Paragone

Yes, he really does sound like the Joker… 1 of 'em, anyways…

I think the argument should be about trustworthy, not quantity, of code.

iow, it doesn’t get committed until some human has read & understood it, & has signed-off on it.

Nobody signs-off on it?

Then don’t trust it.

LLM’s can outcode us humans…

but it can also code mistakes at something like 1-million times our speed, too!

Responsibility & accountability still are required, for any trustworthy infrastructure or civilization.

& since LLM’s are being programmed on trash, then they aren’t going to be entirely-trustworthy.

Were I to want an LLM to do some engineering, then I’d program it ONLY on good-code/good-data, until its “bones” were set, and then show it what to not do, to reinforce those instincts…

not just throw it at most used code, & deem that to be good-enough.

_ /\ _

NASA’s only purpose in Trump’s dominion is:

1. ego-drama, like Artemis*
2. weapons-enablement.

Science-for-science’s sake is opposite to his paradigm.

Concentration-of-privilege-for-its-own-sake is his paradigm.

This was easily forseen, by all.

• The problem I have with Artemis, is that it was an institution-ego mission, not a engineering-for-science mission:

You know how multiple Falcon9 missions have been saved when an engine-anomaly/failure happened, but they had sooo many engines on the thing, that the mission wasn’t destroyed?

You know how that’s even-more-true with their SpaceShip design?

Artemis’s got 4 main engines:
ANY anomaly with 1 of those, & the mission’s probably destroyed.

That was a DESIGN choice.

Since engine-anomalies are guaranteed sooner-or-later, that means that they CHOSE to make such events more-fatal.

Incompetent, in my eyes, but politically-motivated-institutions, & I was paying-attention when Richard Feynman eviscerated the culture of NASA back in the Challenger disaster days, can only be rooted-out by replacing … usually the entire top-brass, to change the culture.

Same as with Boeing’s culture remains the same, so anybody expecting different-results … is betting on makeup/paint, not on the underlying-substance.

IF you won’t remove the wrong-culture from the top, THEN you CANNOT change the organization’s culture, throughout.

IF you won’t change the organization’s culture throughout, THEN it’ll keep doing the same kinds of deformed-decisions, because its motivation remains the same: wrong.

Institutional-politics motivation cannot be permitted to rule science.

Not within NASA, & not national-gov’t-ruling-NASA/Science-board/medical-science/etc.

Segregation of church from state, and segregation of politics from judiciary+journalism weren’t the only 2 required-segregations: segregation of politics from science+engineering+management also was required.

_ /\ _

Agile goes on about how if you aren’t connecting-with-customer, while you’re coding, then you’re doing exactly what that article is bitching about.

_ /\ _

He speaks about spreadsheets being malleable-documents…

IF you do any calculating & basic-programming’s something you’re OK with, then PLEASE invest in understanding https://plutojl.org/

& if you decide to dig-in, then please try a good book ( the Design Patterns one is good ) & hit Exercism, & you’re good to go.

MASSIVELY better than spreadsheets, in my view.

Mind-you, I think Julia’s better than spreadsheets AND Python, because it’s cleaner, stupendously faster in execution, etc…

& that suits my aesthetics just fine.

_ /\ _

This is a bit beyond architecture, but being competent to build a mathematically bug-free API is probably something that few programmers would even bother trying to compete-against…

https://leanpub.com/algebra-driven-design

I think there is a fundamental mis-framing, throughout the entire software/development understanding…

I think that the architecture needs to be simultaneously agilely-devloped, but into an executable-model, a kind of toy-implimentation, so it is easy to change the architecture, low-cost, BEFORE one converts it into load-bearing, & therefore unchangeable architecture ( architecture’s the hardest thing to change, as it’s most-fundamental )

So, I think that the proper way is to do it in 2 stages:

1. agilely develop the architecture, until ALL required-kinds-of-function are working, in the toy-model, & one has re-architected it so that the structure is right, & then
2. set about converting it from the high-level-language to whatever production-language it is that is efficiency-optimal, for production-scale.

This is part of an idea from years ago: I read in a Wiley GAAP book that I happened to be glancing into, that it’s a violation of GAAP to prototype any project in any language other than the final-implimentation-language, & expense that prototype.

Which is totally insane!

Prototype in the highest-level-language you can, to get the domain+architecture right, then reimpliment what you have to in the most production-efficient/effective language for that project.

GAAP ( of that year ) is categorically wrong: it penalizes optimal-prototyping.

It was years-later before I discovered that an English mathematician ( roundish ginger, worked in Glasgow, no idea what his name was, sorry ) had studied the difference between complex projects which worked vs ones which died, & it was the visual-spacial-representation-of-the-model, & the complete-coverage executable-model which made the successes win.

So, I just put those ideas together.

_ /\ _

It isn’t only local to Australians:

The Reverse Cramer Index was a fund which did the exact-opposite of what a TV “guru” was telling people to do.

Notice that its returns, before it shut down, were in the green:

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SJIM/performance/?guccounter=1

You can’t harvest the money of the mislead-sheep unless you’re misleading them & fleecing them efficiently, right?

_ /\ _

As the root-guru of the Christians, benJoseph, pointed-out: “you can’t orient to 2 contradictory-nature gods”, though he paraphrased the principle, some…*

IF someone in academia cares more about their-career, their-status, their-profit, etc, in any variant of institutional-narcissism, professional-narcissism, economic-narcissism, etc,

THEN the “learning institution” simply “cannot afford” to put learning 1st.

IF they care more about the next-generation’s learning, more about quality-of-research, more about next-generations DOING research, etc, then they’ll hire the grad-student & demonstrate how to limit/harness LLM’s so that they don’t compromise/undermine either education, autonomous human meaning, or science.

Actions speak louder than words, though, among those with honesty/integrity.

So, do whatever you want: & be judged on that, in the end, right?

_ /\ _

( the “*” was simply…

  d :

_ /\ _   )

ROTFLMAO

REALLY??

They ALSO are leaving-out all the LLM-introduced bugs, vulnerabilities, back-doors, & other shenanigans!!

Sometimes moderate ludditism can be a GOOD thing.

Ask the security-geeks why they generally refuse to use electronic locks on their homes!

See correctly, not “fashionably”.

_ /\ _

For all who’ve been unaware of just how intense the conflict is between Judaism & zionism, here is the 1st paragraph from https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/2026/02/26/the-reality-in-gaza/

“For over 28 months, the Israeli military has not only murdered Palestinians en masse, but also systematically destroyed and restricted Palestinians’ access to their homes, to clean water, food, medical care, schools, Internet, fuel, and electricity. These are all tactics of genocide: destroying the conditions required for life.”

All the Jews protesting “Not In OUR Name!”, etc, this is like being anti-nazi & German, in Hitler’s rise: not easy to endure, or, in some cases, even survive.

( there are books on Germans who opposed nazism from within, 1 on journalists who did it, & another, can’t remember what that one was specifically on )

Diversity’s real, in spite of ideological oversimplifications.

& that is something that ideologies hate, as it violates their reacting-programming, requiring actual-objectivity & actual-considering.

Good for someone to be pointing-out that gaslighting that the zionists have been doing.

( in my opinion, islamists & christofascists are doing exactly the same game, in their contexts: this isn’t culture-specific, this is global, & is seen also in the Dharmic religions, as well, like “buddhist” genociders of Tamils, etc )

_ /\ _

< sigh >

There WAS a video on yt by a Norwegian man on why OO languages push people into spreading side-effects throughout the code, whereas in Haskell, side-effects are optimally conserved to Main.hs

I can’t find that video, now.

He was on stage, a talk of some kind, not as formal as a university-lecture, so it was some conference, of some kind… ( in case anybody else finds it )

I think that that principle is contradicting what the article is saying… ( skimmed the rest, I think he’s generally right, but burying side-effects seems to be wrong, from Haskell’s perspective, & I think Haskell’s right, generally. )

_ /\ _

They’re wrong:

The actual problem is that they presumed that they’d be insta-embraced by the market, when in fact they have to market & grow their customer-base, same as normal businesses do.

Which is … executive-narcissism? corporate-narcissism?

Something like that.

_ /\ _

DarkTriad using political-process to highjack the world, is all it is: totally inevitable.

Filtering-out DarkTriad types isn’t something that wavering political-will can do to the degree of being stratically-secure: it HAS to be done by the system, itself.

Filtering-out evil from authority is a systems-question, NOT a political one.

This is just The Great Filter, is all: world-species-puberty.

World-breaking technology/industry, AND frustration-rage at feeling crowded, & one’s individual-rights being overwhelmed by collective-responsibilities, & then TANTRUM/POGROM to make the animal-reacting part of our unconscious-mind & ego have what IT wants.

The process’ll be finished by the 2080’s, it looks like.

_ /\ _

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=nazi+eagle+insignia&iar=images&t=fpas

Those wings remind me of the Alligator Alcatraz grim-reaper insignia, somehow, too.

Well, at last they’re being honest, for a change, in that single item.

“Peace Prize” recipient, my arse.

_ /\ _

Why wouldn’t they be??

Sociopathic/psychopathic values ought be proud of sociopathic/psychopathic accomplishments.

Same as altruistic-values ought be proud-of, or at-least-happy-with, altruistic accomplishments!

What pleases one is inherently of one’s values, always…

_ /\ _

Humankind is now in Metaphase,

soon ( March/April, looks-like when the Middle-East goes kablooey ) to be in Anaphase: Regional Consolidation Stage, of The Great Filter’s 1st Yang Stage, aka the “White Serpent Time” in the American Indians’ religion, & the “White Horse Time” in the Christian’s book of Revelation.

Telophase will be complete in 7y after Anaphase begins, then

Cytokinesis, 2 mutually-exclusive "humankind"s occupying the same planet, & the global-deathmatch begins, aka the “Red Serpent Time” & the “Red Horse Time/WAR”, ie The Great Filter’s 2nd Yang Stage.

Humankind’s whole-species-equivalent-to-puberty: the mathematically inescapable Great Filter.

It’s our collective unconscious-mind’s ego & ignorance that’s the cause of it, btw, not the “religions”.

The “religions” are only “makeup” on it: styling, not the root-problem/cause.

Humankind’s species-collective-ignorance/ego is the root-problem/cause.

All worlds with people like us go through the same growing-up-test, The Great Filter.

Some survive, statistically…

_ /\ _

Sorry, but the most brilliant move in corporate history is the acting on Value Investing, as Buffett & Munger do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_investing

I think their belief that the market-cycle “cannot” be predicted, is hogwash, but Value Investing is THE killer-app, in corporate history.

Having the C-suite understand & be loyal-to Value Investing means your company is MUCH more likely to be around, in the future.

  d :

_ /\ _

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citrine_(programming_language) already allowed programming in Korean, ttbomk…

Which is good: the more the better, right?

_ /\ _

I’m permabanned from lemmy.ml among others.

& do NOT think they’re on the right track.

& DO think that seeing things objectively is the right track.

_ /\ _

My point is that concentration-of-force ITSELF isn’t happening, anymore, because drones have made that suicidal.

& when concentration-of-force isn’t happening, anymore, then … weapons which multiply 1 side’s advantage in concentration-of-force … are irrelevant.

Tanks are strong weapons.

But … why am I getting deja-vu about this… what similar-thing happened back in WW1 or WW2…

here’s 1, but of a different context, entirely:

Vietnam: ditch the 7.62 NATO round in favor of the 5.56, which IN JUNGLE is more-useful.

OK, so what happens when the army gets deployed in Iraq, in open desert, & there’s no jungle?

then one gets killed, helplessly, by the farther-reaching rounds being used by the enemy.

THE CONTEXT CHANGED, see?

.: the technological-appropriateness changed, too!

https://www.defenceukraine.com/en/insights/fpv-drones-ukraine-war-analysis/

"The Primary Anti-Tank Weapon

While advanced anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) like the Javelin remain highly effective, the FPV drone has emerged as the primary and most frequently used anti-tank weapon of the war, largely due to its cost and availability. FPV operators have become adept tank hunters, exploiting the vulnerabilities of even the most modern main battle tanks. Tactics often involve targeting specific weak points such as the optics, the turret ring, the engine compartment, or the tracks.

A single FPV strike, especially with a standard RPG warhead, may not always result in a “catastrophic kill” that destroys the tank outright. However, it is often sufficient to achieve a “mobility kill” by damaging the tracks or engine, leaving the heavily armoured vehicle stranded and vulnerable. Once a tank is disabled, it can be systematically destroyed by subsequent FPV strikes or targeted by other assets like artillery or grenade-dropping drones that can precisely drop munitions into open hatches. Analysis of combat footage suggests that destroying a tank can sometimes require ten or more FPV drones, but given their low cost, this is still a highly favourable exchange. The effectiveness rate varies widely based on operator skill, target defences, and electronic warfare conditions, with estimates for successful strikes against armoured vehicles ranging from as low as 5% to as high as 50% for elite units. Regardless of the precise percentage, the sheer volume of attacks has made FPVs the leading cause of armoured vehicle losses for both sides"

further down:

"The Attrition Engine and the Death of Manoeuvre

The most significant strategic impact of the FPV drone, in concert with other ISR assets, has been the creation of a hyper-lethal and transparent battlespace that has effectively killed large-scale manoeuvre warfare. The constant threat of detection and precision strike from above makes the concentration of forces, the very foundation of a combined arms breakthrough, prohibitively costly and risky. As a result, both Russian and Ukrainian armies have been deprived of their tactical and operational mobility, forcing combat to devolve into a grinding, positional war of attrition reminiscent of World War I, but with 21st-century technology."

It’s RIGHT THERE: CONCENTRATION-OF-FORCE isn’t the way it’s done, now.

_ /\ _

The beauty of that, is simply that it proves that the market is ENGINEERED TO BE irrational.

Until the markets are engineered to be rational, with all required ratios being posted, all relevant competitive-information, etc, then bubble/crash/bubble/crash is enforced on our economy, perhaps industry-by-industry, but it is enforced.

& who has the courage & integrity to enforce that markets be made rational?

< crickets >

Nobody: that’s who.

So, it’s actually all just a pretence, used for the concentration-of-wealth, & so long as the pretence is profitable for the “haves & the have-more’s” ( the ones G.W. Bush admitted, to them, that he served ), then nothing’ll change.

Rational-market REQUIRES objective-information being where-it-is-needed, consistently, reliably.

That takes guts & integrity, in setting-up the rules of being in the stock-markets.

_ /\ _