> Might is right is the norm everywhere at every level not only international politics. The corrolary is that democracy and human rights are a joke.
You are quite wrong, of course, as any reasonably informed observer will know. Whether you're just ignorant or ill-intentioned: It's so easy to fire off these poisonous comments whose effect is to undermine and deligitimize the norms and institutions that keep things reasonably okay, as imperfect as they are. I hope you will never have to yourself experience the difference that you so easily dismiss.
The author of the comment I replied to seems to find it perfectly okay for "might is right" to be the norm. I pointed out that if we believe that this way of thinking is okay at the international politics level then the corollary is that democracy and human right must be a farce. Don't be mistaken, what we see happening at the level of world affairs will trickle down to everyday life. At the world stage, this wicked way of thinking leads to genocides being normalized. At the societal level it leads to societies with no morals. Might is right at every level.
This reads a little different than your original comment, so thanks for adding to it. It's still not quite clear to me whether you're saying "might is right at every level", or "if this line of thinking were to be accepted, then might would be right at every level".
In any case, I don't think either is true, formally or for practical purposes. It also does not follow that accepting "might is right" on the international level makes a farce of the ideas of democracy or human rights, whether one regards it as a desirable state of international affairs or as an undesirable fait accomplit, as we both seem to agree. I will not bore us with logical formalities and stay on the practical side of things:
Because, if you allow any group of actors, or the predominant state of things in any place, on any level, to spoil the whole concept simply by them not adhering to it, then indeed you have needlessly given up everything without even trying. Nothing better can exist when you let bad actors doing bad things define the floor and the ceiling of what can be.
Islands of decency exist. They are flawed, and yet they are the best and only real thing we have in this regard. They are under threat, as you say. Undercutting them by pretending that they have no worth or indeed value at all only plays into the hands of their enemies.
Practically speaking, doesn't using force while preaching democracy just ruin the concept for everyone? If we accept that 'might makes right' in international affairs, we create a world where power—not rights—governs every interaction and where democracy and human rights while they may have tangible reality in some "islands" become propaganda used to gain higher moral ground.
Mostly yes. But No to your first question. Look almost anywhere, anytime, and you'll find force and violence to be the default. That something else exists anywhere at all is an accomplishment; that it doesn't reach everywhere does not make it worthless.
You will also find that force and violence has been done in the name of every good idea that ever came about. If you let good ideas get "ruined" whenever someone uses them as a shield for bad ends, you will have none left. Nothing at all. Just because you gave the bad more power than the good. That is not practical at all, to say it mildly.
I used to believe this, but looking at the history of "israel", the genocides constantly committed in the middle east, etc. It's obvious that your logic would just be legitimizing the current might.
Would your logic apply to all the people of Gaza, would them resisting qualify as "undermine and deligitimize the norms and institutions that keep things reasonably okay"
Of course not, and nothing I wrote leads to that conclusion.
Rejecting the notion that "everywhere at every level not only international politics... democracy and human rights are a joke" does not mean that things are non-horrible everywhere, at every level.
Having a way for the public to regularly and non-violently change leadership and lawmakers, having checks and balances between the holders of power, and certain norms we strive towards is the only thing that gives us a chance at preventing authoritarian, absolutist and arbitrary rule - within the constraints where these things have effect.
That they do not work everywhere and do not work perfectly is a sign that we continue to need them. Concluding the opposite, that they're entirely useless, is not only dangerously foolish and fatalistic, but also logically fallacious.
It's an argument often used by those who wish to undermine these norms and institutions. I don't automatically think that this is you, but it might be interesting to examine your line of reasoning and what makes you read things in my previous response that are not there.
The use of LLMs in software does not stop at code generation. With function calling, the prompt becomes the program and the LLMs acts as an intelligent interpreter/runtime that excutes complex business logic using primitives (the functions) they have access to (MCP) and that's the real paradigm shift for software engineering.
This law is specific to situations of imminent or actual physical harm. Also notice the way the law is formulated: non-assistance (negative) and not a an explicit duty to assist (positive).
Yes, you are. That's the whole point of the law and what the precedents confirm. You have to assist to the extend of your ability too. If you witness something and don't call 112 (well 18), you are guilty. If you are a medic and don't do your best to stabilize the person, you are guilty to.
People in tech keep complaining about daily standup don't know that is a common practice in pretty much every line of work. It's just a team synchronisation moment.
A meeting with that periodicity (or a multiple of it) is common on shift-based jobs that oversee constant operations.
It's not common on any other line of work... well, except for software development, that is almost universally single-shift, non-operational, and some people insist has exactly the same needs as overseeing patients in a hospital.
Yes, it makes sense when there is a "hand off" of continuing operations to the next shift.
For something like software, being produced by ICs or even pairs, a fixed daily meeting is much more likely (at least in my experience) to become a ceremony[1] over time even if it is occasionally or initially beneficial.
[1] was wanting to find a link but could not. I'm using this word in the sense that Tom DeMarco used it in Peopleware.
That's very surprising to me. Even in tech it became common only a decade or so ago. I don't know any other industry where it is common, except the military and the daily morning flag raising/morning formation...
No github link, high performance claim with 0 numbers. No technical details. 0 interesting link to learn more. But hey a key people page is there so that's ok.
Currently I'm porting the Playwright / Puppeteer client API to run in a Chrome extension without using the Chrome DevTools Protocol (CDP). Since there is 100s of Chrome extension AI copilots using Playwright with CDP with all the problems that come with that, I believe my library can be very useful. The vscode copilot chat with any model is always trying to evaluate strings in the content script using chrome.scripting.executeScript with eval('') and new Function('') which violates the CSP policy in MV3. The use case is novel but calling executeScript is common and this policy has been enforced for the last 2.5 years and available for a couple before that. Worse is it will convert my valid function definitions to eval() and new Function('') even though it has nothing to do with prompt.
"We’re improving how we communicate future pricing changes" like clearly and explicitly stating what your customers are paying for ? What kind of BS is this ?
