The longer non-snappy explanation is that "I will arbitrarily set numbers on things and call it impartial" obviously doesn't match EA's self-conception, that lots of EA cause areas are speculative and don't focus on numbers, that EAs that do focus on numbers do a lot of work to make sure the numbers aren't arbitrary, that EAs as a general rule don't claim to be impartial, and that awareness of Goodhart's law doesn't mean "never trying to objectively measure anything at all".

> I am interested in showing to the world that I am well-intentioned and trying to do something, even if that something doesn't make sense".

This is the kind of pre-conception that's essentially immune to reality. I hear the same thing about vegans (oh they say they care about animal suffering, but everybody knows about factory farms, they just want to feel superior to everybody else) or environmentalists (they say that climate change is a threat to humanity but really they just want to lecture us about our cars).

All I can say is that it doesn't match my experience, and that the effective altruists I've met spend quite a lot of time "thinking about whether or not it can work" and trying to learn from other people's mistakes.

> Look. I’m the last person who’s going to deny that the road we’re on is littered with the skulls of the people who tried to do this before us. But we’ve noticed the skulls. We’ve looked at the creepy skull pyramids and thought “huh, better try to do the opposite of what those guys did”.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/04/07/yes-we-have-noticed-th...

We can think ill of the Israeli state without jumping to "fuck you for living in Israel and having nice things" as soon as someone mentions their city name.

> The data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller the erasure of personal data concerning him or her without undue delay and the controller shall have the obligation to erase personal data without undue delay

"Undue delay" is subjective, but "we'll keep backups of your data for a week in case you change your mind" seems easy to justify in court.

I really hate the discourse around this stuff. Like, yes, disguising murder as suicide is a thing and obviously three-letters agencies do it.

But someone saying publicly they're not suicidal gives you close to zero information. People with suicidal ideation almost never advertise it publicly because, one, there is a heavy amount of social stigma attached to it, and two, publicly declaring you're suicidal is a good way to get involuntarily committed to a mental health institution.

I see a ton of jokes on social media that go "remember, X is not suicidal". How the fuck would you know? This discourse is so disrespectful to people struggling with suicidal thoughts.

(This is a really meandering article!)

There's no crates.io release yet, but the master branch of Xilem and Masonry is somewhat renderer-agnostic, and lets you use vello_cpu, which does SIMD-assisted software rendering (I don't know how good the RISC-V support is).

I say "somewhat" because it's supported by the internals crates (xilem_masonry, masonry_core), but not by the composition root crate (xilem), so you have to implement your own integration with winit, but we're getting there!

I'm not super surprised.

As the article points out, a lot of e-graph projects include rules for culling e-nodes or stopping generation after a certain cutoff. That this is considered a perfectly normal thing to do hints that equality saturation isn't really the magic sauce of e-graphs.

I feel you're underselling the second statement a bit:

> Each ministry (including operators) will be required to finalize its own [migration] plan by fall

This sounds like there's actual pressure to start moving soon, especially for adopting existing DINUM solutions.

(I agree the title is clickbait.)