuck <member of group targeted by slur>”, and calls were made to defecate on that person’s art, would you say death threats were made about that person?
Please take a moment to substitute various groups and people.
The legal system does not operate according to blanket statements. Police make a judgement of whether the death threat is credible. This depends on how specific the threat is and whether it occurs in the context of likely violence.
This service is pretty much what I, a software developer, am scared off. I expect that it will be used in order to quickly cobble something together and then hand it over to a dev for "polishing". And this sounds like a total nightmare to me.
If used like that, this service will effectively turn my job into that of an assistant to a machine.
It will happen. Product managers will essentially vibe code and make a thing that mostly works before handing it to developers for 'polishing'.
This could go two ways:
Dumb PMs - "I did most it myself in a week, it shouldn't take developers long to polish".
Smart PMs - "I made an unmaintainable, un-extensible proof of concept (at best) which cannot (and should not) be used as the basis for the real thing. But if(f) it's a better medium for software specifications/requirements than traditional written/visual specs, then it may add some value. The software development process hasn't otherwise changed a whole lot."
Also worth noting that in some ways, a working prototype could be worse than verbal/visual specs, since making the interactivity/clickyness could make it look like it's demonstrating a whole lot, whereas all the tricky little details a dev needs to make the real thing are missing or unspecified.
I wouldn't be scared because in practice we don't see this! Instead we see 1. devs appreciating getting an interactive mockup and 2. the PM having a better sense of what it's like to build technically. (It's pretty cool seeing how AI tools like Magic Patterns help non-technical software professionals naturally learn more about web dev concepts because the best prompts reference code.)
At big companies, Magic Patterns designs are used created & used at the beginning of the product lifecycle for brainstorming and iteration. And there's still a human in the loop in the process: the PM prompting Magic Patterns. The value we create is not the actual raw code, and so we are not seeing teams telling their devs to simply "polish" it. The handoff still is very similar to most dev/design handoffs today, except it's a Magic Patterns design versus a Figma design.
But there is no irony, because it's two different meanings of the word "hacking": firstly "gaining unauthorized access", and secondly "focused programming".
I always hated that there is this second meaning. Especially since IMO it's being used to "steal" some of the glory associated with the original meaning.
When did this second meaning emerge anyway? Is this site here partially at fault?
They both stem from the more general meaning of hacking as looking for clever outside-the-box solutions to a problem, showing disregard to the intended/expected/typical way of going about that sort of thing. It apparently originated with this meaning in the late 50's at MIT's Tech Model Railroad Club.
Oh nice, I wasn't aware. I always associated hacking with "gaining unauthorized access" and googling for the first definition confirmed that I'm my eyes. Didn't know it was the other way around and the term is actually much older than I assumed.
Both are derived uses, but breaking in seems slightly more distant than the more recent usage of hackathon.
"Hack job" predates computers. The oldest form known means "to cut irregularly or inexpertly", with industrial revolution era uses similar to to people saying "AI slop" in the last year or two: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/211750/where-did...
"The" jargon file says "[originally, someone who makes furniture with an axe]", while other sources claim it's the name of a tool that functions much like an axe or a mattock, or such an action as one might use the item for:
"""In fact, the OED also defines hack as a tool for breaking or chopping up, dating from before 1300:
He lened him þan a-pon his hak, Wit seth his sun þus-gat he spak.
And hacker follows. From 1620:
One good hacker, being a lusty labourer, will at good ease hack or cut more than half an acre of ground in a day."""
Are you suggesting Apple was not innovative, or that he did not have a role in Apple's innovation?
We can pretend all day that the Apple II, the Mac, iMac, macbook, iPod, iPhone, and iPad would have been exactly the same without Jobs. But in the reality we currently inhabit, he was the person overseeing them all.
Steve Jobs is one of the founders and the long-time CEO of Apple Computers, which makes products that are widely regarded as some of the most innovative in tech. If you're familiar with the original Mac, for example -- that was Apple. The iPhone went against the grain of the time and introduced the touch-only interface (with multi-gesture). There's lots of other examples.
Ah yes, Jobs saw the mouse and windows UI at PARC in 1979, and therefore nothing they ever did was original and they deserve no credit for innovation. :thumbsup:
Disclaimer: I wholeheartedly hate all the systems they call AI these days and I hate the culture around it for technological, ecological, political, and philosophical reasons.
I won't future-proof my career against LLMs at all. If I ever see myself in the position that I must use them to produce or adjust code, or that I mostly read and fix LLM-generated code, then I'll leave the industry and do something else.
I see potential in them to simplify code search/navigation or to even replace stackoverflow, but I refuse to use them to build entire apps. If management in turn believes that I'm not productive enough anymore then so be it.
I expect that lots of product owners and business people will be using them in order to quickly cobble something together and then hand it over to a dev for "polishing". And this sounds like a total nightmare to me. The way I see it, devs make this dystopian nightmare a little bit more true everytime they use an LLM to generate code.
It might be a dystopian nightmare, but the transition to it is inevitable, and closing one’s eyes and doing nothing might not be the most optimal strategy. Delaying or fighting it will also not work.
I'm very much impressed with this. I have never seen a programming language that allowed me to de/serialize functions. Let alone calculate the inverse of a function. If you're saying one or more languages with these features already exist then I'm very interested in names, links or references.
> have never seen a programming language that allowed me to de/serialize functions.
You can pickle functions in python? You can trivially serialize any lisp function (I'm not a lisp fan). Plenty of programming languages with both macros and first class function objects (those that can be passed around and thus have data representations).
> Let alone calculate the inverse of a function
Note it says "try to compute the inverse" because actually computing inverses is equivalent to the halting problem.
"If it seems to good to be true it probably is" could be adapted here to "If it seems too magical to be true, it's probably just cherry-picked".
> You can pickle functions in python? You can trivially serialize any lisp function (I'm not a lisp fan).
The point of the tree calculus appears to be that it doesn't require the intermediate step of "pickling" or, as the author calls it, "quoting" the program to produce a data structure or other representation of the program [0]:
Previous accounts of self-interpretation had to work with programs that were not
normal forms, that were unstable. Stability was imposed by first quoting the program to
produce a data structure, by putting on some make-up. In tree calculus, the programs are
already data structures, so that no pre-processing is required; both of the self-evaluators
above act on the program and its input directly. In short, tree calculus supports honest
reflection without make-up.
It sounds similar to the notion of homoiconicity as in Lisp, but probably more precisely or even strongly stated.
> Plenty of programming languages with both macros and first class function objects (those that can be passed around and thus have data representations).
A language may have first class function objects, but its actual structure may be opaque and not open to reflection or manipulation (beyond of course just munging the source code as plaintext). You can maybe create a function literal, pass the function around and to higher-order functions, but you can't inspect or modify its internal structure, or decide program equality (based on either exact structure, or one program reducing to another according to the reduction rules of the calculus).
Lastly the tree calculus would also appear to differ from the lambda calculus in that programs are stable and won't reduce infinitely, instead converging on some normal form of irreducible terms. [1]
More precisely, the distinction would seem to be that programs in the tree calculus can analyze themselves with reference only to the reduction rules of the calculus, not needing to reach for some meta-language or theory outside the calculus that works on source code or some AST representation of the program [0]:
Reflective programs are programs that can act on themselves to query their own struc-
ture. The querying is important: that the identity function can be applied to itself does
not make it reflective. A simple example is the size function defined in Chapter 5.
When applied to itself, the result is (the tree of) the number 508 [...] Self-evaluation
in a calculus provides good evidence for the ability to perform program analysis and
optimisation within the calculus itself. Traditionally, self-interpreters were allowed to
act on the syntax tree of a program, i.e. its quotation. [...] When quotation lies
outside of the formal calculus then interpretation is separated from computation proper,
so that some sort of staging is required.
A demo of a size function is given here [1], implemented directly in the tree calculus:
Seems like people down-voted you for this "outrageous" opinion, but I agree. The people that do all the important work in our society (nurses, garbage collectors, cleaners, customer support, etc.) should get the highest income.
