Such an aggressive response to a perfectly rational response to "Corporations who use and benefit from software should be made to pay for their use of that software."
Yes, but it's essentially just a re-branded INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service). They were conducting raids to catch undocumented immigrants (often at workplaces) for as long as I can remember (i.e. back into the early 1980's). IIRC, spanish speakers called them "la migra".
It saddens me that your rather innocuous comment has been down-voted so aggressively. Immigration enforcement is required. Illegal immigration should be discouraged. ICE's current tactics seem overly aggressive to me and, yes, seem to be used politically. But immigration laws should still be enforced. I imagine you'd agree that if ICE agents/supervisors act beyond the scope of their duties or with excessive force, they should be disciplined/prosecuted. I also have a hard time understanding people who don't agree with what I just wrote. I can only imagine those that want to disagree think I'm writing with some sort of underlying agenda and in code to push some broader political narrative (I'm not).
It may appear innocuous yet it normalizes ICE's actions as mere "immigration enforcement". Their actions are far more and far worse than that, as you note:
> ICE's current tactics seem overly aggressive to me and, yes, seem to be used politically.
It is not an issue of immigration laws being enforced, it is an issue of rights being infringed. The "overly aggressive" tactics being "used politically" is exactly the problem.
>It saddens me that your rather innocuous comment has been down-voted so aggressively.
Despite the ridiculous narrative that Obama and Biden were "bringing in illegals en masse to vote for Democrats," if you look at the actual numbers, it's not surprising that folks are down-voting that comment.
Mostly because those previous administrations (Obama and Biden) managed to deport many more undocumented folks than either this or the previous Trump administration, without the thuggery, violence and murder we're seeing now.
I'd note that even without the gratuitous violence and intimidation, folks were also protesting Obama's and Biden's ICE activities.
Because the real issue around immigration in the US is that our system is broken and we haven't constructively addressed those problems for nearly 40 years.
So no. I'm not surprised by the down-votes because there's nuance that's being glossed over and, while doing so, giving violent thugs a pass by claiming that they're "enforcing the law," even though they're doing a crap job while harming our citizens, legal residents and helping to destroy what's left of our civil society.
I'm not pushing any "broader political narrative" either. Just pointing out a few things not mentioned in your or GP's comments.
It's like you didn't see where I agree that current enforcement is too aggressive. Why are you writing in a tone that implies we disagree when we agree? This is the sort of thing that confuses me.
>It's like you didn't see where I agree that current enforcement is too aggressive. Why are you writing in a tone that implies we disagree when we agree? This is the sort of thing that confuses me.
I combined my response to your comment[0] and its parent[1], as I mentioned:
I'm not pushing any "broader political narrative" either. Just pointing out a
few things not mentioned in your or GP's comments.
Rather than disagreeing with you, I was attempting to add nuance and additional substance. As the site guidelines[2] recommend:
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone
says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
You appear to have assumed bad faith on my part. Why is that? Was I not clear enough? What could I have added to the above to be clearer?
> ICE's current tactics seem overly aggressive to me and, yes, seem to be used politically. But immigration laws should still be enforced.
Yeah, it's strange that this take is so polarizing.
> I imagine you'd agree that if ICE agents/supervisors act beyond the scope of their duties or with excessive force, they should be disciplined/prosecuted.
Yes of course, it's hard to disagree with that.
You are conflating legal and illegal immigrants. The visa restrictions are on legal immigrants. And while, as a legal immigrant myself, I would like to think that the vast majority of legal immigrants work hard and contribute positively to the country, it is a fact that certain groups in certain regions have an extremely high usage of social welfare programs (SNAP, Medicaid, etc), sometimes exceeding 80%. This is cause for some concern, IMO as it suggests problems of one sort or another. All that said, I have doubts that the administration's new visa restrictions will have a meaningful impact. Of course, I've been wrong before :shrug:.
Many people seem to be assuming some sort of bias on Polymarket's part. Without evidence, these seems unlikely as whichever side of the bet wins, Polymarket makes the same amount of $. That is, they have no stake in the outcome. The only time you can blame them is if they pay out to neither side and pocket all funds at stake. Which, as far as I can tell, no one is accusing them of.
> pay out to neither side and pocket all funds at stake
That's also not possible, as far as I understand. If the smart contracts are worth their salt, the only possible outcomes per binary option is to pay out in full to either "yes" or to "no" holders, not to any other unrelated party, including Polymarket.
The real risk is somebody subverting a sufficiently large proportion of (anonymous, stake-based) arbiters on UMA, which is the on-chain entity that actually arbitrates outcomes and as such releases funds to one side or the other. Then, somebody could buy the "wrong" outcome tokens for cheap and flip the payout their way.
No idea how feasible that is and which game-theoretic protections UMA/Polymarket have against that possibility, but I don't think we've seen a smoking gun for that yet.
Maybe I don't understand it enough, but I don't see how it's hard at all to manipulate this with a lot of money. Buy a lot of the wrong resolution, and all the other individuals will be too afraid to buy the right one.
Not quite, Polymarket is decentralized so they are even more removed from the outcome. When a dispute happens like this, a vote happens in the UMA DAO, essentially a decentralized "democratic" vote. What people are complaining about is UMA whales skewing votes.
The US consumes about 20 mil bbls of oil per day and imports around 4 mil bbls per day from Canada, about 20% of US consumption. Total oil imports is about 6 mil bbls/day, with about 2/3 of imports coming from Canada.
Two fun facts: 1) the US is now the largest producer of crude oil on the planet and 2) the US exports about 4 mil bbs of oil per day. Venezuela is a distant #18 at around 1 mil bbls/day
And lastly, pretty much anything you can distil from heavy crude, you can also distil from light crude, just less of it (by volume). There's a reason tar, asphalt and such is so cheap, it's made from the distillation waste products.
Almost double that of Saudi-Arabia, roughly 20 times that of Venezuela
Imported heavy crude rose from 12% 50 years ago to 70% today.
> pretty much anything you can distil from heavy crude, you can also distil from light crude
You can, but at what cost and where? The largest raffineries are apparently built for heavy crude and you can’t just retrofit them to handle light crude.
> with about 2/3 of imports coming from Canada
There are just two other countries equipped with large enough resources to compete for that market share: Russia and Venezuela
Our firm uses python extensively and the virtual environment for every script or script is ... difficult. We have dozens of python scripts running for team research and in production, from small maintenance tools to rather complex daemons. Add to that the hundreds of Jupyter notebooks used by various people. Some have a handful of dependencies, some dozens of dependencies. While most of those scripts/notebooks are only used by a handful of people, many are used company-wide.
Further, we have a rather largish set of internal libraries most of our python programs rely on. And some of those rely on external 3rd party API's (often REST). When we find a bug or something changes, more often than not, we want to roll out the changed internal lib so that all programs that use it get the fix. Having to get everyone to rebuild and/or redeploy everything is a non-starter as many of the people involved are not primarily software developers.
We usually install into the system dirs and have a dependency problem maybe once a year. And it's usually trivially resolved (the biggest problem was with some google libs which had internally inconsistent dependencies at one point).
I can understand encouraging the use of virtual environments, but this movement towards requiring them ignores what, I think, is a very common use case. In short, no one way is suitable for everyone.
But in your case if you had a vanilla even just a standard, hardened RHEL image then you can run as many container variations as you want and not be impacted by host changes. Actually the host can stay pretty static.
I think the main limitation is not code validation but assumption verification. When you ask an LLM to write some code based on a few descriptive lines of text, it is, by necessity, making a ton of assumptions. Oddly, none of the LLM's I've seen ask for clarification when multiple assumptions might all be likely. Moreover, from the behavior I've seen, they don't really backtrack to select a new assumption based on further input (I might be wrong here, it's just a feeling).
What you don't specify, it must to assume. And therein lies a huge landscape of possibilities. And since the AI's can't read your mind (yet), its assumptions will probably not precisely match your assumptions unless the task is very limited in scope.
> Oddly, none of the LLM's I've seen ask for clarification when multiple assumptions might all be likely.
It's not odd, they've just been trained to give helpful answers straight away.
If you tell them not to make assumptions and to rather first ask you all their questions together with the assumptions they would make because you want to confirm before they write the code, they'll do that too. I do that all the time, and I'll get a list of like 12 things to confirm/change.
That's the great thing about LLM's -- if you want them to change their behavior, all you need to do is ask.
reply