This is a weird analogy. You can ask the A.I. to fix the issue at any time of day (assuming the person asking someone with enough technical knowledge that can evaluate the fix at least).
You won't always be able to get ahold of someone at 2am. You won't be able to get ahold of me at 2am, for example. It'll throw some notification on my screen and I won't see it until I wake up.
Depends on the country. In some countries, it is a legal axiom (or at least identity).
For the other countries, though, arguing "some countries do it that way" is as persuasive as "some countries drive on the other side of the road." It's true, but so what? Why should we change to do it their way?
> Depends on the country. In some countries, it is a legal axiom (or at least identity).
As I said, "That may be true in some jurisdictions, but it's not axiomatically or definitionally true.". The law is emphatically not an axiom, nor is it definitionally right or wrong, or correct or incorrect; it only defines what's legal or illegal.
When the article raised the question of whether "building software is an engineering discipline", it was very obviously not asking a question about whether the term 'engineering' is legally restricted in any particular jurisdiction.
To my mind, the term "engineering discipline" implies something roughly analogous to Electrical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Chemical Engineering.
There is no such rigorous definition for "software engineer" which normally is just a self-granted title meaning "I write code."
Software was an engineering discipline... at some places. And it still is, at some places.
Other places were "hack it until we don't know of any major bugs, then ship it before someone finds one". And now they're "hey, AI agents - we can use that as a hack-o-matic!" But they were having trouble with sustainability before, and they're going to still, except much faster.
Far too calmly. This is exactly why the Constitution requires Congress to declare war - so that we can't wind up in a war because of the decisions of one man.
This was true of past conflicts as well. Doe v. Bush tried to challenge the Iraq Resolution because Congress had not declared war, but the US Court of Appeals dismissed the case because Congress had not opposed funding the war. The sad reality is that this is what the people had voted for, and the government is still working as intended.
Sure, but do we agree that the unitedstatesian's (pet peeve: they shouldn't be called americans, per definition) Congress could at least stop one side of the war (the one that initiated the aggression). The Iranians would probably call that a victory, and probably not pursue further retaliation.
The US would then need to comply with whatever sanctions the UN might apply due to them having started an illegal war.
> The Iranians would probably call that a victory, and probably not pursue further retaliation.
I highly doubt it. Here are the facts from the viewpoint of Iran:
- The US and the UK overthrew the democratic iranian government of Mohammad Mosaddegh
- The US terminated the working nuclear deal.
- The US ambushed Iran twice in the midst of ongoing negotiations.
- Israel is on a conquest to annex new land and to rule over the middle east. At least that is likely there goal.
Iran clearly stated their demands. The US should pay up for the damage they caused and the US should give up its military bases in the Arab countries.
While the money will probably not be that big of a problem to negotiate, the military bases will be. At least Iran will insist on something substantive that guarantees that they are not ambushed a third time.
But from the non-Iranian point of view, those countries want those bases to protect them against Iran. So that's going to be problematic.
I mean, the US could unilaterally decide "no, we're not going to defend the Middle East anymore, good luck everybody" and leave. But it's not like the US is oppressing, say, Qatar by having a base there. They willingly let the US stay there.
> those countries want those bases to protect them against Iran.
As far as I know: Israel and Saudi Arabia want these bases. I do not know the current opinion of the other Arab countries.
> Qatar by having a base there. They willingly let the US stay there.
At least they are now noticing that there are risks in hosting the US military too.
> “One of the most significant outcomes of this war is the shattering of the concept of a regional security system in the Gulf region,” Mr. al-Ansari said. “The regional security framework in the Gulf was based on certain axioms. Many of these axioms have been bypassed in the current war.”
It started before that. When assemblers came out, (some) programmers worried about losing touch with the machine if they didn't have to know the instructions in octal.
Southwest Airlines got sued by some other company over, IIRC, color schemes. Southwest's CEO (Herb Kelleher) made an offer to the other CEO: They skip the lawyers and settle it with an arm-wrestling contest. The other CEO agreed.
Eventually, they wound up selling tickets to the match, and donated the proceeds to charity.
Oh, it can't take the phone call and fix the issue? Then I'm reviewing its output before it goes into prod.
reply