Have I actually reduced complexity? I certainly prefer this over loops and if statements but does the pipeline and lamdas count as reducing cyclomatic complexity?
The basic problem is that they had built a domesday machine in Europe, which was the mobilization schedule.
After the Franco Prussian war people realized that the next war would involve massive armies full of mobilized (conscripted) men and the country that could mobilize first would win. Countries spend decades planning for this by manufacturing enormous stockpiles of uniforms, giving their entire male population military training, etc.
But the mobilization schedule for even the fastest country was still measured in weeks, but this was a process where days count. Basically once the decision was made to mobilize millions of people across an entire modern society would leap into action transforming itself into a marshal society. Millions of people getting called up, trains full of equipment going everywhere.
Turning off a mobilization that was in progress was fairly difficult to conceive of, so once the decision was made the flywheel would take over, but decision to mobilize had to be made in a pressure cooker environment where hours mattered.
The death of the duke wasn't the "cause" of WWI it was the starting gun for a race where the horses were all waiting impatiently at the starting line.
Not really. It took a full month for the austrian to send Serbia its ultimatum. If the ultimatum was given imediatly after the assassination, both France and Russia would have let Serbia go.
Also, in France Caillaux, one of the most powerful pacifist in the government (he had the economy and was _good_ at it, which is rare enough to be noted), who was anti-war, had to be let go because his wife killed a journalist (not really a journalist, but adjascent enough so that the difference don't matter) around the same time, leaving Jaurès alone to push Viviani to let it go. Plus Viviani was with the Tsar in Russia when the ultimatum was given, which surely did not help _at all_. Especially since Rasputin was out of the capital at the time. Truly an unfortunate timing here.
Plus the death of multiple diplomats involved in the prevention of WW1 at least once in 1911, who all decided to die around the same time (the last two in 1914, Pressensé and obviously Hartwig, whose death was truly, truly unfortunate).
And here i'm only aware of French people who would have prevented the war (beside Hartwig and Rasputin, but everybody know about them), but i'm pretty sure even more people in Germany and in Austria could have done the same.
Using the same logic (important diplomats dead or retired or disgraced) you could say that firing Bismark caused the war.
If the top diplomats had managed to avert the Serbia crisis then the war would have been delayed until the next crisis.
The fundamental problem is Europe had built itself a civilization-strattling war machine with no "abort" button and put the start button on a hair trigger (the interlocking treaty system).
Yes, a common view at the time was that the only de-escalation possible would have been through workers cooperation, which is why so much of the Marxist flank of the SFIO argued in favour of pacifism: to buy time for the workers to unite.
Which probably wouldn't have worked, but maybe it could have been a much, much smaller conflict.
Understanding the lesson of the Guns of August was a big part of the anti-MAD/nuclear disarmament movement during the cold war: if you build a doomsday weapon eventually you will use it. A country does not spend as much effort and money as the European powers spent preparing for war without eventually going to war.
Again, boarding a Chinese vessel similarly wouldn’t “cause” WWIII. But it would be a trigger and for non-pedantic usage of causation, proximate causes are also causes.
My first thought is, does this mean that along with the burnout I'm feeling with talking to my own agents I now need to try and consume and understand my teammates conversations with agents? Why is this better than a good pr description that distills completed work and explains why it was required ?
Yes, but compared to seeing 3k lines of code in a PR with no history with vibes in the description, what is better? This definitely "feels" like something worth exploring.
You can defer review entirely to an LLM, only to human reviewers, or both. We are experimenting with both and have configured LLM skills for pull request reviews. On large projects we also configure LLMs to produce commit segregated diffs within a single pull request, to aid human review. This process is using the github pull request workflow that Zed is attempting to replace.
Anyway, I'm probably being over cynical and yes it is worth exploring alternatives to the current system.
However I already feel overwhelmed dealing with agent chats. I can't currently see how this deals with the pr problem:
If I am supposed to delegate to agents why do my conversations need reviewed by my peers. This feels like classic bad management practices of not trusting the staff below you to get on with it, instead turn up in every meeting.
Software Engineers avoid coding more than any other type of people I have ever met. It's clearly not better but much easier for the Engineers who just want the results without knowing anything about the solution.
Their software is so poor that it caused probably the biggest miscarriage of justice in history. Well that and Fujitsu staff colluding with post office executives to put innocent people in prison rather than admit there was a problem
The 'Fujitsu' that made the shitty software was a British consulting company that was acquired by Fujitsu [1] to farm public contracts. This is made by the Japanese parent company.
You're right, but the scandal is so upsetting that I personally cannot ever look at Fujitsu the same way even. Also, I think you're neglecting that a large part of why it became so bad was that Fujitsu claimed there was no issue with their software. Even if it were built by a company they acquired, the response to the developing situation was something that the parent company should have stepped in to oversee.
In a very specific legal sense, it isn't, we are talking about two entirely separate legal entities (and ultimately groups of people) which have a relation of ownership, not directorship.
Does mister work with kv260 boards "out of the box" or is the official mister target a de10 nano? (I love my mister, assembled oneba few years ago). I don't follow the project closely due to zero free time these days
You have to base your build around either the DE10-Nano or one of the clone boards from QMTech. If I were getting into MiSTer I would skip faffing around with dev board builds and just get a SuperStation One, and I say this as someone who has two MiSTer builds based on DE-10 boards. In my case I'm using a MiniITX motherboard that the DE-10 plugs into called the IronClad Plus. The SuperStation one is apparently awesome. Great IO options, reference quality analog video, and nice industrial design.
They will not get as safe as cars. They are inherently dangerous, it's like taking a car and removing every safety feature. Removing doors, windows and belts. There's a reason that there is a legal requirement in many countries to wear a helmet.
I spent some time in Vietnam back in 2005, after getting a few lifts on the the back of mopeds in both Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, I decided to look up some road traffic accident stats for those cities: I never took another lift like that again.
reply