I'm an adult who doesn't have time to play Minecraft anymore because I'm too busy between a career and raising kids, but I did play a ton of it in its early days and I still watch a selection of Minecraft YouTube channels (mostly a few of the Hermits).
My early experiences with Minecraft absolutely helped get me to this point in my career. Minecraft is less a video game and more a sandbox and development platform. Redstone is a fabulous introduction to concepts that are applicable to programming, electrical engineering, and really any logic-oriented field. I first learned Forth through a Minecraft mod, and my first technical documentation experience came from writing docs for people to use that Forth system. I later picked up Lua through ComputerCraft, and my earliest real Java projects that I built were Minecraft mods.
All of which is to say: I'm totally going to introduce my kids to Minecraft when they're old enough! I wouldn't trade the hours I spent on that game and in its community for anything.
An AI engineer wires up APIs to each other and returns the result as JSON, the same process as any other web dev.
Like any other web dev job there are differences across domains that can make it valuable to hire someone with past experience in your particular industry (in this case LLMs), but the only reason this gets a brand new title and others don't is hype.
Daily reminder that Proton is a company that operates legally in jurisdictions that have police forces and laws. If you're a dissident in one of those countries you'll definitely need something else (or a few layers on top of Proton to protect your real IP), but it's weird to see people turning this into a moral problem with Proton.
And you don't even need to be a dissident in "one of those countries". As long as Europol's arm (or some other organization that Swiss is part of) can reach you, you are not covered, as in https://restoreprivacy.com/protonmail-logs-users/
I don't have an opinion on whether this is ok or not (protecting dissidents and protecting "real" criminals), I am just sick of false advertising.
It is because of these reasons I chose Fastmail over Proton when I was looking for an alternative. The E2EE itself is almost bogus, and I would rather look for othet features that I need.
There's a great blog post that identifies your position as the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics [0]:
> The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics says that when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it. At the very least, you are to blame for not doing more. Even if you don’t make the problem worse, even if you make it slightly better, the ethical burden of the problem falls on you as soon as you observe it. In particular, if you interact with a problem and benefit from it, you are a complete monster. I don’t subscribe to this school of thought, but it seems pretty popular.
Proton is guilty because they attempt to protect free speech and aren't able to do so completely. Fastmail is not guilty because they don't do anything more to protect free speech than any other provider.
I know that many on HN can't imagine it, but a lot of us work for less than that for any number of reasons:
* We're already making a top 5% income for our area and have more than enough for our needs and even an early retirement.
* We get non-monetary benefits from our job like WFH and/or flexible scheduling.
* We're working on projects that excite us and make us happy to go to work and that matters more than total comp.
Money aside, I'd rather see Ladybird hire 6 developers who are seriously passionate and live all across the world than see them hire 6 Bay Area developers who think they're better because they ask for more comp. That the passionate and global developers are cheaper is just a nice bonus.
You can get sued by anyone for anything, but my read was that Mozilla's board intentionally wanted to avoid promoting from within because they fired Baker in order to try to change things. The first thing he was asked to do was lay off a bunch of people from the product team, and the complaint also says that Baker was removed suddenly (despite her characterizing it as voluntary) [0]. The board that just fired her can hardly be expected to follow her recommendation for who should be CEO next, and it seems that they weren't happy with the way his org was structured either.
We'll see what happens as the lawsuit unfolds, but I'd be pretty surprised if there is proof that the discrimination was health-based and not due to the fact that he was the CPO who worked with Baker during whatever it was that made them decide to fire her.
[0] From the complaint:
> The board decision to removle Ms Baker was so abrupt that they did not conduct a search for a successor, resulting in the naming of one of their own board members, Ms Chambers, as interim CEO.
Yeah, we should definitely fix the fact that the President can order hits on US citizens. That's a pretty obvious problem regardless of whether they can technically be prosecuted for it, and doesn't really change the merits of the question at hand.
All this case says is we shouldn't leave a President's legal culpability for any given action up to prosecutorial discretion. If they're using their official powers they're not culpable, if they're acting outside the bounds of their powers they should be prosecuted.
The actual problem is that the President has too much power, not that the next administration should have the right to prosecute them for exercising it.
Killing an American citizen without due process should be outside the scope of official acts regardless of whether the President has immunity for said acts. Obama proved that it's not [0], which is a major problem that should have been addressed a long time before this ruling.
On the whole the principle of this ruling is sound:
The President shouldn't be in a position where he has to wonder before each choice if he'll later be prosecuted for it or not. The boundaries of official acts should be spelled out clearly in the law, and when acting within those boundaries the President should be confident that he's authorized to make the tough calls.
The ambiguities that this ruling brings to light were already there, this ruling only exposes them. President Obama could theoretically have been personally prosecuted for killing al-Awlaki and now he can't.
Now it's time for us to explicitly identify in the laws what the President can and cannot do. That's a change that's long overdue.
As noted by nostramo [0], Obama already set the precedent of ordering hits on US citizens. The answer to Sotomayor's concern here seems pretty obvious: if we're concerned that the President can order hits on US citizens for invalid reasons, then we need to be very clear in the laws that ordering hits on US citizens without due process is not within the President's official authority.
I don’t think this is a helpful comparison. A citizen in the service of an enemy engaged in war against his country does not enjoy the protections of an arbitrary citizen. We can rightly argue whether that theory wholly fits the facts of al-Awlaki, but it’s a very, very long bridge from that case to Sotomayor’s hypo
Not really—once you've crossed that bridge it's a short hop to the government arguing that the political rival was a terrorist who needed to be killed.
Due process is about validating the government's claims before allowing it to kill someone.
> if congress doesn't like something a president is doing, they can change the laws and remove his or her legal authority to do something.
Yep. The ruling says that if the President is acting within the legally and constitutionally defined scope of their duties then they shouldn't have to wonder if they'll later be prosecuted for it.
That seems fine on its face, but the problem people keep raising is that we live in a world where the President is legally empowered to do things that are seriously problematic. That's a very real concern, and it's been a concern at the very least since Bush and 9/11.
So the obvious answer to this ruling is to fix that. The President shouldn't have to wonder if they'll end up prosecuted for doing things that are within the scope of their official duties, so what we need to do is more clearly define and limit those official duties so that the President doesn't have to guess what will be seen as crossing an imaginary line when the administration changes.
> The ruling says that if the President is acting within the legally and constitutionally defined scope of their duties then they shouldn't have to wonder if they'll later be prosecuted for it.
The other big problem is how do you resolve a question of whether the president is acting within the legally and constitutionally defined scope of their duties? If there is a presumption of immunity and precluded from examining motive, it may be nearly impossible to establish the facts in cases where the president is acting improperly.
> If there is a presumption of immunity, it may be nearly impossible to establish the facts in cases where the president is acting improperly.
Well yeah that's true. But uh, you are talking lawyer talk with a set of opinions, insincerely held, because they are most concerned with "owning the libs" above everything else.
This is the obvious answer to any supreme court ruling you want to change: congress can simply change the law/constitution.
A giant part of the issue of commonlaw systems is that so much of the "law" is not laws but rulings and those are a lot easier to change/ignore/overrule.
"Change the law" versus "change the constitution" are two very different things.
The US couldn't pass the ERA, which just enshrines women's rights in the Constitution. Anything more controversial like "the President can't do extrajudicial murders" would be an endless partisan battle
No. The remedy Congress has is impeachment, not “change the Constitution”. Even if Congress could easily change the Constitution (they can’t), it would not apply to actions taken previous to the change.
Whether laws can be applied retroactively is decided by the constitution :)
But yes, what I meant is that the supreme court has the power to interpret the law and uphold the constitution, but it is on the legislation to draft precise laws.
> That seems fine on its face, but the problem people keep raising is that we live in a world where the President is legally empowered to do things that are seriously problematic. That's a very real concern, and it's been a concern at the very least since Bush and 9/11.
I agree with you - it's not like Bush has been held accountable in any way. Neither has Cheney, and we know Rumsfeld never will. Congress needs to get off its' duff and regulate. That requires people to organize to make them. I'm not seeing it happen.
It's a lot more complicated than that. What constitutes a human right is deeply tied up in questions of ethics that are not settled and have no universal acceptance even within a single culture. Any given person will have deep feelings about the human rights that their ethical framework demands, but those deep feelings will often contradict the deeply held feelings of other people.
This means that which ethical framework we as a society use to decide what counts as a human right is an inherently political question: it's a decision that we try to make as a society in as nonviolent a manner as possible.
And before we get too far off the deep end, I want to note that both sides of the aisle firmly believe that the other side ignores fundamental human rights that their side respects. This is what happens when good people operate with completely opposite ethical frameworks, and we won't get anywhere by just shouting that our framework is the only valid one.
My early experiences with Minecraft absolutely helped get me to this point in my career. Minecraft is less a video game and more a sandbox and development platform. Redstone is a fabulous introduction to concepts that are applicable to programming, electrical engineering, and really any logic-oriented field. I first learned Forth through a Minecraft mod, and my first technical documentation experience came from writing docs for people to use that Forth system. I later picked up Lua through ComputerCraft, and my earliest real Java projects that I built were Minecraft mods.
All of which is to say: I'm totally going to introduce my kids to Minecraft when they're old enough! I wouldn't trade the hours I spent on that game and in its community for anything.