This is my biggest frustration with the code they generate (but it does make it easy to check if my students have even looked at the generated code). I dont want to fail silently or hard code an error message, it creates a pile of lies to work through for future debugging
Writing bad tests and error handling have been the worst performance part of Claude for me.
In particular writing tests that do nothing, writing tests and then skipping them to resolve test failures, and everybody's favorite: writing a test that greps the source code for a string (which is just insane, how did it get this idea?)
Seriously. Maybe 60% of the time I use claude for tests, the "fix" for the failing tests is also to change the application code so the test passes (in some cases it will want to make massive architecture changes to accomodate the test, even if there's an easy way to adapt the test to better fit the arch). Maybe half the time that's the right thing to do, but the other half the time it is most definitely not. It's a high enough error rate that it borderlines on useful.
Usually you want to fix the code that's failing a test.
The assumption is that your test is right. That's TDD. Then you write your code to conform to the tests. Otherwise what's the point of the tests if you're just trying to rewrite them until they pass?
I think you've misunderstood the situation (and the article). Having the national guard get things under control means pitting them against ICE and likely actually triggering a civil war.
The problem is not Minnesotans or paid protestors rioting, the problem is a hostile occupying force is actively targeting Minnesotans and Walz is trying to balance protecting his constituents with not escalating the situation.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Minnesota have conflicting incentives delegate counts driving their bad judgement" or why you think its bad judgement to protest the murder of a community member.
But I dont disagree that as tensions ratchet up eventually someone will do something stupid, and ICE will threaten enough people that it sets off a conflict between ICE and the local law enforcement/national guard.
Having the national guard get things under control means pitting them against ICE and likely actually triggering a civil war.
No, used correctly the police and national guard would round up the rioters. The governor is seeing it the other way around because he is in a lot of trouble with the federal government at the moment for unrelated issues. I never base things strictly on articles as the authors are often misinformed and wish to control narratives. The governor not only wants the riots he is actively promoting fights between his citizens and ICE.
Stop consuming whatever high-test nonsense you have been freebasing, go breathe some fresh air, and then read the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.
They might be too far gone. People that worship Trump and laugh with glee when ICE murders an American who is surrendering to them makes me think of 2nd Thessalonians 2, 9-12:
The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
But the coldest year we'll experience for the rest of our lives. Even if we get emissions down to zero tomorrow we are facing additional degrees of warming.
Instead of focusing on emission reductions we need to be talking about the best way to capture and confidently sequester CO2 on the tens of gigaton scale. In terms of size -- the carbon atoms in a decades worth of anthropogenic CO2 equivalents could build a diamond mount everest. A few hundered ppm change doesnt sound like much until you remember you need to integrate across the volume of the atmosphere.
"I should do the job that makes the absolute most amount of money possible, like starting a crypto exchange, so that I can use my vast wealth in the most effective way."
Has always really bothered me because it assumes that there are no negative impacts of the work you did to get the money. If you do a million dollars worth of damage to the world and earn 100k (or a billion dollars worth of damage to earn a million dollars), even if you spend all of the money you earned on making the world a better place, you arent even going to fix 10% of the damage you caused (and thats ignoring the fact that its usually easier/cheaper to break things than to fix them).
> If you do a million dollars worth of damage to the world and earn 100k (or a billion dollars worth of damage to earn a million dollars), even if you spend all of the money you earned on making the world a better place, you arent even going to fix 10% of the damage you caused (and thats ignoring the fact that its usually easier/cheaper to break things than to fix them).
You kinda summed up a lot of the world post industrial revolution there, at least as far as stuff like toxic waste (Superfund, anyone?) and stuff like climate change, I mean for goodness sake let's just think about TEL and how they knew Ethanol could work but it just wasn't 'patentable'. [0] Or the "We don't even know the dollar amount because we don't have a workable solution" problem of PFAS.
[0] - I still find it shameful that a university is named after the man who enabled this to happen.
And not just that, but the very fact that someone considers it valid to try to accumulate billions of dollars so they can have an outsized influence on the direction of society, seems somewhat questionable.
Even with 'good' intentions, there is the implied statement that your ideas are better than everyone else's and so should be pushed like that. The whole thing is a self-satisfied ego-trip.
There's a hidden (or not so hidden) assumption in the EA's "calculations" that capitalism is great and climate change isn't a big deal. (You pretty much have to believe the latter to believe the former).
Learning wrong history can be economically relevant. So much of history is about learning patterns of human behavior. Patterns that often repeat. If you learn wrong or untrue history your understanding of and expectations for human behavior will be incorrect which will certainly cause economic issues.
Maybe if you are in top level government. But for 99% of workers it doesn't matter much.
Also, much of typical school history most people learn is incredibly shallow and the waste majority of people barley remember anything. Research show this pretty clearly. So teaching something wrong, is not gone matter much.
It depends where it’s dumped. I think a lot of people are looking into dumping it into high salinity anoxic basins based on finding carbon with a long residence time there.
Its probably my least favorite of all of her books but I liked the approach to describing an additional dimension. And the idea of the alien translators grown in human bodies and the development of a species/culture
I see it more of a freedom from versus freedom to distinction. Under Elon’s Twitter you have the freedom to say anything (*almost anything — no tweeting about where his jet is lol). Under jack’s Twitter you have freedom from being bombarded with rape threats if you disagree with the wrong influencer.
Personally I prefer the freedom from regime but the nice part of the divide is everyone gets to choose for themselves. I’ve seen more of the people whose create content Im interested in (scientists, artists, authors etc) migrating to Bluesky but it’ll be interesting to see how it plays out over the next few years.
Yes but that’s because you (mostly) stop physically growing once you are out of school. Banded within a year is meaningless for adults, a 25 yr old isn’t that different than a 30 year old but a 5 year old and a 10 year old are distinctly different. They are at different points in their development physically, emotionally and mentally. They socialize differently and have different needs. I’m not saying they can’t interact but there is some value in keeping children together by developmental stage and developmental stage is fairly age specific.
As the kid who stood 4-6 inches taller than the next tallest kid in my class until I stopped getting taller when I was 5'8" and 11 years old, I'm acutely aware that kids physically grow at entirely different rates even during school. (I'm a woman, so this is still above average height, but I'm nowhere close to as awkwardly tall as I was in a room full of 11yos.) Look at any classroom and you'll see a wide variety of physical development.
I'm just saying age is an arbitrary indicator for every category I can think of, and most situations would benefit from using a more relevant metric. In situations where size matters the most, let the huge 10yo play with the 11 or 12yos and the tiny one be with the 8 or 9yos. When I was 11, for safety reasons my karate instructor had me start training with the adult women who were closer to my size. In situations where intellectual ability is the relevant factor, you might have even a broader reach. If my parents hadn't refused, my kindergarten principal wanted to have me in 3rd grade by the end of my first year and doing two a year after that. Sitting through 13 full years of classroom instruction instead of 5 or 6 was miserable. Somebody you share interests with might happily overlook the fact that you're a couple years younger and still want to be friends. It's at least more likely than that someone will overlook the fact that you have absolutely nothing in common because, hey, you were born within a couple months of each other!
