I like the law because you can quite easily formulate it without bias.
Large enough orgs will indeed get people whose job is more closely aligned with the goal vs people whose job is more closely aligned with the existence of the org. _Because_ you need to keep investing energy to keep the org in existence. You can’t just do the goal only.
But being responsible for keeping the org in existence is not the same as responsible for the goals that the org was created for in the first place.
_and_ I can see how the people whose job it is to ensure the org keeps existing will gain the majority vote.
It’s like a law of nature: the way things fall out if you’re not consciously working to have them fall out differently.
(So it can be good for google to fire them from a “let’s keep existing standpoint” even though it might be contrary to having the easiest/optimal to use product. And if that is so, the keep existing vote will have the power) I don’t use google products really that much so I can’t speak to the merits of this example.
To be fair schema.org and dublin core say “when a property is name ‘title’ it means …” and you can expect to find the following properties…
Json-ld says: if you want to know whether the “title” property means the schema.org or the dublin core variant then you can find out which it is by <json-ld algorithm>
So you’d always use json-ld _with_ schema.org or something.
You’d end up implementing your own home grown version of hash join and query pushdown (skipping parquet row groups entirely) etc and your own home grown heuristics in selecting the right one (planning)
Which can outperform a generic solution like this of course, but it’s not less work to make faster for most cases.
Also duckdb can give you access to an in memory representation (e.g. `fetch_arrow_table()`) so you have less “language data structure wrapping” overhead. And you can do filtering yourself on that. In most cases the “where” statements will win though.
> Is it easier to build or repair a radio now than it was when they were first sold?
"Build"[1], yes. "Repair", not really. A lot of things (like radio) can be an isolated module you just drop in.
Right now a bright HS student can produce a clock radio by plugging together an arduino, an I2C FM receiver, I2C display, an I2C audio amp and a speaker. Pop it all into an enclosure and you have a real clock radio.
Compare to building a clock radio back in 1990 - you'll have to understand how to wire up an op-amp, the principles behind op-amps, how to drive the readout from a clock, etc.
-------------------
[1] By "build" I assume you mean "assemble from parts".
Well not really, i imagine you'd have grabbed a HeathKit clock radio kit and assembled it without knowing how an opamp worked, or you did what i would have done and taped wires from a 9V to the hands of an analog clock such that they'd power on a transistor radio at a specific time lol
But this is about building radios, which is easier (probably?) now. You can drag and drop an FM radio in pure software (well, with a USB dongle). Or if you insist on hardware, use free tools and cheap PCB services to prototype your radio, grab the parts from Digikey and follow a Youtube tutorial to solder it all together.
3D printers are mostly still repairable and far more reliable and usable than a few years ago when the majority of the hobby wasn’t making stuff, it was tuning the printer to work reliably. Bambu and California may be signalling that the enshittification inflection point is near.
Not quite the same level, but home/hobby electronics with tiny microcontrollers is more accessible than ever before thanks to the availability of cheap ESP8266/32 clones.
And there are some obvious individual counter-examples - Framework computers, or repairable blenders[0]… but you’ve got to pay a premium for the privilege.
But broadly you’re totally right - in the modern world, by the time something becomes a mainstream product aimed at general consumers, there’s a profit to be made and it’s likely on a downwards path.
They do actually. There’s a fair bit of critique you can level at the system from a country-wide economic perspective and especially from a world-trade perspective, but they did manage to get a system in place where a central government can influence both the area and speed of innovation.
The main thing they do is stack the market to be very favourable for a given industry and then have extreme competition between the companies.
Discrimination is just another word for “treating differently”. The discrimination that we generally disallow is the one where it relates to humans and where they are treated differently based on attributes they have no control over. That were either an accident of birth or faith (which is special cased as something you should not put pressure on).
When estinating a loan default, even of 99 people with a purple skin color default on a loan, the hundredth should not be expected to default on the loan just because of the skin color. Both because this is scientifically wrong (it’s not the skin color that causes them to default. There’s a confounding variable) and because it would put someone in a position that they can never get out of.
So the answer to your question is simple: you make a model where the attributes are causal factors for loan default. And you might need to special case attributes that are an accident of birth but that list is finite (listed in the law) and short and generally constructed to exclude strong causal variables.
yes, that's where a conference was held that kickstarted the group that drafted this declaration.
> In September 2025 the Lorentz Center at Leiden University in the Netherlands hosted a conference entitled Mechanization and Mathematical Research. The around 60 participants from 10 countries comprised mathematicians, computer scientists, philosophers, historians and social scientists, including those with experience in industry and in government.
Before backbone there was already knockout.js which was based on signals. Which is what all the hip frameworks are converging on now anyway. You could have bypassed all the drama.
You want an idp who verified that the account belongs to a specific citizen. There needs to be some loop closing between your bsn (akin to a social security number) and user accounts. That in itself is not something you can just handoff to auth0 or that you want different departments to self select and self-host.
Digid is used to submit taxes and for getting benefits from the government.
I like the law because you can quite easily formulate it without bias.
Large enough orgs will indeed get people whose job is more closely aligned with the goal vs people whose job is more closely aligned with the existence of the org. _Because_ you need to keep investing energy to keep the org in existence. You can’t just do the goal only.
But being responsible for keeping the org in existence is not the same as responsible for the goals that the org was created for in the first place.
_and_ I can see how the people whose job it is to ensure the org keeps existing will gain the majority vote.
It’s like a law of nature: the way things fall out if you’re not consciously working to have them fall out differently.
(So it can be good for google to fire them from a “let’s keep existing standpoint” even though it might be contrary to having the easiest/optimal to use product. And if that is so, the keep existing vote will have the power) I don’t use google products really that much so I can’t speak to the merits of this example.
reply