Putting on my tin-foil, devils-advocate hat... AKA I don't necessarily believe this but I also have no counter-argument:
Mostly performative. When it's decided that something actually needs to pass, then you'll get some sacrificial lambs that vote across the aisle. Typically they'll be close to retirement or from a state where they won't be heavily punished for that specific vote.
It's not performative when people are losing health insurance and other people are at risk of starving. I agree with holding out on the government shutdown to try to prevent Americans losing healthcare. But when Republicans are absolutely fine with poor people starving so that they can take away people's healthcare, with a bonus that they get to shut down the government and say "see, government doesn't work", it becomes clear that letting the government shut down (especially food program shutdowns) continue is going to hurt more people than the government shutdown is going to help. So, when you say "performative" it sounds like you support the "both sides are the same" meme, but the ideologies are vastly different - one side is fine with people starving indefinitely, and the other actually doesn't want that.
I would think at least some of this should be obvious, but I guess not?
I mean at some point arguments like this become more akin to Russell's Teapot. If you're making an almost unfalsifiable claim, then the burden of proof is on you to prove it and not others to disprove it.
From a political standpoint, the statement "from a state where they won't be heavily punished for that specific vote" is a weird way to put it, since if you framed it in a positive light it would sound more similar to "the state population falls on both sides of the issue and thus either vote could make sense from their legislator depending on exigent circumstances and other factors" or any number of other explanations depending on the vote and populations.
It's like bike shedding. It's a side effect of mixed expertise (and confidence) working together on things that are only partially understood by all. When something is clearly outside one's expertise, they are content to leave it to others. But then you'll get minor questions with low stakes like "what color to paint the shed". And how everyone feels like they can participate, so suddenly there's a huge discussion / debate / argument about a very, very minor thing.
I was part of an ACM programming team in college. We would review classes of problems based on the type of solution necessary, and learn those techniques for solving them. We were permitted a notebook, and ours was full of the general outline of each of these classes and techniques. Along with specific examples of the more common algorithms we might encounter.
As a concrete example, there is a class of problems that are well served by dynamic programming. So we would review specific examples like Dijkstra's algorithm for shortest path. Or Wagner–Fischer algorithm for Levenshtein-style string editing. But we would also learn, often via these concrete examples, of how to classify and structure a problem into a dynamic programming solution.
I have no idea if this is what is meant by "l33t code solutions", but I thought it would be a helpful response anyway. But the bottom line is that these are not common in industry, because hard computer science is not necessary for typical business problems. The same way you don't require material sciences advancements to build a typical house. Instead it flows the other way, where advancements in materials sciences will trickle down to changing what the typical house build looks like.
I imagine there's entire companies in existence now, whose entire value proposition is clean human-generated data. At this point, the Internet as a data source is entirely and irrevokably polluted by large amounts of ducks and various other waterfowl from the Anseriformes order.
My guess would be lack of actuators. For instance, this robot looks like it has an ankle that can only go up and down, but not roll like a human's. Also, I wonder if there's a center of gravity issue, as it almost always appears to be leaning backwards to even out.
I think it's still pretty impressive in its recoveries, even though there's an unnaturally large number of them necessary. About 8 seconds into the video on the homepage, it almost misses and ends up slipping off the second step. I've eaten shit at missing a couple inch curb, though I don't think "graceful" has ever been used as a descriptor for me. So the fact that it just recovers and keeps going without issue is impressive to me.
> So the fact that it just recovers and keeps going without issue is impressive to me.
I'm pretty sure that's just a matter of reaction speed and it maintaining a constant focus/vigilance on it's movement that you'd usually not reserve outside of some sports and situations pre-identified as deserving the attention due to danger, like concentrating on balance and not getting into a position that overstresses your joints when you know it's icy.
I'm not familiar with any of these communities. Is there also a general bias towards one side between "the most important thing gets the *most* resources" and "the most important thing gets *all* the resources"? Or, in other words, the most important thing is the only important thing?
IMO it's fine to pick a favorite and devote extra resources to it. But that turns less fine when one also starts working to deprive everything else of any oxygen because it's not your favorite. (And I'm aware that this criticism applies to lots of communities.)
It's not the case. Effective altruists give to dozens of different causes, such as malaria prevention, environmentalism, animal welfare, and (perhaps most controversially) extinction risk. It can't tell you which root values to care about. It just asks you to consider whether the charity is impactful.
Even if an individual person chooses to direct all their donations to a single cause, there's no way to get everyone to donate to a single cause (nor is EA attempting to). Money gets spread around because people have different values.
It absolutely does take some money away from other causes, but only in the sense that all charities do: if you give a lot to one charity, you may have less money to give to others.
The general idea is that on the margin (in the economics sense), more resources should go to the most effective+neglected thing, and.the amount of resources I control is approximately zero in a global sense, so I personally should direct all of my personal giving to the highest impact thing.
And in their logic the highest impact is to donate money, take high paying jobs regardless of morality, and not focusing on any structural or root issues.
Yeah, the logic is basically "sure there are lots of structural or root issues, but I'm not confident I can make a substantial positive impact on those with the resources I have whereas I am confident that spending money to prevent people (mostly kids who would otherwise have survived to adulthood) from dying of malaria is a substantial positive impact at ~$5000 / life saved". I find that argument compelling, though I know many don't. Those many are free to focus on structural or root issues, or to try to make the case that addressing those issues is not just good, but better than reducing the impact of malaria.
Hello fellow ex-employee of that bank. I was in a segment governed by PCI, and they wouldn't even let us touch Gaia in fear of the whole thing being declared in scope
That only works if the external API is handing off the entire subscription to Apple, up to and including payments. But the entire premise is to move away from being forced to use Apple for these elements, which makes it a non-sensical interpretation. In fact, that particular interpretation is the current status-quo -- apps use APIs to create subscriptions entirely managed by Apple.
If Apple does not control the actual subscription, but is only providing an interface for managing it, then Apple must then alert the actual owner of the subscription upon changes. There's then no guarantee that the code on the other side is properly handling that alert.
Putting on my tin-foil, devils-advocate hat... AKA I don't necessarily believe this but I also have no counter-argument:
Mostly performative. When it's decided that something actually needs to pass, then you'll get some sacrificial lambs that vote across the aisle. Typically they'll be close to retirement or from a state where they won't be heavily punished for that specific vote.