+1: Discord is the way. I’m increasingly relying on smaller curated community participation for all sorts of things, including AI but also my various hobbies. Way better than the whole influence rat race than every major platform devolves into.

Well. Maybe the strictness will create a shift. A broken system that is easily exploited and is profitable probably needs to be changed.

I worry mostly that they’ve handed ACs a whip, and there’s going to be a lot of variance on how well that whip is used. Some will surely use it badly.

But again, the review problem has been getting worse and worse, so it’s good they’re trying something. I hope it leads to more effective changes.

Yeh I have mixed feelings. Punishing people who ultimately are reviewing for free (there’s only a small chance the average paper gets accepted) seems like the wrong approach. There will be resentment. But the review problem has only gotten worse and if it’s not fixed there’s no point.

I guess propaganda wouldn’t be effective if people weren’t willing to accept it under certain conditions. It seems like Xitter satisfies a big enough need that wherever negative connotation passively being manipulated has isn’t a big deal. Or perhaps people feel like it won’t affect them.

I haven’t seen this idea, but if true it’s more evidence that we’re devolving into a meritocracy where the only valuable trait is intelligence relative to the masses. So now the only valuable critique is one that attacks intelligence.

Whether someone is moral or even sane doesn’t matter anymore.

I haven’t used it, but I’m against Black as it’s better at generating arguments over auto formatters, unreadable diffs, and misattributed contributions than clean looking code. If ruff is customizable that’s an improvement.

Blacker is a nicer idea: it only formats lines you’ve changed manually.

Speaking for readable diffs: how about that Black, eh?

“They took my cousin. He informed them he is a US citizen and his passport was in his pocket. We don’t know where they took him.”

This isn’t about deporting undocumented immigrants this is about going after people who are not white!

Just be prepared: some reviewers will say things like “this is obvious” or “this is known”.

The problem with deregulation in the US is it’s almost always paired with zealous free market ideology, which assumes that greed is good quality, and that when paired with competition it will yield benefit on the masses.

So it’s really really important that it’s done with the right mindset.

BTW it’s worth looking at efforts in other countries to tackle locality challenges, e.g. JR in Japan. In that case privatization came paired with public service mandates, including a regulated base fare that ensures a degree of equity.

But in the US, the main idea is to “free the market”.

Well, to loop back to my point: the people thinking about public benefit and wealth inequality are thinking of specifically good domains.

The people who aren’t are the issue, and they’re driving policy.

If it was paired with a wealth equity philosophy, I’m sure deregulation would be fine mostly.

Sure. The issue isn’t that there aren’t good reasons to deregulate. The problem is that the bad reasons are really really bad and mostly involve making a killing by harming the public for generations.

For example, it would be great to have an automated, *equitable* self driving framework for transportation, and regulation could play a role in slowing this down. But it’s pretty obvious to me that this isn’t the purpose of current efforts to deregulate self driving technology.

It’s definitely worth being cognizant of the purpose of deregulation: is it to benefit the public (most to all of us) or to increase profits? One should be forgiven in the US to be distrustful of these efforts.

Privatization / regulation isn’t always bad mind you, and I get the frustration.