> you don't need an analyst to see who strikes first (and the frequency of that pattern) while diplomats are still at the negotiating table
Of course you do. If the diplomats' job is to stall and never make any actual concessions, that's germane. My understanding is there was a genuine desire for diplomacy on the American side. But at least this round, Tehran never conceded on any material fronts.
Then the US can formally state that it is ceasing all negotiations. But it will never do that - it always wants to retain the ability to execute a surprise backstab. Done so several times now.
> If the diplomats' job is to stall and never make any actual concessions, that's germane.
does this line of reasoning apply to the US only, or in general?
> My understanding is there was a genuine desire for diplomacy on the American side. But at least this round, Tehran never conceded on any material fronts.
they had an option to do it and still continue a diplomatic track, they aren't obliged to devote themselves to the US preferences at the US-preferred pace.
> does this line of reasoning apply to the US only, or in general?
Are you asking serious questions? I think the evidence shows the U.S. was negotiating in good faith in the beginning (and I'm scoping to this round of negotiations only). And then it concluded there was no deal to be had, and we probably started bullshitting as well. At the same time, I think the evidence shows the Iranian side was mostly bullshitting the whole time.
> they had an option to do it and still continue a diplomatic track
Well sure. We also had the option to terminate negotiations, ratchet up sanctions and walk away. None of that changes that the Iranians weren't negotiating in good faith. (Again, based on what I've seen. Open to changing my mind. But the lack of any discussion of what Iran did in this subthread seems to underline my point.)
> they aren't obliged to devote themselves to the US preferences at the US-preferred pace
War is politics by other means. They aren't obligated to accept the other's timeline. But I wouldn't say that's negotiating either realistically or in good faith–you can't just ignore material variables because you don't like that they exist.
Just answer the question whether it applies in general as a principle. Don't "stall and never tell any actual" position on the matter.
> We also had the option to terminate negotiations, ratchet up sanctions and walk away. None of that changes that the Iranians weren't negotiating in good faith
Only according to you, based on the premise that someone didn't meet random timings that only exist in your head.
> But the lack of any discussion of what Iran did in this subthread seems to underline my point
not really, please answer the initial question I asked.
> They aren't obligated to accept the other's timeline. But I wouldn't say that's negotiating in good faith.
Exactly why? You need to be home around 5 so anyone standing in front of you and blocking you in a traffic jam aren't acting in good faith?
> Only according to you, based on the premise that someone didn't meet random timings that only exist in your head
I literally opened the top comment asking for any credible analysis that said the Iranians were negotiating in good faith. I haven't seen anything in any English, European or Asian sources that seemed to suggest they were.
So far, the only one I'm seeing arguing Iran was ready to do anything material is the Omani foreign minister. (I'm keeping an eye out for his substantiation on this point.)
> please answer the initial question I asked
Read past "are you asking serious questions." I literally answer it.
> Exactly why?
Negotiating in good faith means negotiating with a genuine intent to reach a deal. That requires acknowledging what the other side is saying and respecting reality. Someone can intentionally bullshit. Or they can be forced to bullshit because their regime at home has to save face and doesn't think it can survive being seen as giving in to America. Either way, bad faith.
> You need to be home around 5 so anyone standing in front of you and blocking you in a traffic jam aren't acting in good faith?
Bad analogy. Here's a better one: you're my landlord and I'm your tenant. (Ignoring the power imbalance between Iran and America, particularly when America is parking warships, is delusional.) You say I have ten minutes to plead for not being evicted. I genuinely don't think I did anything wrong. But I spend ten minutes talking about why your shoes are stupid. That's not engaging in good faith.
> Read past "are you asking serious questions." I literally answer it.
ok, you evaded the answer, I asked specifically about generality of the principle, you kept saying "the US did this, Iran did that". You're stalling and refusing to tell the actual answer on the question I asked, so that's germane.
> I haven't seen anything in any English, European or Asian sources that seemed to suggest they were.
too bad, get better with search
> Negotiating in good faith means negotiating with a genuine intent to reach a deal. That requires acknowledging what the other side is saying and respecting reality. Someone can intentionally bullshit. Or they can be forced to bullshit because their regime at home has to save face and doesn't think it can survive being seen as giving in to America.
Negotiating in good faith means negotiating with a genuine intent to reach a deal. That requires acknowledging what the other side is saying and respecting reality. Someone can intentionally bullshit. Or they can be forced to bullshit because their political leaders at home have to save face before their donors and don't think they can survive elections being seen as giving in to Iran.
> Bad analogy. Here's a better one: you're my landlord and I'm your tenant. (Ignoring the power imbalance between Iran and America, particularly when America is parking warships, is delusional.) You say I have ten minutes to plead for not being evicted. I genuinely don't think I did anything wrong. But I spend ten minutes talking about why your shoes are stupid. That's not engaging in good faith.
Bad analogy, I walk barefoot and I don't talk to tenants, my representatives do and they end the contract with you on a legal basis of contractual terms and that's about it. That's my property after all.
Now, you in turn are still standing in a traffic jam and getting angry at me and people around you, you claim that we all don't respect your preferences and timings, so we must be acting in bad faith.
> I asked specifically about generality of the principle, you kept saying "the US did this, Iran did that". You're stalling and refusing to tell the actual answer on the question I asked
Uh sure, yes, it generalizes. Not sure what that does for you, but yes.
> get better with search
...do you have a source? The fact that nobody in this subthread has an answer to this and is instead, as you put it, evading the question by getting distracted by whether America is negotiating in good faith should speak volumes to anyone reading this.
> Uh sure, yes, it generalizes. Not sure what that does for you, but yes.
ok, let's see
> do you have a source? The fact that nobody in this subthread has an answer to this and is instead, as you put it, evading the question by getting distracted by whether America is negotiating in good faith should speak volumes to anyone reading this.
No it shouldn't, there's no substance in your position, let alone volumes of any meaning to derive from it: "the other side must be acting in bad faith, because I don't like getting home late".
First off, I'm waiting for you to apply your previously stated principle, that you admitted to be general, to Iranian diplomats' negotiating track. And right after that, let's discuss why you did omit commenting on the other part with the substitutions around "giving in to America or Iran" and the respective interest groups having to save face.
I, as a barefoot landlord, am still wondering: why do you think your timings and preferences are the only ones to be respected?
> I'm waiting for you to apply your previously stated principle, that you admitted to be general, to Iranian diplomats' negotiating track
I've applied it. (That's why you asked for a general principle. Because I'd applied it to this specific case.) They have not been negotiating in good faith.
A case you've sustained by being unable to find any credible sources arguing Iran was negotiating in good faith.
> I've applied it. (That's why you asked for a general principle. Because I'd applied it to this specific case.) They have not been negotiating in good faith.
> My understanding is there was a genuine desire for diplomacy on the American side.
> A case you've sustained by being unable to find any credible sources
Correction: you were unable to find any credible sources, that could be your intentional bias though, as there are other patterns in your replies that suggest it too.
Also, you didn't apply the principle, you sought external validation to your preferred understanding. You appeal to external voices because there's the evident apprehension to come to inconvenient conclusions if you begin applying the principle uniformly by using your own mind.
Actually, let's see it live. Please provide the line of reasoning, starting with "If the US diplomats' job is to stall and never make any actual concessions to Iran, then ..."
> there was a genuine desire for diplomacy on the American side
By the way, how does that "genuine desire" manifest in reality? I hope it's not "I got those people in front of me extra five minutes to get lost and free my way home"
> Ignoring it costs more later, but later is someone else's problem.
and then the blame could be shifted to the future generations, it's their incompetence after all.
> Correctness wins when the cost of ignoring it becomes impossible to miss: an outage, a customer complaint, data loss. Until then, comfort wins every time.
Those who tolerate comfort-winning aren't engineers and shouldn't be admitted to stand close to engineering systems overall, especially outside the software industry.
Validating during parsing is still parsing, there's a reason why `Alternative f` exists after all: you have to choose between branches of possibilities and falsehoods. Now consider that there's another kind of validation that happens outside of program boundaries (where broader-than-needed data is being constrained in a callee rather than the calling site) that should've been expresed as `Alternative f` during parsing instead. That's the main point of the article, but you seem to only focus on the literal occurence of the word "validation" here and there.
So you are saying that if at a certain point in parsing the only expected terms are 'a', 'b' and 'c', one should not put the corresponding parsed entry in a `char` (after checking it is either of these aka validating), and instead it should be put in some kind of enum type (parsed via `Alternative f`). Right?
You put them however you like, be it in a char or a vector of, but the bottom line is that your parsed items are part of the "sanitized" label that allows you to either tuple-unpack or pattern-match (as long as it's near or literally zero-cost) without performing the same validation ever again for the lifetime of the parsed object. The callees that exclusively expect 'a', 'b' and 'c', and for which they perform internal validation step, should be replaced with versions that permit the inputs with sanitized labels only. How you implement the labels depends on the language at hand, in case of Haskell they can be newtypes or labelled GADTs, but the crucial part is: the "validation" word is systematically pushed to the program boundaries, where it's made part of the parsing interface with `Alternative f` and sanitization labels acting on raw data. In other words you collapse validation into a process of parsing where the result value is already being assembled from a sequence of decisions to branch either with one of the possible successful options or with an error.
> but the crucial part is: the "validation" word is systematically pushed to the program boundaries
Yea, so again. Isn't that freaking obvious?! That author seem to be experienced in Haskell where this kind of thing is common knowledge and for some reason this seems to be some kind of revelation to them...
apparently not, as I always find snippets of patterns of this kind from my coworkers (and I've worked in many companies, including the ones that require precision for legal compliance):
def do_business_stuff(data):
orders = data.get("orders")
if not orders:
return
for order in orders:
attr = order.get("attr")
if attr and len(attr) < 5:
continue
...
The industry's awareness baseline is very low, and it's across tech stacks, Haskell is no exception. I've seen stuff people do with Haskell at 9 to 5 when the only thing devs cared about was to carry on (and preferably migrate to Go), and I wasn't impressed at all (compared to pure gems that can be found on Hackage). So in that sense having the article that says "actually parse once, don't validate everywhere" is very useful, as you can keep sending the link over and over again until people either get tired of you or learn the pattern.
You can have range-constrained numeric types and collections in Haskell via Liquid Haskell, which has almost seamless integration with the compiler starting from GHC-9.12+
> I know of one person who got fired from a project due to no small fact that building the system he was presented with took > 24 hours when a full build was triggered, and this happened every week.
Incremental Nix builds can take less than 1 munute to build everything, including the final deployable docker image with a single binary on very large Haskell codebases. That fact the the person was fired for everybody around him systematically failing to admit and resolve a missing piece of supportive infrastructure for the engineering effort of one person tells a lot about the overall level of competence in that team.
> but ultimately it is a failing of the "everything and the kitchen sink" philosophy at play in dependency usage.
Not really, as the kitchen sink only has to build once per its version change, for all future linkage with your software for the entire engineering team doing the builds in parallel.
> What determines fairness is how the resources in our society are allocated once all is said and done.
I propose allocating upfront the work, so that those who disagree don't have to contribute into the "done" part of those who allocate it in a weird way.
This is in no way a "if you're homeless just buy a house" argument, it's a "you can't have it both ways, pick a lane and stick to it" argument.
You want to unilaterally decide that you don't want to pay much tax on income, billionaires decide that they don't want to pay much tax on capital gains, yet both of you want to continue living in a society where you can buy cheap bread baked from flour milled from wheat grown on subsidized farms, heavily reliant on public infrastructure, and you want to drink clean water and drive on public roads, all of which is paid for through taxes that you want to opt out of, and somehow you don't see a problem with that?
You can't pick and choose parts of society that benefit you and opt out of your duties, that's not how society works. All of those parts that you don't see value in are essential to someone else.
Farms can be subsidized by people with money, the ones that you tell have to pay taxes to a proxy that spends it without accountability for the productivity of spending.
> You can't pick and choose parts of society that benefit you and opt out of your duties, that's not how society works.
of course I can, actually the more money I have the more options to exercise this ability are available to me. And there are no inherent duties to benefit someone you're not choosing to help, unless your society is cattle.
> create cultural wealth and people who create mere monetary wealth
the wealth in this case isn't monetary, it's material production, the productive work of people who create material objects, including your food and shelter. If it was about monetary stuff the government would just print the artists whatever amount of money they need. But that money has to be spent to buy from those who produce the stuff the artists need to live. Who's sponsoring the wealth producers?
The UBI money gets spent by the artist though, some on food, probably more on rent. The rent money probably gets hoarded by the landlord, the other goes to people selling real objects. That is real money back into the economy.
Looks like my job is ensuring stuff builds, tests and ships correctly, not learning the 100th no-design botched homegrown language that will keep changing for the next 10y until it's a different thing altogether. And because I'm one person out of two in a ~15ppl company, where time and efficiency matter, LLMs really helped out.
> What you want is guarantees that correct programs typecheck quickly.
In practice there's wealth of lemmas provided to you within the inference environment in a way standard library functions are provided in conventional languages. Those act like a memoization cache for the purpose of proving your program's propositions. A compiler can also offer a flag to either proceed with ("trust me, it will infer in time") or reject the immediately undecidable stuff.
> it is easier to 'discipline' the top 5 AI agents in the planet - rather than try to get a million distributed devs ("artisans") to produce high quality results.
Your take essentially is "let's live in a shoe box, packaging pipelines produce them cheaply en masse, who needs slow poke construction engineers and architects anymore"
Where have I said engineers/architects aren't necessary? My point is that it is easier to get AI to get better than try to improve a million developers. Isn't that a straightforward point?
What the role of an engineer in the new context - I am not speculating on.
> My point is that it is easier to get AI to get better than try to improve a million developers.
No it's not, your whole premise is invalid both in terms of financing the effort and in the AI's ability to improve beyond RNG+parroting. The AI code agents produce shoe boxes, your claim is that they can be improved to produce buildings instead. It won't happen, not until you get rid of the "temperature" (newspeak for RNG) and replace it with conceptual cognition.
reply