> "If a company builds a machine that, when fed descriptions of assorted ethical dilemmas, emits sentences either of the form “Compromise your values” or “Don’t compromise your values,” it is not building a tool that assists people in their decision making; it is encouraging people to stop making decisions. "

A human is not diminished by access to tools or other humans.

As much as we want to pretend that decision-making is what makes us human, the economy and governments are built on delegation. Choice paralysis is a thing.

There is so many logical fallacies in the article I don't even know where to begin.

1. For juniors, any sort of proof you have passion is enough. 2. Treat mid-levels as seniors. 3. Seniors have to show proof of passion (with longevity and intensity, AI and consultants exist for expertise and menial work) and competence (Take home problems with a long time scale with whatever tools they need. Use AI. I don't care, but be expected to be scrutinized for your design decisions, depth of exploration, and architectural write-ups.)

continuity-auth is my attempt to fix this from first principles by using device-continuity proof as a trust signal and time (enforced via rate-limiting) as the core resource to provide a graceful, zero-trust, login-less method to prevent abuse, supporting both browsers and CLI as first-class clients.

Built with Clojure/Script, babashka, and Datalevin. Work in progress. Happy to discuss.

Source: https://github.com/danieltanfh95/continuity-auth

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48294165

Points: 2

# Comments: 4

I see this to be the exact thesis that my article was trying to convey, though someone else put it more succinctly:

> I guess the irony is that dismissing points of view about how things could be improved here because they aren't sufficiently dogmatic is pretty much exactly what I understood the thesis of your article to be.

Exactly, yep!

Qian was widely considered as a "strategic" scientist in China. The knowledge he had counteracted the Soviet political apparatus, and was enough to propel China into superpower status in less than a hundred years.

But America did derive the same idea, back in 1878 and was part of philosophy behind the New Deal. So what do Americans have to be sour about and call it propaganda for, when the American academia and government abandoned empiricism for whatever they believed in 2026?

Also, the upbeat and persuasive style ... is my style kek, is it me being too pushy or?

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48207251

Points: 94

# Comments: 56