Vibe coding broke people's brains because they had a bad understanding of the software design process.
The pop culture model goes something like this: start out with a sketch and then render that same idea in progressively finer detail.
So when tools could "skip" to high detail, people went WOW.
Tweet Claude Code wiped our production database with a Terraform command. It took down the DataTalksClub course platform and 2.5 years of submissions: homework, projects, and leaderboards. Automated snapshots were gone too. In the newsletter, I wrote the full timeline + what I changed so this doesn't happen again. If you use Terraform (or let agents touch infra), this is a good story for you to read.
Back in my day you needed a senior engineer for this sort of thing
this is the ideal male body. you may not like it, but this is what peak performance looks like.
we thought we were the regime and merely sought to install new middle management, but we just discovered that our understanding of the corporate structure was incorrect.
[taps earpiece]
i’m now being informed that there is no corporate structure, as there is no corporation.
👀
we are so not prepared for the possibility of long term infrastructure disruption cause by collapsing tech giants 🫠
like why are we actually still using email. it makes no sense.
debating writing some sort of encrypted messaging service that looks and feels like email but isn’t and allows you to generate unlimited disposable emails behind a diskless cacheless routing interface… basically something like signal with email ux sugar that is dragging email protocols super fishy
SCOOP: Proton Mail provided Swiss authorities with payment data that the FBI then used to determine who was allegedly behind an anonymous account affiliated with the Stop Cop City movement in Atlanta, according to a court record reviewed by 404 Media.
if the platform doesn’t hold the users in productive dialectical tension with the maintainers, i don’t want it! this is kink 101!!
i need a new south episode every week until this shitshow is over
to me, is ai “good” or “bad” is a stupid question.
constraining the ways in which we’re trying to think about ai within a framing of property and authority is unproductively reductive and ethically counterproductive.
at the very same time napster and bittorrent were happening.
look at where we are now.
it was drilled into us as millennial children that plagiarism is BAD. but no one ever offered us coherent articulations of what plagiarism actually was, nor—and especially—why it was bad.
it was a moral appeal to a supposed common sense.
lately, i keep thinking about how my teachers in high school forbade me from citing wikipedia as a source, and how they didn’t care one iota about whether or not the citation was correct. they (unknowingly?) simply demanded i conform to their moral imposition of proper authorship (authority).
the use of the word “partnered” here is really fucking sending me.
i hope those bombs are meeting all of their okrs and kpis in a way that splendidly demonstrates the company’s core values and competencies!
woke claude-chan murders humans so much more ethically than broke chatgpt uwu
expensive NAND? war in iran? cui bono?
since everyone seems to be throwing around conspiracy theories in broad daylight lately, here's a fun one:
the entire trump admin is the selfish, hubristic, reckless projection of a dysfunctional shadow gov't of tech billionaires trying to forge a giant socioeconomic moat at the advent of ai
RIP Baudrillard you would've loved this episode of imperial decline
fucking idiots thinking they're playing cod
who wouldn’t have severe childhood trauma cptsd if their father was their mother was google?
it turns out that having healthy relationship to anger and angst can be incredibly productive! who knew!
there’s got to be an xkcd that said years ago lol
Allan-Quatermain 23h Great question! There are actually several layers here worth untangling, and believe me when say that this whole thing is one big, tangled, knot. Is Israel unique in being associated with "right to exist" language? Essentially, yes. The phrase "right to exist" as applied to a state isn't a recognized concept in international law; it's a political formulation that became prominent specifically in the context of the Arab-lsraeli conflict. The phrase gained enormous diplomatic weight when it was embedded as a precondition for peace negotiations: in 1993, as part of the Oslo process, the PLO formally recognized "the right of the State of lsrael to exist in peace and security" in exchange for Israel recognizing the PL0 as the representative of the Palestinian people (U.S. State Department- The Oslo Accords and the Arab-lsraeli Peace Process). This built on the framework established by UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967), which affirmed the right of every state in the region to "live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries' notably using the language of living in peace, not a state's abstract right to exist (Yale Law School Avalon Project-UNSC Resolution 242). No other state in modern diplomacy has had its "right to exist" made a formal precondition for negotiations in this way.
Do states even have a "right to exist"? This is genuinely debated! Multiple legal scholars have pointed out that no provision of international law grants any state an inherent right to exist. The Princeton Encyclopedia of Self-Determination notes that self-determination was interpreted in the 1960s as the right of colonial territories to become independent or adopt any other status they freely chose, but this is a right of peoples, not a guarantee that any particular state will persist in perpetuity (Princeton Encyclopedia of Self-Determination Legal Aspects of Self-Determination). States either exist as political realities or they don't; throughout history they form, dissolve, merge, and split. The philosopher Ernest Renan argued back in 1882 that a nation's existence is essentially a 'daily plebiscite," it persists only as long as its members choose to sustain it.
"Right to exist' vs. "right to self-determination"....are they the same? No, and you're picking up on the crux of the matter. Self-determination is a recognized principle of international law, enshrined in Article 1 of the UN Charter, which lists among the UN's purposes the development of "friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples (United Nations Charter, Chapter It's further codified in Article 1 of both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, where it is described as the right of all peoples to "freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development' (Cornell Law Institute Self-Determination in International Law). A state's "right to exist" by contrast, is about the legitimacy and permanence of a particular political entity with particular borders. You can affirm a people's self-determination without endorsing any specific state configuration, and you can affim a state's right to exist without necessarily addressing the self-determination claims of all peoples affected by that state. The Diakonia International Humanitarian Law Centre notes that self-determination has acquired the status of jus cogens, a peremptory norm of international law, and that its obstruction, particularly through the use of force, constitutesa serious violation of international law (Diakonia lHL Centre Self-Determination and International Law). The "right to exist" enjoys no such legal status!!
The American Society of International Law further clarifies this distinction in practice: international law bestows on all peoples the right to self-determination, but the right to external self-determination (i.e., secession and independent statehood) only applies in extreme circumstances, such as colonization or severe persecution (ASIL Insights Sterio, "Self-Determination and Secession Under International Law" 2018). So when you hear "Ukraine has a right to self-determination" versus "Israel has a right to exist," those aren't just different phrasings of the same idea. The first invokes established international law and locates the right with a people. The second is a political demand with no direct legal basis, directed at the permanence of a specific state. Completely separate issues.
uncharacteristically good answer from r/AskHistorians on the language of "right to exist" that has me thinking about this deeply.
I certainly think the right line on this is that Jewish people have a right to a peaceful existence in the levant but Israel does not have a right to exist.
“.. a record 6% of workers in 401(k) plans administered by Vanguard Group took a hardship withdrawal. That is up from 4.8% in 2024 and a prepandemic average of about 2% ..”
@wsj.com
www.wsj.com/personal-fin...
I do appreciate cis advocates of trans healthcare, especially in these times, but I do wish more of them would let go of the "experts know best" framing. I'm aware it's safe, palatable, sellable, but there's a century of "experts" torturing, converting, and sexually abusing trans people. So.
transsexualization and abortioning et al do not have any externalities impacting others’ bodies, but you giving someone measles absolutely does
