If the code works good enough, it works good enough. If good enough is insufficient for success criteria, you’ll have to trade app evolution velocity and flexibility for more determinism via more human effort (“artisanal hand crafted”), evaluated on a per use case basis. “Does this software have to be good? How good? Have I hit diminishing returns yet?”
Pros and cons to code being cheap to generate now, it’s always about tradeoffs. I don’t want to build cars, I want to drive cars.
Only in the sense that your build-a-car will be "good enough" as long as you never find out why your palms are always itchy, and you never press the brake so hard it stops working, and nobody determines which of the cars started the fireball during the accident.
People suck at "good enough". All major engineering disasters were something "good enough" for somebody. People burn down their houses with "good enough" electrical work.
Is that summing the wealth of every single person in a (usually growing) group of inheritors, or averaging it?
If 1 guy with $16 billion turns into 16 grandkids with (inflation adjusted) $1 billion endowments each, it sounds to me like the family fortune was preserved extremely well, the family is simply bigger.
It's interesting to ask how Manifold Garden [0] does/doesn't fits into that framework.
The puzzle game is adventure-adjacent in that it involves walking-around exploration, carried items/keys, locked doors with switches, exchanging items, and bridges.
Topologically, it is a network of 3D rooms connected by "doors" that are actually non-euclidean portals. You walk around, but you can also change the direction of gravity 6 ways, and--here's the kicker--every room tiles infinitely with itself.
So while I won't deny it's easy to get stuck in some areas of the room-network trying to remember how to get to another, individual rooms are 3D yet also havea a quirky way of constraining your random walk.
I've noticed that stock mesh/texture Deus Ex has staying-power partly because everything is visually cohesive. Most objects have similar levels of detail and follow similar implicit rules for how they are (or aren't) complex.
This is, unfortunately, easy to ruin that with partial mods, breaking your immersion when two objects from different universes are in the same room.
Even if we assume your body has a foolproof is_same_species() test, your neighbors' cells may:
1. Be healthy, but have the wrong priorities or behavior, so that they start doing the wrong tasks or sending the wrong messages in the wrong places. [0]
2. Be healthy, but they're just a creepy flesh-mask a parasite has constructed around itself.
3. Be individually hijacked by viruses, and your body won't have the same baseline information to tell that they've deviated from your neighbor's standard.
4. They may be fully human, but gone feral into a transmissible tumor [1].
____
[0] This is actually a risk from pregnancy, as overambitious fetal cells leak into the mother.
So I can read the DOJ sentence two ways, I first interpreted it as #1, but it sounds like you took it as #2?
1. "We mean people who at that time qualify as agents under laws like the Foreign Agents Registration Act, we said "acting as" because it indicates a temporary employment status rather than an innate human characteristic."
2. "We are weasel-wording to target all people with similar acts to how agents would act, but who would not qualify under the law we want you to think we'd be drawing authority from."
I empathize with your concern, but as bad as things are we shouldn't assume infinite malice from all federal entities in all circumstances. Not out of kindness or charity, but because it would be a maladaptive strategy for handling problems.
If they try charging Joe-Shmoe under FARA, there's still some chance of loss in federal courts.
No need to assume infinite malice, but given the track record, it would be naïve to assume anything other than a default of malice unless proven otherwise
The evidence in front of us (the malicious words of the person in question) strongly favors malice anyways.
Remember when everyone was talking about treating computers as cattle rather than pets?
This seems like a weird inversion. Programs as pets instead of cattle. Toxoplasmosis, ahoy...
reply