Flow was a type checker (used to be Typescript vs. Flow debates early on before Typescript ended up with more support), Flux was the unidirectional data flow architecture.
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
because... they don't have as many examples, documentation, textbooks, or public example projects to base generation off of, perhaps. There may be a future where documentation/servers are more formally integrated with LLMs/AI systems in a way that makes up for the relative lack of literature by plugging into a source of information that can be used to generate code/projects.
It's a not-so-ideal situation: how is the marketplace of libraries and languages going to evolve when you're competing against whatever version of Python and $FRAMEWORK that was crawled a long time ago?
That might actually be a benefit as most public code say in C++ is not good code.
If the pool is smaller but from say experienced programmers then the number of errors might be less. I can see that for Ada however most Haskell is probably written by undergraduates just learning it so not a quality code base.
I think Apple researchers published a recent papaer where they had a LLM giving good Swidt code but the original corpus only included one Swift program but the AI model was tuned by experienced Swift programmers to get into a good stae for general use.
I just started with it, so still getting my feet wet, but it's been better than any other tool at really grokking my codebase and understanding my intent. The workflow feels better than a strict IDE integration, but it does get pricey really quickly, and you pretty much need at least the $100 Max subscription.
Luckily, it should be coming with the regular $20 Pro subscription in the near future, so it should be easier to demo and get a feel for it without having to jump in all the way.
1. <- I think this is a good thing to focus on, and even lightly touched on in the video. The idea should be that you don't _need_ to be sophisticated to enjoy the sport. The NFL does well in this regard because it's pretty easy to understand that moving the ball forward is good, losing the ball is bad.
Where basketball misses there is that the "get the ball in the hoop" portion of that is _really_ boring now. I'd wager that people don't want to be concerned with some 3rd man setting a screen on the other side of the court allowing some 2nd man to set up behind a pick from a 4th man to get passed the ball from the 1st man to shoot a three... and then clank it off the rim. Then, rinse and repeat on both ends. The end result is that the "get the ball in the hoop" part just feels like a back-and-forth 3-point shootaround, even though the actual sequence is far more complex.
Seconding this: you don't try and fix things after the damage has been done, you try and anticipate _where_ and _when_ the damage could be done. In this case, giving a foreign _adversarial_ (<- emphasis) government significant leverage over citizen sentiment is a massive security hole.
Hard disagree: your own government at least has the incentive to make the country better (or at least appear so) to seek reelection. A foreign adversarial government has the incentive to limit the growth and power of the other country, in so far as it affects their own country.
Should you care about what your own government does with your data? Absolutely, 100%, no doubt, big ticket issue, fly the banners as visibly as possible. But more than an adversary? Not even close.
> your own government at least has the incentive to make the country better (or at least appear so) to seek reelection. A foreign adversarial government has the incentive to limit the growth and power of the other country, in so far as it affects their own country.
"Adversary" is assuming your conclusion. My own government has plenty of incentives to attack my business (I've got plenty of competitors who would support them in doing so), far more so than the government of China.
End users just won't care about the algorithm. Try talking to a niece or nephew, especially one who makes money on the platform about The Algorithm and you'll get blank stares, or, at best, a "yeah I know, but...".
If you've had better luck, let me know (actually).
As for "being China", every country has protections on what goes in or out of the country including media. A lot of countries won't let you own a newspaper or news broadcast channel, so this is the next extension of that sort of idea.
It's the same idea as not allowing a company from the USSR to run a news channel during the Cold War, although obviously the lines are fuzzier and still being discovered with apps and algorithms.
My read on the situation is that this is the beginning of clamping down on _all_ (or most) of this. Also important to note the difference between racism and national security. The notion isn't "wacky chinese people ooh so mysterious so sneky", it's that the government isn't the US's ally and has (valid) reasons to want to reduce the US's grip on the global stage.
It's not (just) that it poses an economic threat to one of the biggest US companies (which as you said, I'm sure plays a big part in why it's suddenly relevant), but that it allows a government-influenced foreign media channel to influence policy indirectly by means of mass dissemination.
As for why now and not before, it's because of how apparent the possible effects are now that there's a very direct and widely spread channel that can pump OUT information, which is vastly more effective and obvious than passive surveillance through cameras or other hardware. (Also cybersecurity people have been calling out this sort of stuff for hardware since time immemorial)
> As for why now and not before, it's because of how apparent the possible effects are now that there's a very direct and widely spread channel that can pump OUT information, which is vastly more effective and obvious than passive surveillance through cameras or other hardware.
This. TT's US popularity plus its fully algorithmic approach to content selection makes it potentially one of the most effective mass influence systems ever. People are easily influenced - especially young people - and the root of that being in China is a clear risk to US sovereignty.
I mean, look at what Xi and his allies would like to see happening in the US, and look at what's happening in the US today. Coincidence?
My main gripe is actually a neoliberal sympathy (something I usually don't have).
The framework is progress moves fastest with a global leveling and elimination of friction between markets.
Fundamentally I see this as American companies using government cheat codes instead of sharpening their game, just like with the Chinese electric cars 100% tax.
It stems from my critique of neoliberalism, the failure to invest in foundational societal systems that give an affordance to such positioning: education, mass transit, health care, maternity leave, preschool funding, scholastic enrichment, the stuff that most of Asia is great at we're lousy at.
Chinese people aren't like genetically superior, they just spent the past 50 years investing in their people instead of taking things away and fighting stupid wars.
And these are the chickens coming home to roost just like they did for Hungary, the UK, and Spain.
We've been fucking up for decades and racism isn't going to fix it.
I mean, book banning isn't a federal level thing (at least not at any remotely broad level) and typically happens either on one side of the political spectrum (same deal with LGBT stuff), or at the level of individual school systems. e.g. you won't find that book at the school library at most, but the bookstore down the street will have it.
Vast difference from the typical notion of book burnings and such.
"Objective" media exists (NPR, PBS(?), CSPAN) but just isn't as popular because biased media attracts more attention through confirmation bias and flashiness.
The difference is that citizens can influence those companies, or influence the politicians that can influence those companies. Also, there's no direct incentive to have broad negative impacts on citizen consumers at a global politics level (not that it doesn't do so at other levels).
If you're another country consuming Meta, etc. then you should probably be wary about dependence on a foreign platform's influence. The biggest difference however is how close the platform is to the government. In the US, it's getting closer, but still has some separation; in China it's rather close to one-and-the-same due to the pressure that the govt can exert on companies to do their bidding.
