Not really. The poster you're agreeing with specifically stated that "nothing has fundamentally changed" and that the US has been "using human rights as an excuse". I don't know if you're completely unaware but Trump is definitely not using human rights as an excuse when sanctioning the ICC judges or whoever fits his fancy. In fact, he's not even using international law as an excuse as the term "human rights" actually means something under the UN. That is the change. And it's just as likely he'd do it if it was in his interest but not American interest. That also would be a rather fundamental change.
Sanctions are an economic tool to punish opposition to and advance geopolitical aims of the sanctioning country.
The original poster is absolutely correct in this. Whether the excuse is human rights or something else, the key point being made is that its intention is to advance a geopolitical cause behind an excuse. It doesn’t matter what the excuse is.
I think you and the original poster are being a tad careless in your reading. This article is specifically about sanctioned individuals not countries-- a sanctioned ICC judge who concurred with a very specific ruling. If you want to discuss sanctioning countries you should state explicitly that you're taking a slight tangent because though these topics are very related they are definitly not the same, and vastly different with respect to the magnitude of the practical consequences.
The article specifically states that there are some 15,000 sanctioned individuals, many of which are IS and Al Quaeda members. These actors are often considered non-state terrorists. If you wish to dispute the article's claim that these actors represent the majority of sanctioned individuals feel free to do so, otherwise please explain how much practical pressure sanctioning the rest of the lot-- those compromised mainly from the top brass of authoritarian regimes -- could have effects remotely comparable to sanctioning an entire country composed of millions of people. Those sanctioned individual are also the people least affected by sanctions, since they have direct access to their countrie's financial and natural resources and could care less whether their daughter's visa or mastercard works at that fancy ski resort in the Austrian Alps.
Trump is sanctioning ICC judges because their rulings are complicating his blatant direct personal enchrichment and his family
business's real estate dealings for the "Gazan Riveria", which he wants implemented unopposed. It is just silly to say that this amount of in-your-face direct personal enrichment angle having an oversized impact on American foreign policy is just your regular American geopolitical machinations, as you would have to argue that the USA has always been a banana republic no different than any other.
I think you should probably read a bit more on the history of sanctions, their effect and incentives before calling someone “tad careless”. Your argument basically devolves to semantics about the labelling of who is being sanctioned, vs the impacts.
Look up who the US has sanctioned historically, and what the geopolitical objective was. Someone is always being enriched, question is who.
Not all UIs converge to a React like requirement. For a lot of use cases React is over-engineering but the profession just lacks the balls to use something simpler, like htmx for example.
Sounds like bit of an over-reaction if I am being honest.
Some of his books are deeply insightful even if you decide to draw the opposite conclusion. I wouldn’t say anything would create disgust unless you had a conclusion you wanted supported before reading the book.
Regarding the Epstein thing, bizarre to bring that up when discussing his works, seems like you hate him on a personal level.
Pretty massive stretch making that inference based on the data don’t you think? Or is this an underhand way to get back at someone you disagree with politically?
Yes, I personally think so. In the hands of an experienced user you can crank out work that would take days or weeks even, and get to the meat of the problem you care about much quicker. Just churning out bespoke boilerplate code is a massive time saver, as is using LLMs to narrow in on docs, features etc. Even high level mathematicians are beginning to incorporate LLM use (early days though).
I cant think of an example where an LLM will get in the way of 90% of the stuff people do. The 10% will always be bespoke and need a human to drive forward as they are the ones that create demand for the code / work etc.
The problem is many users are not experienced. And the more they rely on AI to do their work, the less likely they are to ever become experienced.
An inexperienced junior engineer delegating all their work to an LLM is an absolute recipe for disaster, both for the coworkers and product. Code reviews take at least 3x as long. They cannot justify their decisions because the decisions aren't theirs. I've seen it first hand.
I agree totally; most people are no experienced, and there is a weird situation where the productivity gains are bifurcated. I have also seen a lot of developers unable to steer the LLM as they can’t pick up on issues they would otherwise have learned through experience. Interesting to see what will happen but probably gonna be a shit show for younger devs.
The solution to bad abstractions it not to make it very difficult to create abstractions at all. For systems code I think it's fine but for application code you probably want some abstractions or else it's very hard to scale a codebase.
It’s really not though. Plenty of systems are built in Go, Erlang etc that do not have the architectual monstrosities which commonly show up in object-oriented code, especially when a Java or C# expert beginner has been let loose.
They have a lot of employees. I think over 50. Probably more than they need and they re-invest a lot in the business. Also, the cost of $15 per user per year is VERY LOW.
50 employees generating 6.5 mil in yearly sales means the business would barely cover payroll and basic expenses in a first world country. In a lower income country, they can be profitable by taking advantage of cheap labor, but that usually does not scale well to international markets in services.
reply