if you go around pulling out logic flaw arguments and then proceed to commit logic flaws yourself, it isn't a good look man. the quoted statement was "beyond most intelligent individuals" which contradicts your assertion that the argument was stated as "humans cannot write correct C". anyway I do find it ultra amusing how software engineers believe software engineering is the backbone of programming, when in reality it is merely the flesh. we landed men on the moon long before Rust was even zygotic. for all its benefits, the argument to use memory safe languages ultimately serves to benefit large corporations who can faster generate profit by faster churning out code.
I was raised atheist/agnostic and was one for decades. Now that I'm not, I frequently get unsolicited comments like the one you're responding to. People assume that I haven't considered foundational tenets of my religion, or that they're the first ones to raise basic ethical questions after thousands of years of tradition, teaching, and catechism.
There's a noticeable difference between those who are concerned but care about what I think, and those who have already made up their minds that I'm ignorant. It's tough, especially when it surfaces in longstanding relationships. I've had friends and family jump to all kinds of crazy conclusions about what I believe and why.
I'm not perfect, and I often reflect on whether I'm setting a bad example or being a poor witness to something that's a powerful source of strength and charity. Many times I've fallen short, and I ask for forgiveness. Christ asks me to pick up my cross and follow Him, and I pray for the humility and discernment to do so.
its a gracious outlook of you, to assign ignorance as the root cause of this behaviour. to me that dude looks like any other proselytizer - a man attempting to sway others views, without concern for their concerns. although if you try showing atheist proselytizers how similar they behave to preachers, or indeed compare any of their behaviour to religious zealots, this inevitably short circuits the proselytizer viewpoint and forces fight mode, resulting in termination of any productive discussion.
at the end of the day people say a lot of things, and until life teaches how little words matter, people do care about words by default. it is only those understanding life who look past words to see what truly matters. everything that anything living does in this existence is inherently selfish, otherwise it wouldnt happen, based on science and neurochemistry. this seeming impediment to becoming christlike is not an insurmountable obstacle, rather a beautiful choice we are offered - to accept animality, or to humbly push through the impossible and seek something more ...
may i ask a bit more specifically why your comment evaluating the abstract concept of goodness and its relation to faith is related to this sentence? i'm still not seeing the connection.
"who failed to live their faith" - ie if they had lived up to their faith would have been good. I'm saying that the practice of "faith" and being "good" are largely unconnected. There are plenty of faithful Christians in prison.
By "good" I mean nice, polite, not murdering people. Generally accepted moral behavior.
if someone agrees on what it means to be good, their definition of the term has been subjectively qualified. muslims agree its good to cover their women, you probably dont, both these statements are true. seems to be a central aspect of religion, agreeing on codified morality. im fairly confident that not killing is a moral purported by christianity, therefore it doesnt seem logical to label murderers as christians - based on their murderous behaviour, murderers do not agree with christianity, regardless as to what they verbally state. would you label buddhists as immoral if an individual decided to call himself buddhist post-massacre?
I've seen plenty videos of locals being violently removed from town halls due to displaying of anti AI sentiment. I wouldnt consider it fair to use these examples to tar the entirety of the pro AI camp. the way objectivity and subjectivity are intertwined in your comment is spectacular, ever considered a career in propaganda?
They are probably talking about data centres and town hall meetings where people are objecting and being removed.
Even a casual search you will find numerous videos.
The only issue I see with your comment (and this thread stems off the misreading of my post), is that despite your "I see the difference" it is still labelling one side.
I don't think it was a misunderstanding, the comment was not addressing the content of your post, but rather the descision to bring it up in a context where they thought it not relevant.
umm have you considered that you can go to youtube and verify my claim whereas the other interlocutor explicitly refers to unverifiable personal anecdotes? and did you want to verify that I explicitly accused someone of propaganda?
I attempted that. In videos from the last year the only things I could find were some people protesting ICE, A person accusing a mayor of sexual assault, some republican party events with protestors, and a few of people speaking out of turn being walked off by security.
Without the specific examples you described I have no idea what you are talking about. It is either sufficiently old that it could be considered an isolated incident if no more recent incidents have since occurred, or it is considerably harder to find than you imagine.
I believe that I have witnessed at least 3 videos of americans being forcibly removed from town halls for speaking out against data centers. you are correct that search engines are not showing anything at all when searching for data centre forced removal. it took me ten minutes to find the most recent example from my memory[0]. something strange is happening, and when I see you act ostensibly in support of the side that is seemingly scrubbing search engine results, this is why I react poorly to your pro AI and pro system stance - the system does not need our good faith, the system already controls the narrative.
i referred that way to the other commentor's anecdotes. regarding my end i provided evidence, and you can see other commentors in the same thread who also claim to have seen what i claim to have seen. maybe you misread the thread. either way, may things get better for you soon.
we are monkeys following logic that was determined by other monkeys. our experience of reality is equivalent to that of a brain in a jar. blind belief is blind belief whether placed in science or religion. breaching the gap of blindness necessarily involves a leap to test ideas with personal faith. such a notion is not necessarily compatible with an atheistic perspective insisting reality is solely that which may be verbally quantified by monkeys. a dog knows to sit on command but has no idea about the concept of sitting, does that make the concept of sitting unreal?
thats absolutely true regarding wysiwyg projects like a small website. aside from temporary cost savings, systematically ignoring institutional knowledge in favor of mass output is not gonna do humanity any favors ..
Yeah institutional knowledge is hard to capture, even more with agentic coding.
I just compressed what would take a team a few months to deliver in one or two months, the amount of gotcha I spot from the existing system we work on everyday is staggering.
How to deliver and keep these feedback is difficult, the other teams are overwhelmed by other tasks, so any tickets or communications will be forgotten in a few months.
And as an external ressources allowed to use frontier model, I have a hard time to keep up with my own pace, and all that institutional knowledge will be lost both by my employer and client.
That’s true, however a properly engineered safety-critical system provides separation between assurance levels, so you don’t need to have the same level of assurance for the infotainment system software that you do for safety-critical displays and controls.
The FAA has historically done a good job on this front with aviation (notwithstanding the 747 MAX debacle, which was a failure implicating flight control software but not a failure of separation of assurance levels). Automotive software and standards and NHTSA is far behind on this front. Cost is certainly a factor; it is not economical to apply aviation safety and engineering standards and processes directly to automobiles. But in the meantime, it is an absolute Wild West for any contemporary drive-by-wire car.
don't know where you sourced your perspective but yea based on the reports ive heard from automotive engineers, coding in autosar is the direct opposite of wild
I have first-hand experience unlike your third-hand anecdotes. AUTOSAR is a private industry consortium that develops specifications. They are voluntary and self-attested and don’t have anything like the verification and documentation processes that are mandated by DO-178 in the aviation world by regulators with both independent engineering certification and regulatory oversight. Tesla and Rivian don’t participate at all. There is no comparable regulatory framework for automotive software—at all. It is purely reactive.
And lest you take issue with my characterization or claim Tesla is a rogue outlier, let me remind you that Volkswagen shipped deliberate software emissions defeat code in 11 million diesel passenger vehicles over eight model years including half a million in the USA, and was only caught by academic researchers.
ISO 26262 does have serious lifecycle standards but again it’s a voluntary industry standard that has no government oversight or regulatory authority. Oversight is typically largely internal and is strongest in the auto parts/components market. It’s largely toothless to automakers/integrators and again the likes of Tesla simply don’t use it and have no obligation to.
The infotainment system itself may be QM but there has to be assurance that it is in fact separated from higher safety level system.
> it’s a voluntary industry standard that has no government oversight or regulatory authority.
Yes, hence why I said I'm not sure about enforcement mechanisms how they stack up against the aviation standard. Still, in my limited experience, projects that are ASIL x take the thing pretty seriously and they do get certifications from external bodies. Actually, I am supporting an SEooC external certification right now.
> The infotainment system itself may be QM but there has to be assurance that it is in fact separated from higher safety level system.
The separation most likely happens _outside_ the infotainment itself, through a gateway.
probably because society does not provide a manual on behaviour and ethics but religion does? and more people nowadays are getting sick of how the 2 default human values of pleasure/pain are systematically used against them? and once you join a community its nice to add new members? regardless as to any of those answers it's been acceptable to openly proselytize atheism on the internet forever, bit hypocritical not to allow other religions to do the same.
microsoft "permanently suspended (his) account ... (to) ensure (his) data remains protected". but microsoft cannot give him his data. therefore microsoft stole his personal property and are protecting it for their own use. this is legal because he agreed to it. everybody has to use windows, and microsoft account creation is now forced by windows - therefore I call this slavery coercion
I consider it appropriate to stand up for those who haven't had the fortune to be educated as to the extent of slavery agreed to by clicking that little check box during sign up. i find it amusing, you calling me spineless for standing up for the uneducated. are you really that callous or was this simply an opportunity for a drive by? you do know the average person is forced into this flow by windows sign up right?
Everybody knows their cloud / online stuff isn’t theirs, and tough love is really the best kind. Perpetual victims who repeatedly seek out and excuse abusers made their choices.
companies worth billions are capable of exacting abuse on a scale that no one man can resist, for example by hiding the fact you confidently claim everyone is so aware of, and forcing customers onto the cloud by default. if you want to blame the victims of a scam engineered by thousands of very smart people and lots of money, that's your prerogative. personally I spend a lot of time unfucking the PCs of my friends/family and teaching them how to teach others, instead of pointing the finger at them on internet forums
Just opt out, don’t be a cuck. Nobody NEEDS a Google account. Nobody. I de-Googled, feels great. Did it a decade back. If you want to fix up people’s PCs that’s great for you, personally I tell my people that if they want free tech advice to talk to me before a purchase becomes a problem so I can advise them on what to get. If they choose not to ask me first, they know not to bother me with problems they created themselves by failing to seek my free advice in the first place.
Much better than spending every free waking moment trying to teach people stuff they clearly have no desire or aptitude to learn. They can buy whatever garbage and get stuck with it on the whims they have, lol.
I truly hate the selfishness of humanity in its maximal form which is structural dominance, if you prefer to spend time hating smaller expressions of selfishness like not reading the fine print then yeah cool, take care
I don’t “hate” like you do, you seem awfully young and frustrated. You’ll mellow out, just steer clear of the shrinks and brain pills, they cripple your mind and depersonalize.
reply