They will continue to breed, expanding territory unless there are predators. When they come across a culvert (or bridge), they will block it, eventually overtopping roads and washing them out.
Thanks for the good faith reply. I can see that this would require regular maintenance.
It is interesting that we see our infrastructure as 'valid' or correct, but the work these engineers (beavers) put in as a nuisance. In an ideal world, the benefits to local biodiversity and ecosystem health should be balanced with the cost of relocating roads when necessary.
There are many ways to prevent blockage of culverts and even control the water level behind beaver dams it's just that people don't want to bother, are ignorant, or just don't care.
You'd be amazed at how ingenious they are. It's a constant war at my parent's place to stop them from blocking the culverts. It drives beavers absolutely mad to hear the sound of free flowing water from an area they've colonized. They will work themselves into a fit trying to plug it up.
My dad is a crazy old German retired machinist/tool&die maker. I think he enjoys the challenge. Not everyone would.
> They will continue to breed, expanding territory unless there are predators
Maybe part of the problem is that humans in North America are largely not hunting beavers anymore?
We're very capable of being the predators that keep animal populations in check, and plenty of people do still hunt, but I don't think I've ever heard of anyone hunting beavers in my life
I do believe people still hunt beaver, but they usually trap them instead of shooting.
When I got my hunting license, part of the safety course was about trapping. The impression I got from that was that trapping is basically torturing animals to death and infinitely worse than shooting them with rifles.
My dad shoots one or two every couple years to keep the population down. But leaves them dumped because actually there's lots of scavengers that appreciate the meal. No free food lasts long out in the woods.
If you can't look at the code, you need to trust interfaces to specify (and constrain) the implementation. The implementation needs to implement the entire interface and can't do anything not in the interface.
Otherwise, you're going to get bit by the Law of Leaky Abstractions.
The number of times I've been bit by systems not adhering to interfaces? Yeah, that's pretty frequent.
For example (from personal experience), the interface allows for race conditions, it's obvious they can happen (distributed systems), but the implementation didn't allow them, resulting in fun times.
I was in a high trust environment that didn't use dual auth on some things. They lost $250k to embezzlement.
High trust is high trust until someone exploits it, and the likelihood of encountering an exploit (embezzlement, fraud, political speech, etc.) approaches 100 as the total number of staff hours increase.
"Everyone knows that debugging is twice as hard as writing a program in the first place. So if you're as clever as you can be when you write it, how will you ever debug it?"
The limits of the team, even insisting on >1 person being able to fix any code written by the team, are probably much higher than the average of the team. Furthermore, the average isn't going to improve much if code is never written above it. This isn't to say go all out with the most clever code possible, or make things difficult for the sake of difficulty, but consider that it's possible to help upskill your team by showing them better ways (even if sometimes technically "cleverer ways") to write code. It's ok if something isn't as familiar to everyone initially -- exposure helps that. Do better code reviews, code walkthroughs, lunch & learns, book clubs, consultants to come in and teach something, there's lots of ways to improve as a team.
I once talk about the art of programming in a job interview and got flashed by a bachelor of biz with: but isn’t it suppose to be engineering? I died a little bit inside…
I've been a programmer for 40 years, I've never considered myself to be an engineer.
We don't have the same level of "proven solutions" and constraints and mathematical rigor that engineering has, nor do we have the legal/liability requirements of "Professional Engineers".
I hope that I qualify as the equivalent of an artisan, like a carpenter that makes furniture, that has elements of both art and craft. Even as I've moved up (and down) the hierarchy of programmer/senior/"architect"/manager.
Programmers fit the "craftsperson/journeyperson/apprentice" model much better than engineering practice.
SOX requires code review by a second party. If the reviews are automated, the development process isn't in compliance and that can get expensive in a hurry.
Sort of; it's like the itemizer systems at airport security. They're entirely theater (in the sense of "for show") but that show is itself important in that it makes entire categories of attacks significantly less feasible.
Sort of like how simply having a uniformed police officer on a street corner reduces street crime significantly even if the officer never interacts with anyone.
It would be _extremely_ surprising if private repos were available via that contract. Corporations wouldn't use GitHub at all if anyone other than those given direct access had read/copy permission.
Disclosing private repos against the owner's intent is a much more immediate and significant business risk than violating the license of open source code.
Nothing is beneath Altman, maybe, but Satya isn’t that dumb. MSFT cares about OAI but giving access to private data and trade secrets voluntarily would be catastrophic for them.
Doesn’t feel like the type of mistake Satya would make.
The AI systems ingest tons of copyrighted data and that is stealing/theft(or so we peasants were told). It’s not like they don’t know they are doing. It looks like MSFT doesnt care that much either.
How did book publishers figure out ai stole from them? Can people use a similar way to figure out if their private repos have become part of the training corpus?
Note that everything GPT knows (I.e news etc) is actually from real news websites that never gave GPT rights to use their content. In the pure “American way” OpenAI closed some deals when threatened with lawsuits but of course unless you have the political connections or financials to fight trillion dollars companies stop worrying about your private repo. If it’s in the “cloud” it’s already public just not for everybody.
It's about the cognitive load and having to follow branches.
The second version minimizes the cyclomatic complexity, taking it to 1. The reader doesn't have to keep the if statement in mind when reading through the code, and doesn't have to worry about all the ways the code can get there if they want to modify it (e.g. to add logging, metrics, other logic).
Whether or not consume should be a separate function depends on how often it's called. Here, I'm guessing it's once. :)
..except, if you want to add logging/metrics/other logic, it's quite possible you'll want it to be conditional on the boolean anyway, bringing branching back, now mixed with the non-branching code.
And even if you don't need to keep an if statement in mind, you still need to keep the variable in mind anyway.
You can place LFENCE(x86)/CSDB(arm) around code blocks, but you can do that in C too.
reply