isityouyesitsme

6 ms·

1.
by isityouyesitsme 2y ago
We assign fault precisely so that we know who to extract damages from. The burrito assembler is not going to be held liable for bad outcomes when they did everything right. The mere fact that there are damages to extract means that someone
2.
by isityouyesitsme 2y ago
I think I am closer to understanding you, but not quite there. If, for instance, your burrito worker did something egregious, they could be held criminally liable, and depending on the specific situation, the employer could also be held civ
3.
by isityouyesitsme 2y ago
You do not need intent to find fault and have standing. Negligence is a thing. If your farmer chose to ignore industry standard practices and agricultural regulations to prevent and contain such contamination at the source, they are indeed
4.
by isityouyesitsme 2y ago
your comment was excellent. I couldn't read past the article's pretentious opening.
5.
by isityouyesitsme 2y ago
Agreed. your parenthetical comment explains the tension. The only solution is to have a crystal ball.
6.
by isityouyesitsme 3y ago
I do not disagree that I may lack sufficient background for this. It was clearly written for "those in the know," people who already share a common viewpoint and vocabulary, and only differ on minor nuance. A bit like getting a bu
7.
by isityouyesitsme 3y ago
What did I just (halfway) read? This person is incoherent and rambling, raptured with their own brilliance. There may be solid points in there, I will never know. I automatically cannot take anyone as serious who writes this way. They do no
8.
by isityouyesitsme 3y ago
I don't quite understand how anyone could actually compare systems from different vendors. The failure modes aren't something the vendors have been able to identify in advance of a cataclysmic event. So I agree with your "del
9.
by isityouyesitsme 3y ago
I'm truthfully not understanding whether you've missed the point or if you're so interested in defending Tesla that you choose to look past it. I'm not making a claim about relative feature capabilities (yes, having repl
10.
by isityouyesitsme 3y ago
This is the same type of thinking that prevents most developers from working in safety-critical fields. The presence of a feature, or even its impressive capabilities, is/are not what constitutes "performance." It's also
11.
by isityouyesitsme 3y ago
was brown vs board of education "activist?" possibly. I don't think I know anyone who regrets it though. SCOTUS is just one big game of political football. for centuries.
12.
by isityouyesitsme 3y ago
Well, what I'm not ok doing is arguing silly points steeped in what-about-isms. There are far more entertaining ways to waste time.
13.
by isityouyesitsme 3y ago
The context is that I replied to a comment where one knows.
14.
by isityouyesitsme 3y ago
While not really being one who cares personally about the example here, I would not give a tool a name that I full well know will offend the sensibilities of some who will use it. That would make me a jerk, no matter how funny or whimsical
15.
by isityouyesitsme 3y ago
Cool. What's the opportunity cost to fix it?
16.
by isityouyesitsme 3y ago
Thank you for the reply!
17.
by isityouyesitsme 3y ago
All my life, it has been common parlance among every person I have ever spoken with to refer to a depleted battery as a "dead" battery. When someone announced that their cell battery is dead, I have never once in my life heard som
18.
by isityouyesitsme 3y ago
Question, not argument: what is the definition of "super cold?" Asking because in my area, which is not an area associated with bitter cold, we have been in sub-20F temperatures for a week, and overnights are down to sub-10F. My P
19.
by isityouyesitsme 3y ago
What does it mean for a safety-critical program to terminate? I suspect you do not want your car's brake controller to do this.
20.
by isityouyesitsme 3y ago
Why not? Each project has a unique blend of acceptable risks and non-functional requirements. I promise you, you'd hate C++ if you had to write each project, safety critical or not, according to the least common denominator feature set
21.
by isityouyesitsme 3y ago
He misses the point. If air was like coal, it would require extraction effort to both us and deliver it, and significant capital to do it at scale. If air was like water, it would require significant effort just to keep it clean enough to u
22.
by isityouyesitsme 3y ago
Throw-away comment: that's essentially the point.
23.
by isityouyesitsme 3y ago
I don't think that there is. An obvious comparison is religious thought. Unlike most religious thought, you do actually learn when the consensus has been utterly wrong. What you don't know is when that will happen.
24.
by isityouyesitsme 3y ago
Please cote the spot where I suggested anything that even remotely looks like I took a position. All I mean to say is that circular logic based on upholding one's views of reality do not bring any clarity to the situation. The same sit
25.
by isityouyesitsme 3y ago
It is also possible that everything humans understand is simply a vignette into a much larger reality, and all of those things would fall apart because they aren't true, they're merely the laws we've discovered with the limit
26.
by isityouyesitsme 3y ago
Whether or not it is enough depends on the context. Some cases require 100% condition and decision coverage. In these cases, it gets to be very difficult to achieve that unless you are directly testing the functions you write, not through a
27.
by isityouyesitsme 3y ago
Exactly. I worked in a place that disallowed friend functions and classes generally, but explicitly for unit testing. I never wrote another private function. Instead, there was an explosion at the tiny-free-function-that-could-have-been-a-p
28.
by isityouyesitsme 3y ago
It does no good to shoot down every change as "not good enough." I think the people who do this, almost as a knee jerk response, either do not actually believe that global climate change is something to be concerned over, or else
29.
by isityouyesitsme 3y ago
We won't lab-grown-meat our way out of this. We won't electric-cars our way out of this. We won't nuclear-power our way out of this. And the overall tone is that any shift in a positive direction is still driving the getaway
30.
by isityouyesitsme 3y ago
Not really. It's the very definition of an ad hominem. If the study uses non-factual information or does not interpret the data by understanding the nuances that may yield different interpretations, then the author's educational b

More ›