sph87

6 ms·

1.
by sph87 19d ago
I would argue that’s an asymmetric game. If your boss’s boss or higher already dislikes your boss, then convincing leadership would be easy. But bad bosses don’t become the big bad boss by winning over their subordinates. They spend more ti
2.
by sph87 19d ago
Welcome to a day in the life. The company I work for prides themselves on a culture of agency and letting developers be developers. I am pushing the AI revolution but the compliance requirements and modern Luddite zeitgeist are a daily sour
3.
by sph87 1mo ago
I want to add that the UC schools system has (had?) something like this. I know a good number of very intelligent people who did 2 years at a Community College and ended up going to UC Berkeley, UCLA. Not Harvard but West coast ivys at the
4.
by sph87 2mo ago
> AGI is already here I feel like there has been a ton of noise about this, but frankly, no one has actually defined what AGI means. I feel like the goal post is constantly shifting. Take for example Humanity's Last Exam. It is so b
5.
by sph87 2mo ago
Should have used a Fish; a bottom-feeder. Might call it a funny Flounder for Founders finding Founders, Funders, First-Timers, or Friends.
6.
by sph87 1y ago
This is why I've started moving towards embedded. There is something really nice about being back on a chip with <1MB ram and a handful of Mhz. I know it's really just a leftward shift of a curve though. By the time I am gettin
7.
by sph87 1y ago
I love modules. Honestly. I advocate usage simply as a forcing function for upstream. Tooling support is iffy because usage is low. Usage is low because tooling is iffy. All of the major players in the build space have reasonably mature l
8.
by sph87 1y ago
Modules my guy. The words “modern” and “C++” don’t go together while using headers. Also your most basic implementation requires me to write 200+ LOC and add a dozen headers. Then it’s a ton of boiler plate code duplication for every functi
9.
by sph87 1y ago
Where I have found Claude most helpful is on problems with very specific knowledge requirements. Like: Why isn’t this working? Here Claude read this like 90 page PDF and tell me where I went wrong interfacing with this SDK. Ohh I accidental
10.
by sph87 2y ago
Correct. No one is denying that Elon loves attention. Everyone knows Elon is really an acronym for 'Elon Loves Ostentatious Notice'. Its GNU'd and everything.
11.
by sph87 3y ago
Haha you feel like I’m wrong but you just can’t articulate why? I understand bro. Have a good night.
12.
by sph87 3y ago
Right, but by upholding that there was no negligence in the alternative case they prevent the conditions in Wrongful Death of a Minor from being met. There is nothing left to argue. Are you suggesting the lower court now over rules the uppe
13.
by sph87 3y ago
Yes. It applies to all unborn children. The central question presented in these consolidated appeals is whether the Act contains an unwritten exception to that rule for extrauterine children -- that is, unborn children who are located outsi
14.
by sph87 3y ago
Here is the text of the law: (I paraphrased the recourse portion) If the death of a minor child is caused by the wrongful act, omission, or negligence of any person, persons, or corporation, or the servants or agents of either then (people
15.
by sph87 3y ago
The court did not rule on that. This specific law only says children. The defense said this case did not apply because these are embryos that had not been born. The court said that’s not a valid argument because the word children includes u
16.
by sph87 3y ago
Moot mean “open to discussion”. We reverse the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' wrongful death claims in both appeals (regarding the born/unborn). Because the plaintiffs' alternative negligence and wantonness c
17.
by sph87 3y ago
From the ruling: The parties to these cases have raised many difficult questions, including ones about the ethical status of extrauterine children, the application of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution to such children, an
18.
by sph87 3y ago
Yeah man, I don’t disagree with any of that. But that is not what the ruling is about. The law, as it is written, only says “children”. This was a law written in the 1800s. It does not consider any of that. The defense said, “hey you should
19.
by sph87 3y ago
Negative. The court actually upholds the lower courts dismissal of the case. It simply holds that the word “children” in a law written in the 1800s includes the unborn. That is that an insurance company can’t argue that because this thing w
20.
by sph87 3y ago
It was a very narrow ruling regarding civil liability for wrongful death as it applies to the word “children”. Some insurance companies tried to say that these families had no financial recourse from embryos being destroyed because a certai