The author has been an established blogger since well before the modern AI boom. It is of course not impossible that their writing technique has changed, and they now use AI heavily, but preferring BC/AD over the alternative/not always clarifying which strikes me as incredibly weak evidence.
The lack of consistency in the usage is also telling. Also, perhaps the author simply a christian apologist. I am an archaeologist with 10+ years of experience, so now you know my bias.
Lack of consistency seems entirely normal to me for a blog post.
At a certain point the information is simply redundant. The meaning of the naked number can and will easily be inferred from context. You don’t even notice it. Both while writing and also while reading. A proper proof reading will catch that (maybe, though I myself am actually hilariously bad at proof reading and miss obvious stuff all the time, so being able to properly proof read and catch things always seemed like a super power to me) but I don’t think this blog author does that (and I don’t really expect it? It’s fine …)
It totally get that there are people who will be endlessly annoyed by that – I’m also annoyed by people using quotation marks the wrong way. But it doesn’t really impact readability of the context is clear enough (as it obviously is in this case).
Consistency: the only case where he used BCE is in an image caption. The description on Wikimedia Commons uses BCE, so my guess is that he defaults to writing BC but reading that subconsciously put him in the frame of mind to write BCE. From a skim, he never uses CE or AD in this article.
Omission: this confused me at first, but really the entire article is set 3000 years ago, so it's not particularly ambiguous. If you think in the context of "lecture on the bronze age" you wouldn't expect him to specify every time.
I'd call him a little bit sloppy, in need of proofreading. Certainly not an overuser of AI. He writes at least one of these monster posts a week on top of (IIRC) teaching in college, so it's understandable if he's in a rush.
And yeah, it's not the best, but it's really not worth discounting his writing more than he himself already does at the end. Lots of smart people have imperfect language skills.
I would describe it as entirely normal. My experience working in a research organization where the majority of my colleagues hold Phds is that education level has a strong inverse correlation with ability/willingness to care about such mundane chores as spelling, grammar and arithmetic.
Two things that I noticed:
- Firefox did crash on me more frequently. It wasn't a daily, or even a weekly thing, but it was more of a problem.
- Firefox limits how small I can shrink my tabs in the tab bar. Chrome also has a limit, but it is much less restrictive.
That last one was the killer difference for me. Firefox wants me to be able to see (at least part of) the title of each tab, even if that means I can't see all my tabs at once. I want to see all of my tabs at once, and I don't care if I can see the title - the favicon is enough.
I did try configuring Firefox to let me shrink the tabs more, and even tried messing with its GTK configuration, but no luck.
So I do feel a bit bad for using Brave instead of Firefox, but after months of dealing with Firefox's UI I lost patience.
Try vertical tabs. I fell in love since I've been using it daily. Zen has a special flavor of vertical tabs where pinned tabs open links in a modal, which I now can't do without, and can be reset to the original url with a middle click. I use that all the time for HN, mail, youtube, claude, etc. I believe Waterfox also has a neat implementation of vertical tabs as smart trees.
I really don't like the idea of vertical tabs, but given how so many web pages these days work, I should probably give them a try. That said, the tree-based approach is fascinating - points to Zen (and related efforts) for trying such a different paradigm for arranging tabs.
The listed flags do in fact have a great deal of variation, and are uniformly beautiful to look at. Yes, we probably need a moratorium on flags with a sun-like-object on the left, but even in that over-used motif, there is a lot of variety in the exact nature of the star. Ugly but kind of distinctive is significantly worse than attractive but kind of same-y - I would rather be represented by basically any flag on this list than my actual city/county flag.
Anecdotally, Grok is mostly not that anti-woke. It is coasting off of its reputation from Elon's marketing. That said, it does have meaningfully fewer guardrails, which is a real benefit.
If we find a way to make 4-6 years of language instruction reliably lead to a reasonable level of language competency, maybe. But until then, the student's underlying interest in the language is much more important than any abstract sense of usefulness. I took Spanish in highschool, and despite being moderately ambitious about it, never got very good, and never got much use out of it, despite living in Florida and Texas. I suspect (although alternate history is hard, so I can't guarantee) that I would have gotten a lot more out of Japanese, simply due to alignment of interest.
You get invited by actually trying to play. Not everyone who tries will get in, but it's a lot more likely that you'll succeed if you work the problem, instead of throwing up your hands in disgust at the world.
Non-technical skills matter. People and organizations have multi-faceted incentives. If you think the incentives of the people making decisions are leading to bad outcomes, then learn how to make that heard to them. Learn the situation as they see it, and use your own, better-aligned(?) incentives to improve the organization. And if it's not worth trying, so be it. But you need to accept that much of the world is you live in will continue to be shaped by the people who care enough to see "that hustle life nonsense" as a worthwhile trade.
There are in fact civilian situations - many of them captured on camera - where the difference between carrying in condition 1/2 vs condition 3 is critical to the outcome. Active Self Protection on YouTube has thousands of examples of defensive incidents involving firearms, and the cost of the extra time and mechanical complexity to rack a round is a common theme.
For the benefit of people who come to the comments first: If you want a comprehensive debunking or substantiation of the claims about crypto debanking, then this is not the place to go.
If you want to read 23,000 words on banking regulation, its uses, abuses, the incentives faced by both the banks and their watchmen, and an explanation for how we ended up where we are, then go ahead and jump into it. Personally, I think the latter is far more useful than the former. I enjoyed it, at least.
Bear with me; the free market seems to think that history isn't a very useful area of study, and lots of people agree. At least some of this probably comes from bad experiences with history classes. I like to think of history instruction as having three levels. The lowest level - the one you'll hear people complaining the most about - is presenting history as a dry series of facts. At it's worst, the entire course can be reduced to a hashmap; event -> date. Rinse, repeat.
The second layer presents history as a narrative. Most people like stories, so this is much more compelling, and makes it a lot easier to enjoy history. But the highest level of teaching is about systems. It's not enough to colorfully explain that King so-and-so was furious at the offense given by King the-other-one. You have to try to make students understand the world that these two kings existed in; how things as small as calling 9th-century European polities "countries" can disastrously mis-callibrate our models. Once you understand the system that someone is working in, you can hope to understand them, and why they do the things they do. Once you have that, you can hope to pass reasonable judgement on their actions.
This article is all about systems and tradeoffs. It is aspiring to that third level. The title is arguably a little bit misleading, but I think it accomplishes it's goal, and personally, I feel like I've come away with a reasonable overall understanding of his thesis, and I think it matches the title.
I think it's one of his better pieces and in some way a culmination of a lot of things he's been writing about; I think he's counting on people to actually read his previous posts about why e.g. business bank accounts are functionally credit products, not the financial equivalent of water and electric service, and it really helps if you understand some of those details.
A lot of people in this thread have been mentioning the importance of risk tolerance in Japan's (lack of a) software industry. He gives some good examples of just how omnipresent that risk aversion can be; from getting funding, to renting an apartment, to finding a significant other, running a startup makes your life much more difficult in Japan than in eg the SF Bay. He also gives a bit more context on the matter of overall software quality, and I think that's an important point: writing assembly for small-scale electronics or cars or industrial machines is just as much "software" as writing a modern web app.
Also, while I'm not universally endorsing Japanese web design; dense UIs for the win!
