It's easy to be critical in hindsight but honestly when Deno first came out it was pretty incredible. Even the whole idea about URL based imports makes lots of sense but it was incompatible with any of the existing toolchains that were wildly popular. At the same time, companies like Vercel launched a new kind of framework and leveraged that into a hosting business with I would say great success. They captured developers where they were at _today_, including acknowledging the demographics, the tools, the culture, etc.
Compatibility aside, Url-based imports are a bad idea as soon as you go beyond writing your entire program in a single source file and want to keep imported versions of common dependencies in sync. It's nice for scripts, but a deno.json file is better.
Theres probably a middle ground where we allow an app to augment / enhance itself using deterministic behaviour but a user based soft request. If I as a user can ask for a feature, and have it work just for me, thats pretty cool.
Instead of progressive enhancement it can be progressive evolution.
Management is going to quickly start bisecting human engineers along lines of maximalists and minimalists. The minimalists will all be let go. A few bad things will happen. A few systems will strain under the pressure but itll be “worth it” in the same way that its cheaper to pay lawsuits than do a recall of a plane.
We arent innovating in other areas that might soften the blow. We dont have good support systems, social security, healthcare, or even demands in other areas. How many engineers are going to be plumbers and construction workers?
Think IBM training manual had a quote about not being able to hold a computer accountable, so you cant let them make management decisions. Basically management will stick around so somebody can be held to blame if AI slop breaks
Brendan can do whatever he wants. Hes that good. If anybody seriously needed to interview him 20+ times to figure it out, then the burden is now on them to not fuck it up.
He's summing interviews across all AI giants. But the ones about to IPO can interview someone almost infinitely many times, because everyone wants on the bandwagon.
Feels like step 1 to providing liqudity further down the toad. Also opening investment to “unqualified” investors. It never made sense that you could buy crypto, buy multiple homes, but sinking 10k into a friends startup was somehow regulated.
You definitely _can_ the question is, can you do it by enough for a reasonable amount of money. There are a few techniques to this but at the end of the day you need to radiate away, the heat otherwise it will just keep growing. You cannot keep pumping energy into the satellite without distributing the same amount back out again.
Well… if you look at pure functions without ant state then thats a whole class of computing you can refer to. The problem is that its not efficient to calculate state from arguments for everything. We end up saving to disk, writing packets over the network, etc. In a purely theoretical environment you could avoid state, but the real world imposes constraints that you need to operate within or between.
Additionally, depending how deep down you go, theres state stored somewhere to calculate against. Vues are stored in some kind of register and theyre passed into operations with a target register as an additional argument.
I agree, and I think this is where the distinction matters.
I’m not claiming that state disappears, or that computation can be purely stateless all the way down. There is always state somewhere - registers, buffers, disks, networks. The question is where authority lives and whether correctness depends on reconstructing history.
The inefficiency you point out is real: recomputing everything from arguments is often worse than persisting state. That’s why the pattern I’m aiming at isn’t “no state,” but no implicit, negotiated state. State can exist, be large, and even be shared — but it should be explicit, bounded, and verifiable, not something the system has to infer or reconcile in order to proceed.
At the lowest levels, yes, registers hold values and operations mutate targets. But those mutations are local, immediate, and enforced by hardware invariants. Problems tend to appear higher up when systems start treating historical state as narrative, as something to reason about, merge, or explain, rather than as input with strict admissibility rules.
So I see this less as a theoretical purity claim and more as a placement problem: push state to places where enforcement is cheap and local, and keep it out of places where it turns into coordination and recovery logic.
The vaccination rates in some parts of Alberta are less than 30%. Per capita, Alberta has the highest incident rate. The rhetoric around vaccinations, social media, a perhaps complacency towards distant threats have all contributed to this situation.
The challenge is that solving this is easier but only if people are willing to get vaccinated.
There’s, ironically, heavy overlap between the group who insist that we crack down on society’s ‘freeloaders’ and the group that freeloads on those who responsibly vaccinate.
The Hutterites in Alberta, from what I've heard on various talks etc, aren't anti-vaxx in the traditional sense. There is definitely some attitudes like that, but the reason the vaccination rate was so slow was a mix of distrust of healthcare professionals and also difficulty in accessing the vaccine. People would have to travel to a public health clinic which is typically quite far away.
The uptake in vaccine rates among these groups in Alberta has actually gone way up since the outbreak, and since the healthcare organization has made the vaccine more readily available.
The argument made here seems to be that the power to prevent unlawful access or threats is somehow required to keep us all safe. But if someone was an actual threat, do we really think they’d be using the internet with their own identity? Like if someone is willing to hack into a power station or some other critical infrastructure, they’ll be simultaneously stupid enough to use their own credit card?
Illegal things are already illegal. Safety and security mechanisms already exist. We dont need additional, punitive, and opaque laws that can be abused.
Is this even corruption? Who's getting kickbacks here? It sounds like they're just incompetent, and brainstorming stupid ideas and writing a law around whatever sticks to the wall.
As a result of this law? Hard to say. It's rather large. Presumably they're _already_ receiving kickbacks or political protection and this allows them to protect and further that.
> It sounds like they're just incompetent
It's amazing how often they're incompetent and how little consequence they suffer from that. This is a canard, and, not a particularly useful aphorism when trying to understand this _particular_ law.
> and brainstorming stupid ideas and writing a law around whatever sticks to the wall.
You're imagining excuses on behalf of powerful people rather than examining the law they've just passed.
This bill, which is almost entirely about giving the government the ability to restrict where ISPs purchase services from (e.g. routers) despite what the national post would have you believe, probably isn't corrupt at all, it's just a matter of national security to not give groups like China the ability to take down our internet.
That said it certainly could enable corruption. "Pay us (the cabinet ministers) some money or we won't let ISPs buy equipment from you". There's just no evidence that is why it is being passed.
That "almost entirely" part is the problem. They sneak in a clause that makes those restrictions also apply to which customers ISPs can serve.
Even the supposed intended purpose of restricting equipment may be malicious. Why should the government be able to restrict whose equipment or which fibre operators the ISP can use?
If equipment is the concern, then they can just regulate the actual imported equipment. Canada probably already has such oversight like the US's FCC.
Regulating imported equipment doesn't give you the ability to go back retroactively and say "shit, actually we need you to pull out all the equipment from <company> because it's a security problem". Or the ability to regulate what software updates are applied. And so on and so forth. And the government should have the ability to do that because it is a matter of geopolitics and national security to maintain the independence of our telecommunications infrastructure.
They did not slip in a clause which allows them to restrict which customers ISPs can serve, despite the headline saying otherwise.
I'm pretty sure there are already laws that allow the government to deal with devices used for spying. There's no need to introduce this broad-spectrum bill that controls way more than it should.
You may have charitable interpretations, but 15.2(2)(d) can be used to effectively ban anyone from accessing the Internet. And it can certainly be used to throttle web services the government doesn't like.
I don't have more charitable interpretations, I have more correct interpretations. The cannons of statutory interpretation are not a matter of charity, they are a matter of how laws are read. 15.2(2)(d) cannot as a matter of law be used to effectively ban anyone from the internet at all.
I do not believe the government currently has the authority to force telecoms to remove suspected compromised equipment. They've tried without a law. Telecoms have resisted, successfully. You're probably right if they only needed to remove devices they could prove were currently being used for spying, but national security demands that they can do that to devices that they merely suspect are compromised, and that fails on both fronts.
> 15.2(2)(d) cannot as a matter of law be used to effectively ban anyone from the internet at all.
How laws are read can change. It may not fly in court today, but what about 5 or 10 years later? They may not immediately ban anyone, but just slightly throttling the services they don't like with national security as an excuse is detrimental to the free Internet. People will get used to it and then one day, it would be interpreted as "it's ok to allow egregious usage limits", which is effectively a ban. It happens gradually.
> I do not believe the government currently has the authority to force telecoms to remove suspected compromised equipment.
Good. This is the way it should be. The burden of proof is on the government. You cannot assume guilty until proven innocent. If the government really suspects that there is some malicious equipment that slipped past their equivalent of FCC undetected, then they could impose import restrictions to make it impractical for telecom operators to purchase said equipment.
There is a lot they could do on the import regulation side, such as restricting OTA updates for critical equipment to domestic servers, or even restrict firmware updates to offline flashing only. They could make some equipment prohibitively expensive. There are plenty of ways to deal with it besides introducing a law like this.
They are more likely to ignore the law than to change the fundamental principles of how the words are read. It's easier. See the US.
Worrying about this sort of lawless action when writing laws is pointless because no matter how well laws are written they don't stop someone from simply ignoring them.
> Good. This is the way it should be.
I have no interest in rolling over and handing the keys to our communications infrasturcture to foreign powers because the government was not fast enough to realize they needed to ban a company, or because foreign politics shifted and what was a safe enough bet not longer is.
It's not a matter of guilt or innocence. It's not a matter of punishment. It's a matter of maintaining our independence.
Huawei gear has not been banned, unfortunately. There's been some progress in removing it, but ultimately the telecoms have refused to do so fully. Laws to get this done were in the process of being passed, but not passed, when the Trudeau government fell.
Yes, illegal things are already illegal. But, if you alter the law, you can create new areas to monetise or ways to extract private information from legally minded citizens. In other words, these laws are nothing to do with preventing illegality, they are about control. They are co-ordinated across different legal jurisdictions too.
This argument is often unsuccessfully used in other areas; gun rights jumps to mind.
Often the new laws only affect those who are already following the laws. Those who are willing to break the laws will ignore and/or find ways around them (see: Chicago, DC, etc).
The Leviathan cannot be controlled. It hungers for power and control. People in positions of power are deceived into thinking that if they just had a little more power they could fix so many things. The Leviathan grows. The people are crushed.
Our desire for power feeds the Leviathan. To prevent this power must be diffuse.
I get the impression a lot of this is not just people but companies. So in theory the order might be - don't use any huawei routers, we think they have backdoors, etc.
(Just to be clear, i agree this law is way too broad)
reply