This is one principle and shared ethos done really well
Burning Man would get a lot less criticism if they dropped their 22 year old principles out of its 40 year run
Being part of a camp is the least inclusive social chore I’ve seen of any similar event, it is optional while making the “radically inclusive” trek a lot easier. Its a fairly high bar if you don't know the people
“Radical Self Reliance” can be interpreted in completely opposite ways when convenient. The person mooching off of everyone may call that self reliance to themselves, not realizing they are just attractive, while the person “gifting” resources to be around the attractive person can withhold it under the edict of expecting radical self reliance. Its a desert, are people really more or less prepared because that principle is taking up space on a list of commandments?
Larry Harvey didn’t expect people to make these things their whole identity. He was just having fun pontificating some guidelines in 2004.
The guidelines-now-principles are also outdated. Many “Regional burns” that have been inspired by Burning Man have added additional principles more relevant to the times, such as ones focusing on consent and shared consent frameworks.
The article displays a laughably out of date view of futures markets, too
There are people and institutions, such as oil producers, who will need to sell oil at a future date. They want to lock in the price today on those future sales. There are also people and institutions, such as airlines, who have a future need for oil and would like to lock in the price today.
Airlines haven’t hedged fuel in a long time and generally run a policy now of just adjusting fares whenever fuel prices change.
Oil producers sell futures simply to ensure deliver of their oil at a certain date so that someone actually shows up to pick it up.
The rest of the market is speculation, and in particular short term movements have always been very speculative and also believed to be plagued by insider trading. Airlines and oil producers do not care about minute to minute changes.
Southwest was famously killing it during the oil shocks of the 1990s and 2000s because they had the foresight to buy futures when spot prices were low. See https://southwest50.com/our-stories/the-southwest-jet-fuel-h... - I used to joke that Southwest was a futures trader disguised as an airline.
SWA was the last major airline to engage in strategic hedging, and came under considerable investor pressure to stop doing that (since it means they can’t lower fares as much when oil is cheap). So they stopped, and investors apparently don’t want airlines to be futures traders disguised as airlines. They prefer credit card referral marketing agencies disguised as airlines.
Now the airlines simply raise fares in lockstep when oil gets expensive, or simply go out of business, like Spirit did last week.
It doesn’t work that way. Canceling flights has significant business-impacting downstream effects that go beyond mitigating the loss caused by a bad bet.
Metals (miners <> manufacturers) and agricultural (farmers <> food makers) futures are still non-speculative. There are industries that still buy materials from these markets, for delivery, as in they want to see the physical product in their hands. I was surprised to find that out as well
I don’t want every verb implemented, I also dont want an IETF standard. I want as little as possible, so I have to worry about as little as possible in the future.
Use-cases differ, you described a complete REST API, which can be as much of a problem as a too little.
Till it has explored the codebase, asked me follow up questions, suggested the code change, incorporating my fixes after losing time on context switch + the extra time I need when somebody requests a change in 3 months to learn the mental model. I’m way faster to just write it myself (mental model included)
If it's genuinely the case that you can write code faster than you can prompt it into existence then you're not being ambitious enough with your coding agent. Ask it to do more. Tackle bigger problems.
1. It's unclear why creating more code faster is a good thing. Software engineering wisdom for decades has been that code is a cost, not a product. There are great reasons for that, which haven't changed with the appearance of LLMs.
2. There absolutely are cases where modifying code "manually" is unquestionably faster than prompting an LLM. There are trivial examples for this - eg only an insane person would ask an LLM to rename a variable rather than using an LSP for that. It would provably and consistently take more keystrokes. There are less trivial examples as well, like, you know, having an understanding of your codebase and using good abstractions/libraries within it that let you make large changes to the program's behavior with little boilerplate code.
One can argue that producing a lot of complex changes through an LLM is faster, which I would agree with, but then see point #1. Sustainable software development has up to this point relied on iterative discovery of the right small components that together form a complete, functional, stable system (see "Programming as Theory Building").
There's zero indication so far that LLMs are capable of speeding up the process of creating complete, functional, stable systems. What every org within my career and friend circle is seeing (and research into productivity impacts of LLMs on software development is showing) is the same story - fast prototypes that either turn into abandonware, personal tools, or maintenance nightmares.
1. More code faster is not the goal. More features / value faster is the goal. Obviously to get there you need to write more code, but it's not writing code for code's sake.
2. Yes, true, but the point is to move up the abstraction hierarchy, so instead of asking the LLM to rename a variable you describe the concrete business goal you're trying to achieve.
It is true that coding agents cannot build fully complete stable systems completely unguided yet. That's why we still have jobs. But it's wrong to suggest that they don't deliver value or that they're destined to produce trash every time. It is a matter of oversight and guidance and setting your codebase up for success. That does require work, but it is not impossible, just a different skillset from the ones we've been used to.
Sounds valuable, it can issue shares onchain and distribute profits - after a cumbersome fiat settlement and transfer stage - enabling the market and researchers to get price discovery on this sector finally
Instead of extrapolating only from reported fraud by victims
This one seems harder to get right to me. The cards are stacked so that the card further down the screen is the top of the stack (the card overlap indicating which is in front of which). I would guess this was done because if you can only see part of the cards behind, seeing the top of the obscured card is more useful than seeing the bottom.
I could be missing something, but where there is no perfect solution, I want to be slower to say the option they chose is dumb.
I haven’t bought a seat at the theater in over a decade
And the online process shows you which seats are already filled and I base my decision on that when there is assigned seating. One thing peculiar is that the theatres are not often as filled as the seat map shows, makes me think that an even newer generation of the movie ticket subscribers (AMC A-List) are reserving seats and changing plans
Burning Man would get a lot less criticism if they dropped their 22 year old principles out of its 40 year run
Being part of a camp is the least inclusive social chore I’ve seen of any similar event, it is optional while making the “radically inclusive” trek a lot easier. Its a fairly high bar if you don't know the people
“Radical Self Reliance” can be interpreted in completely opposite ways when convenient. The person mooching off of everyone may call that self reliance to themselves, not realizing they are just attractive, while the person “gifting” resources to be around the attractive person can withhold it under the edict of expecting radical self reliance. Its a desert, are people really more or less prepared because that principle is taking up space on a list of commandments?
Larry Harvey didn’t expect people to make these things their whole identity. He was just having fun pontificating some guidelines in 2004.
The guidelines-now-principles are also outdated. Many “Regional burns” that have been inspired by Burning Man have added additional principles more relevant to the times, such as ones focusing on consent and shared consent frameworks.
Time for a new arc
reply