> Human cognition was basically bruteforced by evolution
Well that's one reason you struggle to understand how it can be dismissed. I believe we were made by a creator. The idea that somehow nature "bruteforced" intelligence is completely nonsensical to me.
So, for me, logically, humans being able to bruteforce true intelligence is equally nonsensical.
But what the author is stating, and I completely agree with, is that true intelligence wielding a pseudo-intelligence is just as dangerous (if not moreso.)
Even if there is a creator, it seems to have intentionally created a universe in which the evolution of humans is basically possible and it went to great lengths to hide the fact that it made us as a special unique thing.
Let’s assume there’s a creator: It is clearly willing to let bad things happen to people, and it set things up to make it impossible to prove that a human level intelligence should be impossible, so who’s to say it won’t allow a superintelligence to be a made by us?
Freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences. People aren't "making comments," they're celebrating the murder of a man whose opinions they disagreed with.
Many Americans are waking up to realize that a large number of people they considered friends and colleagues would revel in their death if they let their political opinions be heard.
I would 100% fire someone for celebrating murder. Sorry, call me old-fashioned, but I believe in hiring people of integrity, and I will fire you if I find out you don't have any.
> Freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences.
Freedom of speech requires freedom from government consequences. I have freedom of speech still if you say "I don't like your speech"; I don't have it if the cops say "I'm arresting you for your speech".
> I would 100% fire someone for celebrating murder.
And you can. You can also skip their birthday party. But "I'm glad so-and-so is dead" largely can't be a reason to, say, lose your drivers' license, social security benefits, or government employment, because the First Amendment applies to government specifically.
Facebook, Google, the grocery store, etc. have never been subject to the First Amendment.
(People can, and do, get fired for espousing Charlie Kirk's beliefs, too. That's free speech/association for you.)
> "I'm glad so-and-so is dead" largely can't be a reason to, say, lose your drivers' license, social security benefits, or government employment, because the First Amendment applies to government specifically.
Unless I'm mistaken, that's not happening. If it is, it's wrong and should be corrected.
In Jimmy Kimmel's case, the FCC chair threatened ABC's broadcasting licensure to pressure them to punish his (very, very mild, incidentally) protected speech.
I don't believe that the FCC threatening ABC's broadcasting license has anything to do with free speech. There were murmurs about lawsuits for defamation of character all over Twitter. I'm no lawyer, I don't claim to know if that's even possible.
But it's clear that with the emotional tension of the situation, ABC wasn't about to get itself in legal trouble over a second-rate, late-night show host.
So, while the FCC may have been threatening, we have a legal system designed to prevent such over-steps of power, should they occur. It seems pretty clear ABC wanted no part of the storm that was brewing.
It's clear you've never even watched the very videos you claim to be citing.
1a. He's referencing DEI, citing how it debases people. He literally says, _in the video_, "I don't want to have these thoughts, but that's what DEI does." I know you won't go watch it, but you're just parroting a false statement that Charlie Kirk never made.
1b. He never said that. He said that Black families had better standards of living before the Civil Rights Act, referencing both household incomes, rates of fatherlessness, and crime rates. All objective facts that are true. It's hardly racist to point out how America is not getting better for black Americans.
2. I've not heard this one. Feel free to cite a source and I'll take a look.
3. I've also not heard this one. Once again, I'll go look if you'd like to provide sources.
Very interesting. I stand corrected. I will note, however, that this is literally the only example I've seen of someone getting fired for a legitimately non-celebratory remark. We've got a legal system for stuff like that. For every single example you could give me, I can give you at least a thousand counterexamples. 99.9% of all the folks being fired are getting fired for being reprehensible.
Eh, that one is worse than the first, and while not "celebratory", certainly shows a lack of judgement and character. I'd fire someone for this, too. This has less to do with free speech and more to do with revealing yourself to be an insensitive asshole.
The man was murdered in front of his children, and this woman's instinct is defamation of character. She's continuing to repeat the lie that Charlie Kirk "excused the deaths of children in the name of the Second Amendment".
The immediate aftermath of someone's death is not the time to critique them, gently or not. Total lack of decorum and social sense. Not fit to teach young children.
Any line of thinking, taken to its extreme, is counter-productive at best, evil at worst. "Be thoughtful about where you spend your time and money" is not exactly a slippery slope we should be worried about.
The author admits at the end of the article that they aren’t absolute in their boycotts and that it’s hard to fully boycott certain things that are so prevalent within our lives.
It’s not that deep. Just be more mindful about what you do and what you use to do them, and you’ll find better ways to do them down the road that will make you and the people around you happier.
So don't take it to its extreme. Just put the effort in to make good choices up to the point it's more personally disruptive than you can handle.
Person A: I try to avoid eating beef regularly, cattle farms are so environmentally unfriendly.
Person B: Taken to its extreme, we should eliminate all cattle. Say goodbye to the hamburger!!!
Um, it's possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.
This seems almost uselessly simple to me. The “cognitive overhead” of a list of notes feels trivial considering this is a person who managed to put their words online.
The issue isn’t cognitive overhead, it’s not having rituals to review and refine your thoughts. Everyone has to jot down ideas from time to time, but if you never take time to stop, review, and organize your thoughts then sure it’ll feel like a lot of cognitive overhead.
The person is also quite good at specifically putting their words online in a way that others can benefit from them. (Enough so that it’s a bit of a running joke[1] when he quits his job and has time to write some more words.) That skill is generally difficult to transmit, so if they’re saying something in that direction it could be worth listening.
I'm sorry but what!? Have you talked to your users? The ones that actually are forced to use your app day in and out? They want functional back buttons, they want to be able to open any action in a new tab. No one who actually uses your product would prefer an SPA once the flash wears off.
Let me tell you as a developer who has been on both sides of things, developing server rendered pages and not having to worry about the server disagreeing with the client is the ultimate developer experience. Build a competent app that can serve full pages in .1 seconds and no one will care that your site isn't an SPA. They want a fast reliable site.
We did an A/B test of an old SPA app, and a modern re-write using SSR and server-rendered pages.
By every performance metric, the new app was faster.
But we kept getting user feedback that the new site was "clunky" and "slow", even though we saw that the p90 was much lower on the new site. Most of our users asked us to enable a toggle to let them go back to the old "fast" site.
I'm not sure if this is a universal experience, but I think a lot of other sites that tried the CSR -> SSR move had similar experiences. It's just harder to talk about, since it goes against the usual narrative.
SSR can feel worse than SPA if you don't get the end-to-end latency under a certain threshold. If your SSR pages are taking upward of 100ms to render on average, it's going to start to feel like shit once you factor in the network latency.
My design goal for modern SSR pages is 500 microseconds render time on the server. A modern CPU can crank through several gigabytes of UTF8 text per second. There really isn't any excuse from a technology perspective. SSR pages being perceived as clunky & slow boils down to a skill / people / organizational problem. The computers and associated networks can definitely do it well.
Every single action should have no perceivable latency between the action and the feedback that the action was received. You can implement that with SSR but it is clunky and also requires a lot of JS generally.
Looked at the first one, and that's in a game setting? And they test 600 ms??
edit: The second one is more useful IMO. It's hard to get under 100 ms with a roundtrip, but < 300 ms should be doable, right? So you do lose the sense that you are directly manipulating data. In most cases I think that's a good trade-off. Exceptions would be things like Google docs, but that's also because it's a well made app I trust to actually sync my data without loss. Unlike most SPAs..
300ms for network latency both ways, with server potentially doing its own network calls for data to fulfill the request, interpolating the html, and then browser rerendering client seems like a stretch
I am curious to identify what your users are perceiving that isn't be being captured by your metric. If it is accurate and not just rhetoric that MOST of your users are asking for a rollback for purely performance reasons, that is a very extreme outcome.
Are your p90 metrics testing:
- navigation after first load?
- users who are going to the app after it is cached on their browser?
Are your actions going through server actions or rest apis? Do you have metrics on those?
What are you talking about. Majority of SPAs have abysmal performance compared to regular HTML rendered websites and that reflects poorly on user experiences.
I think if people remembered how productive you could be before the SPA frontend/backend split they'd reconsider. Being able to take a feature from A to Z without either context-switching between ecosystems or, even worse, involving other people, was incredibly productive and satisfying. Not to mention a much more streamlined dev env without a bloated js ecosystem of bundlers/compilers and whatnot.
I write an SPA for my day job. I write Postgres queries myself. I create endpoints and background workers and cron jobs myself, and I build out the UI myself. It’s all typescript with static types end-to-end. It’s a fantastic developer experience. Much, much better than I ever had in Rails or ASP.NET.
Also, I love components for UI as opposed to templates. And I don’t think I could ever really go back to the way I did things in my MPA days.
If there's no clear backend/frontend split wrt to language and roles in your particular project my point doesn't really apply for you. But it seems that you're lucky that you can use js on the backend to get closer to that. I would still prefer to not have to do a SPA unless obviously required for the job, but at least you got some of the fundamentals in place to be individually productive.
Performance - For pages that have different content for every user, the best performance will be reached by caching the app code on the client, only loading the data needed to render, and rendering once on the client. Rendering on an aws machine that is weaker than my 15 year old macbook is not a recipe for good performance.
User Experience - Every single user action should have no perceptible latency between the action and the feedback that that the action was received. This can't be done gracefully without javascript. Moreover, SPAs enable a better ux by enabling developers to build complex features that wouldn't be possible on traditional webpage.
