Virtue signaling? That seems like an uncharitable reading.
The point, and the problem, is volume. Doing it manually has always imposed a de facto volume limit which LLMs have effectively removed. Which I understand to be the problem these types of posts and policies are designed to address.
I'm in the same position - holding out for a year in the hope that things change direction.
I've been in the apple ecosystem for 20 years at this point, because the ecosystem delivered real value for me. But that value has declined sharply - hardware is still good, but software quality has cratered while the drive for services revenue has become so relentless that I've now got one foot out the door.
Hm for me it's been a fairly steady state. The last 5 or so MacOS versions delivered features that got a solid meh from me:
- Big Sur did a redesign which wasn't really needed, but it wasn't that much of a downgrade. Wish they focused on fixing bugs rather.
- Monterey had live text, which has come in handy, otherwise I haven't used any of its headline features (such as shortcuts or universal control).
- Ventura: haven't used any headline features (Stage manager, continuity camera, Freeform)
- Sonoma: still nothing (Desktop widgets?, Game mode)
- Sequoia: Passwords app is cool, but have been using 1Password for a decade by this point, so had little interest in switching. (Everything else: Apple Intelligence was a joke, iPhone mirroring seems too clunky to be practical).
So nothing that exactly made me excited to upgrade, but at least things didn't get drastically worse.
But Tahoe seems like a disaster I don't want to touch. For one, it looks ridiculous. But also there seems to be a number of objectively bad design decisions all over the place. This is Apple - good design is what they got famous for. If they don't maintain an edge in UI design, then it's not the same company anymore as far as I'm concerned.
FWIW, a quick google turned up only three results for that phrase, each of which was from Animats, but on Slashdot. Cool phrase, even if it's apparently not that old
It's from a novel, I think. It reflects battle results of legions against barbarians. One on one, the barbarians could win. A formed legion could take on a larger group of barbarians and win. See Gallic Wars.
Google's coverage of books is worse than it used to be. Search results from old books don't come up much any more.
Non composita legio heroum. Heroes sunt quos legio necat.
(Please tell me how I'm butchering my Latin here, still learning!)
Yeah, I get nothing from a quick search too.
I wouldn't even think to know who would have said something so mundane about the legions. Cesar would never have said something like that. The closest that I can think of would be Pompey, but such a saying would have been too glib even for him.
> Cesar would never have said something like that.
I expect "don't be a hero" would be a very, very common sentiment expressed to a legionnaire during his training. It's a little more pithy than "hold the line or you'll get killed and fuck things up for everybody else."
> Theory is always for someone and for something. All theories have a pespective. Perspectives derive from a position in time and space, specifically social and political time and space ... There is, accordingly, no such thing as theory in itself, divorced from a standpoint in time and space. When any theory so represents itself, it is the more important to examine it as ideology, and to lay bare its concealed perspective
In this case it could not be clearer that the theory of 'trickle down'/supply side/neoliberal economics - that is, liberalisation, privatisation and deregulation - were for the wealthy, and they were for the purpose of capturing a greater share of wealth (upward wealth redistribution). That's why they acquired prominence and political support, and that's why they've been so hard to dislodge in spite of the overall harm they've done.
Personally I think it'd probably be ok to try something else
That's true of the hard sciences as well, not just the soft ones. The types of observations you think to make, the types of experiments you can perform, are "laden" with your theory of what there is in the world:
Scientific revolutions often start with puzzling "errors" in the measurements, and end up re-defining terms so that the new "correct" theory makes the error go away. But you're still theory-laden: the new theory is itself subject to eventual revolution.
Even really fundamental concepts like mass, length, entropy, and temperature undergo redefinition. When they do, the way we measure them changes. The old way, which was considered scientifically solid and sound, seems quaint and backwards in retrospect.
That's even more obvious in soft sciences, where the terms are even less rigorously defined than notions like "mass". I think it's important to recognize it in the hard sciences as well, because it's easy to get complacent thinking that we have all the terms perfectly defined. Scientists are human regardless of their field and are always burdened with assumptions that they don't realize.
they're not now. but christianity is an old religion.
after it became the official religion of Rome their aristocracy increasingly took up bishoprics, wich were much more powerful then, and acted as great lords do. paul johnson's a history of christianity is a good read if you want to know (lots and lots) more
Actually the political logic on national security legislation here is a little more complicated and not really related to the electoral system or compulsory voting.
National security policy has been used as a wedge issue here in the last 20 years, like in lots of other places. So the raft of security legislation that's been passed since the conservatives took office in 2013 has actually been as a result of both major parties voting together. If the Labor Party (centre-left) opposes security legislation, they're painted as soft on terror, weak on border security, etc.
Security agencies have given a shopping list to the Liberal (i.e. conservative) government - data retention, citizenship, and encryption amongst others. The Libs have put bill after bill forward in an attempt to generate opposition from Labor and thereby get an effective national-security wedge. Some of them have been 'genuine' reforms but some have been less so. Labor knows this of course. But it's ahead in the polls and wants to be a small target come the election, so it has refused to bite. The result has been a bunch of shitty new security laws.
It can be wonderfully disheartening to watch, especially given that lots of people on both sides of politics know perfectly well that they're bad laws but can't say it out loud due to the the politics of it. They're not all idiots who don't understand tech.
So while the electoral system here has delivered slim majorities for successive governments (or indeed minorities at times), it's not really relevant here. When the major parties vote together the laws are going to pass.
Sorry if that's off topic but I find it very interesting, albeit depressing sometimes.
i can't tell if you're joking but there is no such thing as a 'gentlemen's agreement' in international relations. nations go as far as they can and do what they feel they can get away with to advance their interests. hence, you know, espionage.
The point, and the problem, is volume. Doing it manually has always imposed a de facto volume limit which LLMs have effectively removed. Which I understand to be the problem these types of posts and policies are designed to address.