Hahaha you’re literally doing the thing. Good stuff

They did fail to demonstrate knowledge of lexicographical order, which this exercise seems to be aiming for with the inclusion of pond and pumpkin, so I think it’s a bit cynical to consider failing the student on this a means of opression or subjugation.

Quickest way to get a test suite so tightly coupled to structure rather than behavior that even just looking at the tests wrong makes them fail. But technically you do get test coverage I guess. Goodhart’s law in action.

Every big change is ultimately just a series of small changes. It takes skill and engineering chops to be able to break up big ideas into small steps with quick feedback loops, but it can be done. Usually worth the effort too.

Unfortunately, often that’s a complex idea so it can be somewhere on the order of an hour before they stop coding and try compiling.

Maybe I’ve been lucky with the people I got to work with so far (and I definitely am), but I know of no professional software engineer that would voluntarily subject themselves to such a long feedback loop. I guess some of the juniors try to work this way sometimes, but they learn fairly quickly not to. The best ones I know work incrementally. Small change, run, small change run, and so on.

Does anyone else pronounce it “schmod”?

With much love and respect I ask you to please read the remainder of my comments in this thread.

It’s sarcasm yes. I figured dropping a phrase like dicatorship of the proletariat would give up the game (honestly I thought my very first comment in the thread was already laying it on thick), but Poe’s law in action I guess. I do really appreciate you, keep up the good work.

Look, it’s like the scientific method, right? You start with a theory, and then you gather a bunch of data, and the stuff that agrees with your theory you keep, and the stuff that doesn’t you either dismiss outright, or you rationalize. I feel like I really can’t make my position any more obvious than that.

I appreciate your patience and your continued efforts to educate folks on this website, but I think you’re barking up the wrong tree here.

See now there you’ve made a crucial error. You’re recommending a book which, while it has some criticism of the specifics of how the USSR implemented socialism, on the whole it’s quite positive about the idea of establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat in general. Obviously that disagrees with my preconceived notion that humans are greedy, and that therefore capitalism is good, so I would never read a source that contradicts this, because I would have to dismiss most of it outright. And that’s just a hassle.

It’s suspicious because it disagrees with my preconceived notions about communism.

I think this is a good rule of thumb in general. When statistics agree with my preconceived notions, I consider them trustworthy, and if not, I assume that reality lines up with what I expect. For example, the referendum in held in the Baltics about leaving the USSR ended in favor of leaving, which I think is a good example of a trustworthy statistic. But the subsequent referendum in the remaining members ended in favor of staying in the USSR, and I think that’s a little suspicious, don’t you?

Ah thanks, I do have another question actually! So aside from speeding up builds by parallelizing different stages, so that

FROM alpine AS two
RUN sleep 5 && touch /a
FROM alpine AS one
RUN sleep 5 && touch /b
FROM alpine AS three
COPY --from=two /a /a
COPY --from=one /b /b

takes 5 iso 10 seconds, are there any other ways buildkit speeds up builds?

At my previous job, we had a “Devops” team. We even outsourced some ops to a third party in the worst possible way (I’m talking “oh you want to set up an alert for something related to your service? Send us an email and we’ll look into it” and so on). All the pre-devops pain magnified by an order of magnitude. Sometimes devs would do their own ops (I know, big shock!), and they would call it “shadow devops”. Nearly fell off my chair when I first heard it. Kinda glad I’m not with them anymore.

Is there more to it than using multistage builds when appropriate?

..... for zsh users

I’ve read the resolution, and I don’t see anything in the document that I disagree with. There are some references to the Durban conference in there that I don’t fully understand, but from a cursory reading of the Wikipedia article it seems that people’s main gripe with it is its anti-zionist position (a position I vehemently agree with, Zionism is colonialism and genocide). That, to me, seems like a reasonable enough explanation as to why the US would vote against this resolution (I hope I don’t need to, but I’m happy to elaborate), and that, in turn, explains why client states voted against (or abstained).

I do acknowledge that the rhetoric closely mirrors Russia’s anti-Ukrainian propaganda, but just because a bad person misuses “nazis bad” for nefarious purposes does not make “nazis bad” any less true.

It’s a bit ironic on some level when talking about an anti-nazi resolution, but having looked into it, I’ve arrived at the position that the votes are the way they are because the US tends to vote in favor of Zionism.

The resolution very likely was phrased in a loaded way or had some bit that was dubious

These resolutions are publicly available on the UN website, are typically quite short, and actually quite easy to read in general. This one in particular is only 11 pages long, which includes skippable boilerplate. So this assertion is relatively easy to back up and doesn’t need to rely on assumptions, and it can actually be quite fun to read one of these resolutions; you get to feel like a proper journalist or scholar or something. So I would suggest you give it a read and seek out the bit that you find most objectionable.

Personally, based on not much more than gut feelings and historical precedent on similar distributions in votes, am a bit more uncertain than you about the reason behind this distribution. If we take the Palestine cease fire vote in the UN of December 2023, for example, you have a very similar distribution. And I know for a fact that that was an earnest, unobjectionable resolution, that was only voted down by the US because it was in their material interest to do so, and voted down by US client states (or abstention) because they’re client states. But on the other hand, we also have the obvious context of Russia using this exact language as an excuse for their illegal invasion of Ukraine, so it’s entirely conceivable that there’s a section in there that says sth like “and thus, Russia shall invade Ukraine, and we’re all cool with that”. As such, I’m on the fence, and I’ll read the resolution later. But do give it a go yourself! It’s a very satisfying exercise