Very interesting, one big wrinkle with OP:s approach is exactly that, the structured responses are un-touched, which many tools return. Solution in OP as i understand it is the "execute" method. However, im building an MCP gateway, and such sandboxed execution isnt available (...yet), so your approach to this sounds very clever. Ill spend this day trying that out
Depends on what one is looking for. I'm considering upgrading to an M5 model because while the M6 redesign might come with some nicer specs, it's also going to be coming with some teething pains by virtue of having a new design. The M5 generation is probably going to be a speed bump with a chassis and screen that's a known quantity and has had the kinks smoothed out.
I skipped the touchbar/buttery era, but before that the GPU/ballgate disaster plagued the MacBookPro lineup — pushed me away from Apple hardware for over decade!
My vision has since gotten bad enough that I can't really use laptops/phones well, anymore — but recently got a 15" MacBookAir, M3 pre-Tahoe (for bedtime youtubies).
The hardware is exceptional, battery life even more so... and I'll never update the operating system.
> As a rule of thumb, Macs will not run any version of macOS older than the one they shipped with when they launched. Apple provides security updates for older versions of macOS, but it doesn’t bother backporting drivers and other hardware support from newer versions to older ones.
So the answer is “no”, they probably won’t be able to downgrade on the models that are about to be released.
It's possible if you do a wipe and do a fresh install. You essentially boot into the Sequoia installer. I'm also looking at possibly picking up a M5 MBP and was the first things I looked into.
Super timely - thank you! Im in the process of moving the entire stack of my SaaS* fully in EU as well. Hetzner bare-metal, Talos k8s, OVH Object Storage for backups, self-hosted (for now) image repo. For now im still on Cloudflare for CDN, but bunny looks interesting. Using GitOps (FluxCD) as deployment strategy enables no dependencies on e.g. GitHub Actions.
For one thing running on bare-metal @ Hetzner is insane value for money versus GCP GKE. Im a third of the running costs and get ~50x resources.
The only aspect im struggling with is full-disk encryption. Although customer data is still encrypred with envelope encryption in the database, i want to migrate to fully encrypted disks (LUKS + TPM) sooner rather than later. If anyone has any resources and/or experience with this, please let know :)
Unless I'm mistaken you can install hetzner from ISO allowing you to use LUKS. You could use teng/clevis to allow it to automatically unlock (or refuse to, given certain conditions)
It all seems so surprisingly unnecessary. Angry geriatric man f*cks the world up for generations to come, then in a short bit he will die, and not have to live through the consequences.
It's the same with Putin. EU-Russia had a good working relationship where Russia sends oil&gas and EU sends Mercedes and Adidas and live happily. However this is not enough for the megalomaniacs at the top, this is boring they need to be conquerors they need their place in the history books be longer than a chapter.
Maybe going forward there must be safeguards against power accumulation. The checks and balances obviously didn't work, so something more potent is needed.
In Europe it took Putin, Erdogan and the others 20 years to come the place where Trump reached in less than a years, so US needs it much more acutely obviously.
BTW this is not only about protecting the society from their existence but also protect the society from their sudden disappearance. With such concentration of power, the power of the nation often dies with those people. If they survive long enough to transition power peacefully, the best they can do is to leave it to their son and their sons often turns out to inherit the brutalities without the skills.
Putin and Trump wouldn't be where they are without their respective oligarchical classes' supports. You can't have democracy when some private individuals are able to hold unto so much wealth and power, buying media and politicians, etc. This is what needs to be addressed if we don't want more Trumps and Putins.
2008: "Crimea is not disputed territory of Ukraine, and the issues of Russian speakers are internal issues of Ukraine."
2013: "Russia certainly doesn't plan to send troops into Ukraine."
2014: "After the annexation of Crimea, Russia doesn't plan to further divide Ukraine."
2019: "It's nonsense that Russia plans to attack anyone in future."
2022: "Russia's Special Military Operation does not involve the occupation of Ukrainian territories."
2023: "The conflict in Ukraine is not a territorial conflict — we have plenty of own territories."
2024: "Anyone who wants Russia to give up CONQUERED TERRITORIES in Ukraine must understand that this is impossible."
> Of course the rhetoric changed as the situation changed.
Blaming NATO is just another such rhetoric, put forward because it is the most advantageous in the current situation. It activates fools who begin self-flagellation, and in the process, disrupt military aid to Ukraine, which helps the Russian war effort.
Even among Russians who can be considered serious experts, no one takes the "blame NATO" narrative seriously. It's an excuse. A pretext. Look up Hitler's speeches from early September 1939 and you will see similar rhetoric about Germany being surrounded by the Franco-British alliance, with Poland as its spearhead. The similarity is uncanny, because it follows a standard pattern of excuses used by aggressors: portraying themselves as threatened, framing their actions as defensive, and blaming external forces for the conflicts they themselves initiate.
Again, your comment is full of emotionally fuelled words, and no substance or refutation of my points.
I am honestly sorry your country has been invaded (you seem to be Ukrainian). But I would much rather have peace at the cost of Ukrainian territory, than continuous escalation and geopolitical rifts, at the cost of Ukrainian lives and risking an even larger conflict in Europe.
It was a mistake to let Ukraine be courted by the west.
No, the cause is structural. Even if one could identify the sources of rot (money in politics, an outdated electoral college, the collapse of our information environment, whatever), Congress would deadlock, the Courts would block any meaningful reform, and the President would be left trimming the blight while the rot festered underneath.
The only ones that could cause change needed to reform their representation in the political system is the people. The incumbents have no incentive to do it.
I agree the cause is at least partially structural but I'd argue that congress deadlocking is generally an intentional feature not a bug. Meanwhile the courts on the whole seem quite reasonable to me. Disliking what the rules say should never turn into lambasting the ref for making calls consistent with those rules.
That said, it doesn't seem to me that reform has been meaningfully attempted yet. It isn't reasonable to blame the establishment for blocking a reform that never got organized to begin with.
Presumably if there were concrete proposals with broad popular support intended to fix lobbying, gerrymandering, first past the post, and the information environment in general then we should see them implemented at the state level here and there. But we don't.
The idea that Congress deadlocking is somehow a feature is a relic of the Republican party's destructionist agenda of the past four decades. In reality, this dynamic is what caused so much power to accrue to federal agencies, which they then proceeded to bemoan and go to work tearing down as well. Their goals were kind of understandable when they represented US business interests, but it seems as of late they're under new foreign ownership.
> a relic of the Republican party's destructionist agenda of the past four decades.
I believe it goes all the way back to the founding of the country. Gridlock was viewed as preferable to tyranny. Failure to arrive at a compromise is supposed to mean that no one gets to proceed.
Of course times change and cracks show up in the system.
Maybe. As a libertarian I'm sympathetic to the concept. I would say that one of the huge founding assumptions which clearly no longer holds is that the federal government was meant to be a less-powerful mediator between states, with the individual states being more powerful. For example I'd imagine that the founders' solution to our current predicament would be individual states calling up their own sizeable militias to put down the lawless gangs (regardless of whether they were purportedly "authorized" by the federal government), only calling for federal government help if they desired it. Restoring order within a state shouldn't hinge upon Congress agreeing to do so, right? Of course the obvious inapplicability of that solution to the events of the Civil War demonstrates how we got to the point we're at. It looks like slavery is still on track to being the great stain that ultimately dooms us.
Yes and no. Because you can always go one level higher and ask:
Why are the US people the cause?
And then we will talk about structural issues, to do with social mobility, education, a dysfunctional journalistic landscape, a tribalization of the political landscape and so on.
But of course it doesn't stop there. You can go one up:
Why did these underlying causes came to be?
The simple answer is that a certain loose conglomerate of polticians, billionaires and CEOs thought it would profit them (it did). You can pick one of the issues mentioned above and go deep on why it is in the bad shape it is today and the answer will always boil down to lobbying and money in politics.
This are the much more insightful reasons and you get there just by asking "but why?" two times like a yound child. Totally recommended.
> will always boil down to lobbying and money in politics.
And here you take the easy way out. Just blame third parties. You should keep asking why to find the real cause.
My personal take, as someone who is European but has lived in the US, Texas metro areas specifically, is that first past the post elections sow division.
Choices are limited, political activity is neutered, and extremism builds until it finds an outlet through either of the two possible political choices. Taking over that side entirely.
Political systems needs vents for frustration, and the US system does not have that.
Which finally leads to the people.
The only ones that could cause change needed to reform their representation in the political system is the people.
> And here you take the easy way out. Just blame third parties.
(1) I did not say one needs to stop where I stopped and (2) I did not talk about how blame is distributed between those layers. Any view that only the root cause layers can be blamed is too simplistic, since you can always go one layer higher. In reality blame is much more complex and the layers are not clearly separable either, as they can have cyclic dependencies feeding into each other.
So in your example there is a design issue of a political system leading to an outcome, that produces a certain culture which makes it hard to change above mentioned political system. People are a part of that and it is true that if all people just were to know this and stand up for it that would be easily fixable. But in the same moment the people broadly are the way they are because of the systems they grew up in and if that system was different you wouldn't have the problem either.
So who is to blame? Depends on what you're after personally and whst you think an effective strategy for getting there is. I think getting rid of incentives that lead to negative political outcomes is a good thing and effective way to change society. Much more effective than begging people to think a certain way.
>Political systems needs vents for frustration, and the US system does not have that.
Out of curiosity since you made this claim and said you're european, where are the EU vents of frustration that the US lacks?
Because I see it differently. Trump IS the frustration vent itself but people refuse to acknowledge this and look for something else to blame as if people shouldn't be allowed to use their vote for a crazy candidate as a vent of frustration, and the frustration vent should be a virtually inexistent token piece.
> Out of curiosity since you made this claim and said you're european, where are the EU vents of frustration that the US lacks?
Proportional representation definitely helps here. You could look at the UK as a good counter-example, where the UKIP (a Brexit supporting party) got like 15% of the votes in the 2015 election, and no seats. Where people see that voting doesn't change anything, they'll look for some other way to effect change.
That being said, PR doesn't really appear to be working that well. I (personally) think that a lot of the issues relate to free flows of capital across the world, which leads businesses to be set up in areas of cheap labour, which makes people in developed countries angry and more likely to vote for anyone who'll promise to fix it (regardless of how insane their ideas are).
But it's complicated, monocausal explanations are typically deceptive.
With this logic doesn't the US have proportional representation as well? Didn't Trump win the popular vote and republicans the senate? The majority of voters won, end of story, and the ones who lost have another chance in 3 years to flip the board. Where exactly is the missing vent valve you were talking about?
>think that a lot of the issues relate to free flows of capital across the world, which leads businesses to be set up in areas of cheap labour, which makes people in developed countries angry and more likely to vote for anyone who'll promise to fix it
Well yeah that's the big issue, but nobody will win the elections by saying they are slaves of the capital class and doesn't matter who you vote for as they are powerless to change the crooked financial system that actually runs the world even if they win the elections since the finance systems globally connected and easily moves to the areas with most stability and tax benefits even if they are undemocratic.
No. The US has a first past the post system that naturally forms two parties which in turn fuels further polarization. A rep runs in a district and it's winner take all. In theory (totally unrealistic in practice) you could have a single party win all the seats by achieving 51% in each individual election. The other 49% of voters (ie approximately half of the country) wouldn't receive a single representative.
Proportional representation has advantages but comes with its own complexities. However there are also other voting systems (such as ranked) that offer different tradeoffs independent of proportional representation. There are a lot of options out there and pretty much all of them would be more functional than what we use in the US.
About the only thing our system has going for it is that someone with an IQ well below 100 can still fully understand and even help audit it. (Or at least that used to be the case before electronic voting machines started appearing.)
> Well yeah that's the big issue, but nobody will win the elections by saying they are slaves of the capital class and doesn't matter who you vote for as they are powerless to change the crooked financial system that actually runs the world even if they win the elections since the finance systems globally connected and easily moves to the areas with most stability and tax benefits even if they are undemocratic.
This is a political choice that has been made by governments, and continues to be supported by governments. It's definitely helpful for capital to make people believe that it's a law of nature but capital controls existed in the US until Nixon removed them, and much later in other places.
> Where exactly is the missing vent valve you were talking about?
So FPTP typically forces people into 2 parties because it's the only way to win enough power. So all the extremists (in terms of being far away from the centre of public opinion) basically have to join one of the two major parties and attempt to take them over, which is basically what Trump did with the Republicans and also what happened to the UK Conservative party post Brexit.
In a PR system, you'd end up with some compromise where the democratic socialists and the greens or MAGA or Libertarians held the balance of power in the house, and the Republicans and Democratic parties would need to negotiate with them on what they wanted to accomplish.
The benefit here would be that the voters of the smaller parties would get some of what they want, and the bigger parties would be forced to compromise with others rather than ruling all for the two years between mid-terms.
Look at the right wing parties in Europe. They have a decade or two headstart on the MAGA movement. They are getting real power, but it is also moderated by what their coalition can accept.
We are also seeing for example France and the UK dealing with the same problem as the US due to its lackluster electoral system. Not allowing any vents.
The UK venting became Brexit, and then never went away and is today Reform.
The venting becomes a spectrum. One extreme is the US with large constituencies and first past the post voting. Where any vote made by the heart is discouraged.
A little bit less extreme is Australia. Still single member constituencies but you are encouraged to vote first with your heart, and then with your brain. Leading to representation heavily weighted towards the incumbents but some representation for the issues people truly care about.
Then you have proportional parliamentary systems. Here you decide what level of venting you need based on the percentage requirements to enter the parliament.
In Sweden it is 4% of national vote or 12% of a constituency. Single question parties generally need to broaden their spectrum but will get in if enough people care.
In the Netherlands it is 0.67% and you have a flourishing of parties but problems forming coalitions.
Personally I would say - do local constituencies so geographical areas are represented and pick a percentage which works for you.
Pick 10% and you focus on executive action. Pick 1% and you focus on the town hall of messages. But don't pick something where no vent is possible, like first past the post systems.
That is a very simplified take. Congress has been locking up for the past decades and is now unable to do useful regulation for the people. Much of it is due to how the funding of candidates works and the feedback loop effect it had on the political culture.
Trump is a symptom of this failure of political culture too.
...A political culture the public has voted for by allowing it to continue despite being bound by a constitutional duty to prevent the same disenfranchisement you've described.
America will be judged by its own demonic standards. The standard by which they justified their participation in the Holocaust of Gaza ("they voted for it").
Foreign and Billionaire demonic interest have disenfranchised the people long ago. Luckily the people have a second-amendment constitutional duty to re-secure the free state. It's clear America is no longer a free state. One cannot be free in a panopticon.
Primaries are kinda insane though. It basically means that a small minority of voters control who actually is allowed to stand for election under a party banner. Like, I understand how it ended up this way, but it's having really bad consequences.
That being said, if you could fix gerrymandering, a lot of the issues with primaries go away, as there would be more competition in the actual election which would dis-incentivise proposing extremist candidates in the primary.
“The size of Denmark’s investment in US Treasury bonds, like Denmark itself, is irrelevant.”
So an ally is irrelevant.
People wonder why the EU is built the way it is, and behaves the way it does. It's precisely to avoid this. To bind Germany and France together and avoid the big powers treating smaller neighbors like this. I guess that's bad to some people.
This is not a trade dispute over something signed last summer. It's a lot bigger than that.
The U.S. needs changes in its constitution if it ever wants to go back to where it was and get the rest of the world to play along again.
The fact that the DoJ is not an independent institution unlike in almost every other western country makes it impossible to uphold the law if the white house doesn't want to. The only thing preventing a sitting president from going after his political enemies is a "gentleman's agreement" between administrations in the United States.
Stability it key and there isn't any as we can see clearly.
Vance has none of whatever Trump used to entrance 50% of Americans. MAGA dies with Trump, although I'm sure something else will come end replace it, if the issues that led to it aren't fixed.
Do you really think the threat that “JD Vance might be unhappy with you, and would direct the literally tens of people who like him to vote against you in primaries” would keep the Republicans in congress under control? Trump’s whole thing is his weaponisation of a cult of personality. Vance doesn’t have a personality at all (and I’d assume he was chosen for that reason, Trump not wanting the competition.) He’d be dead in the water from day one.
Let's not underestimate the ability of Fox News, Peter Thiel, Turning Point USA, Newsmax, Truth Social, and Elon Musk's Twitter to manufacture a enough of a cult.
You will have to translate this German language article, but this is NOT Trump. It is about the tech billionaires supporting this quest, and why they want it.
I doubt Trump would have ever even thought of Greenland on his own. I think was told about it, and the narrative planted in his head deliberately.
This focus on "Trump" in Internet comments and media irks me to no end. Trump is not a failure and not the wrong person in the job - he is ideal for those behind him. The money does not like public attention.
This gets me thinking that the US would benefit so much from trading its income tax for an aggressive estate tax. The US would have far greater tax revenue, the standard of living would dramatically increase for the average citizen, and idiots like these two would be powerless. Let influence be reserved for those who have built it.
I knew this would come up so specifically searched for the comment. And I knew the death rate for cars would be >>>> than trains.
HOWEVER, there is something unique scary about a single incident that kills more people that fit in a typical car. Combined with the fact that you have 0 control over it is much more frightening (for lack of a better word) than car static deaths.
Just my opnion, may not be rational but I'd still rather be behind the wheel?
I may feel in control inside of my car, but it's up to the rest of the general populace to not T-bone me and kill me on every intersection and roundabout I pass. Every corner is a risk where someone can steer into my lane and cause a frontal collision. Every highway off-ramp, a suicidal driver may try to kill himself against my car. Every truck I pass is a possible burst tyre away from crushing me against the barriers. And that's outside of the car; pedestrians are at the whim of any vehicle.
Most people usually behave on the road, stick to driving legally, don't drink or do drugs behind the wheel, and can manage to stop safely in dangerous situations. However, I feel like many people overestimate how well they could control their car in a dangerous scenario.
100% true, and it may not be rational vs statistics. However in your case your control is still > 0. Seasoned drivers have a six sense about the environment.
* Everyone over estimates their driving ability vs the average
* No matter how much control you think you have, there are always things outside your control.
I'll take a trip by train or plane rather than by car every single time.
I feel WAY more safe knowing that the vehicle is operated by trained professionals and there's an extremely robust system around them to ensure safety, rather than whatever semblance of control I think I have driving my car.
Maybe if it's a trip I do once in a while. But going from Málaga to Madrid and back once a week, in a car, driving? Or Barcelona <> Madrid once a week? No, hard pass, I'd rather be driven by someone else, in a comfy carriage, where I can comfortably sleep or do other things in the meantime.
Me and thousands of others agree, otherwise we wouldn't have one of the most expansive train networks in the world. Spain might be larger than people think, driving to everywhere in the country while fun, isn't feasible for repeated trips, the distances are just too large.
With that said, every once in a while a road trip with a car is really nice, maybe every 1-2 years, and driving across Europe stopping when you see something interesting or driving towards interesting things you see in the distance. Hard to get that same "explorer" feeling with other modes of transportation :)
True, I don't drive or take public transportation for a commute so I wasn't thinking of that scenario. I wasn't thinking of a scenario where I HAD to do it frequently.
Afaik, that's how lots (most?) of the train network is used here, cheap commuting to/from work on the weekdays, and to/from birthplace/family-town/city/closest metropolitan area on the weekends/holidays. Probably true for most places with extensive train networks, come to think of it.
Yes, it's the same as with nuclear vs coal. A nuclear disaster is so spectacular that it attracts a lot of attention. Meanwhile, millions of kids suffering from asthma, dying of cancer, etc. don't make the 9pm news because it's harder to connect the dots.
You have to divide that by miles travelled to get a meaningful number - trains will still be a lot safer, but comparing oranges to apples doesn't help the argument
Don't worry, after a few years everyone will agree with me. 2 years ago I was talking about the "Not just X, but Y" slop marker and no one had an idea what I was talking about. Now even the average corporate marketer recognizes it as an immediate slop hallmark. Slop websites, and Lucide being one of their hallmarks, are now where that phrase was 2 years ago.
A case can be made to discuss if the deadlines imposed by that law are actually achievable with humans and an acceptable degree of errors (i.e. overredaction, improper/recoverable redaction, and underredaction).
That's also why many "large" criminal cases only have a very limited subset of the initial charges make it to trial (often to understandable public outrage). The larger the case, the more evidence material has to be sifted through to make an airtight case, so a lot of it is dropped before the trial to secure a conviction at all.
Basically Al Capone, rinse and repeat - they got him on taxes because that's far easier to prove than ordering or committing a murder to the required degree of certainty.
The interests of the victims, their families and the general public are different from the interests of the government... the victims/families/public want justice for the unique crime they were subject to, the government just wants to lock up the bad guy for as long (or as short, let's be clear) as possible.
> A case can be made to discuss if the deadlines imposed by that law are actually achievable with humans and an acceptable degree of errors (i.e. overredaction, improper/recoverable redaction, and underredaction).
But just a few months ago, they came out and said there were no more documents to release, now there are too many documents that it's not humanly possible to release the documents in said time frame?
> But just a few months ago, they came out and said there were no more documents to release
That lie is a different but just as pressing problem. But that, at least, is far easier to hold the responsible people accountable... assuming of course someone actually wants to dive into that rabbit hole, and current Congress doesn't look like it will. Maybe after the mid-terms there will be some movement if the shift is serious enough, but for now I'll assume the worst case that either no one will be held accountable, or Trump will issue a blanket pardon again.
This is what we are looking at at one of my clients. A2A clients (Slack, Google Meet, considering email) to A2A Orchestrator server (in-house, might be open-sourced) with specialized subagents for e.g. GitHub issue creation following a specific teams patterns and conventions, hooked up to company-wide MCP gateway with federated OIDC trust for passthrough auth (https://www.gatana.ai)
Works pretty well so far. Biggest issue i foresee for success is user UX for average employee, and actually useful use-cases.
reply