Some parts of science became political. The goal seems to convince a population, not determine what is true or not.

So if you extract one field which is extremely corrupt, with practices that would seem obvious to anyone who studied Stalin, which soils the ideas and principles of sciences, and another fields rejects the idea of denouncing the first field: that demonstrates that they are both politicized sciences. Covid science, climate science and social sciences all three ask you to “trust the science” and use authority to become right.

Meanwhile a researcher who is funded by private companies for technical advances, generally produces good science. They don’t usually need to jail their opponents.

It’s a checkmate of the American system. Boeing delegated construction in parts of the country that needed jobs (=politics), who then botched the job and didn’t get sanctioned because it was bad optics to accuse those providers (2013 airframes). More recent events are also a checkmate of the ultrafinanciarization practices, a checkmate of the consultancy / provider / controller model, and a failure of corruption (the FAA/Boeing dinners inherited from the Macdonnell management) in a context where USA rips at the seams (industrial failure, no-one can be trusted as trustworthy) and tries to renew its ideology (apogee with the Trump elections).

That is a fair bit of politics that made Boeing fail.

The energy spent arguing that those 4 instructions in a row “are not a mark of someone who can write code” would have better been spent firing them.

[1] A “strategic” expense is named like this when you can’t justify it by any rational means.

The action of performing real-life drastic sanctions against people you don’t tolerate is an extremism.

And it is the general opinion of most Mozilla idealists. Mozilla is a political project, and is dangerous to our democracy.

Making Mozilla a politically-extremist organization intolerant to other opinions than theirs, and thus incompatible with being a steward of the global web.

That’s your opinion, but it’s not the spirit of the law. I’m personally fully against Intellectual Property, including for movies and music, for reasons that are obvious (public money is being spent aimlessly trying to prevent two private individuals from copying things that are copied by their very nature of being published - or trying to prevent people from using ideas that are contagious - what next, put a copyright on political ideas? on dance moves? on beautiful colors?) but that’s not the law.

> we would have gone thousands of years with no method

There are other methods: The 4 arrows. The tab method is much more efficient and easy to implement, but we would have gone with the 4-arrows-to-navigate-fields method.

He’s the founder of Brave, by the way.

—Claude Code: FLIPS THE SWITCH, does not answer the question.

Claude does that in React, constantly starting a wrong refactor. I’ve been using Claude for 4 weeks only, but for the last 10 days I’m getting anger issues at the new nerfing.