A "genuine ownership stake in the AI compute that's making things happen" sounds to me like corpo-speak for "taxpayer-funded bailout of my unprofitable company". After all, if everyone has a stake in AI, and AI crashes, then everyone (not just OpenAI) loses their money
This isn't a binary distinction -- safe vs unsafe. Things you put in your body have a risk profile. The risk profile of raw milk is much higher than pasteurized milk, regardless of how hygienic you think you're being. Cows step in mud, their own feces, the feces of other animals, dirty water, and many other things that can splash up and onto (and into) their udders, contaminating their milk with pathogens.
Letting people make their own choices always has its limits, regardless of what people say (rather casually on the Internet). When nearly all health systems in the world work through the healthy subsidizing the unhealthy, we should be attempting to limit preventable illness.
In any case, I don't think there's any country or state that bans drinking raw milk. If you're on a farm and you want to drink your own milk, go ahead. Just don't claim it's safe enough to sell, because it really isn't.
Yup. I never even use activate, even though that's what you find in docs all over the place. Something about modifying my environment rubs me the wrong way. I just call ``./venv/bin/python driver.py`` (or ``./venv/bin/driver`` if you install it as a script) which is fairly self-evident, doesn't mess with your environment, and you can call into as many virtualenvs as you need to independently from one another.
``uv`` accomplishes the same thing, but it is another dependency you need to install. In some envs it's nice that you can do everything with the built-in Python tooling.
In addition to what others have mentioned, it also just makes it easier to come back later to a code base and make changes, especially refactoring. In many cases you don't even really have to add many type hints to get benefits from it, since many popular libraries are more-or-less already well-typed. It can also substitute for many kinds of unit tests that you would end up writing even 5 years ago. If you're an infrastructure engineer or data scientist that's usually just writing a lot of glue code, then it greatly helps speed up your output (I've found)
Just run the code that provisions the infrastructure? Sandboxing is the least of your problems. You would need to fully mock out all function executions and their results to have a hope to properly execute the code let alone govern what's happening without affecting a live environment. And even still, there would be ways to fool this kind of introspection, as I mentioned. In an enterprise environment where this kind of governance is mandatory, that's not acceptable.
In any case, regardless whatever clever method you try to use, even if you're successful, it's not as straightforward and easily understood and extensible as OPA policy. Let's say you succeed in governing Rust code. OK, but now I have developers who are writing in Python and Java and TypeScript. What now? Develop a new, customized solution for each one? No thanks
I agree somewhat with the proposition that YAML is annoying for configuring something like a workflow engine (CI systems) or Kubernetes. But having it defined in YAML is actually preferable in an enterprise context. It makes it trivial to run something like OPA policy against the configuration so that enterprise standards and governance can be enforced.
When something is written in a real programming language (that doesn't just compile down to YAML or some other data format), this becomes much more challenging. What should you do in that case? Attempt to parse the configuration into an AST and operate over the AST? But in many programming languages, the AST can become arbitrarily complex. Behavior can be implemented in such a way as to make it difficult to discover or introspect.
Of course, YAML can also become difficult to parse too. If the system consuming the YAML supports in-band signalling -- i.e. proprietary non-YAML directives -- then you would need to first normalize the YAML using that system to interpret and expand those signals. But in principal, that's still at least more tractable than trying to parse an AST.
Are we already forgetting the Lebanon pager incident? It only happened last year. It seems perfectly rational to question the home country of a spyware company (of all things) when that country has in recent memory infected the supply chain of commodity electronics to booby-trap pagers and walkie talkies to explode and kill their putative enemies.
Let's also not forget that that country's paid spokesmen (both Israeli and American) were joking for months about those explosions, even lobbing it as a threat to their perceived enemies -- on live TV no less!
I think people should be highly skeptical of articles like this, even without knowing anything about the subject in question. No byline/author. No citations/links to the studies in question. Confirmation of preconceived notions that people would like to be true (e.g. the sun as a wellness remedy instead of damaging to skin), including unfounded "just so" stories and claims about evolution, diabetes, and other unrelated topics. Named individuals seem to "specialize" in sunlight as a wellness remedy (seems like a big red flag to me). No actual physical theory as to how it could be true (more vitamin D reduces death by up to 50%? how? your body only needs so much vitamin D and it's not actually all that much).
And sure enough, if you look up any details on the studies in question, they are highly questionable. Vastly different populations studied with very weak controls. For example, sunscreen use -- both chemical and physical, i.e. hats -- was not controlled for. Seems like a big problem since that's the primary claim being made! And it seems like such an obvious thing. It makes one wonder why it was omitted.
The facts of the "status quo" of sun exposure dangers, on the other hand, have quite a lot more going for them, both in terms of study quality and in terms of physical explanation/interpretation. UV radiation physically damages DNA, even when you don't burn. Tanning is a response to skin cell damage, so any additional melanin production in your skin is indication that your DNA is being damaged. Damaged DNA means when your cells reproduce, they reproduce the damage and/or otherwise mutate. If that damage or mutation happens to be cancerous, then you have a big problem. Tanning, contrary to what people seem to think, doesn't inoculate you against skin cancer or damage. It merely helps absorb a higher percentage of UV radiation -- meaning your skin is still getting damaged, just at a slightly lower rate (a helpful, though marginal, evolutionary advantage).