if you have a dependency with version 0.0.3 and a new version 0.0.4 appears, do you consider it a patch version suitable for automatic or near automatic upgrade, or kind of a major version since it's a bump in the first non-zero digit?
if you use automated tools to keep dependencies current, how do they handle cases like this?
@SteveRoth kind of a companion. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BOGZ1LM193064005Q
“taxes are used to incentivize behaviors that are good for the nation and discourage behaviors that are destructive to the nation. This is where Reaganomics has not only screwed average American working people but screwed American business — particularly small and medium-sized businesses — as well.” @ThomHartmann https://hartmannreport.com/p/why-the-corporate-tax-bracket-should-467
in the contemporary economy, either the walls are closing in on you, or you have joined one of the walls.
@thepracticaldev #scala with #scalacli is amazing for scripting.
a jury of your peers is a jury of peeers.
there can be a strange symmetry between referring to people as nazis and referring to people as vermin.
“Part-time work can also be a means of control. Because employers have total discretion over hours, they can use reduced schedules to punish employees who complain or seem likely to unionize — even though workers can’t legally be fired for union-related activity — while more pliant workers are rewarded with better schedules.”
My sister #AdelleWaldman has a great op-ed in The New York Times today. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/19/opinion/part-time-workers-usa.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Wk0.v6s_.9JWuaBzNIRdr&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
@akkartik yes. and punishment always involves harming innocents.
@akkartik “deterrence by denial” means you keep a serious force around ready to fight and defend. it’s expensive.
“deterrence by punishment” means you can leave a nice basically undefended border, and buy security by the capacity to cause massive harm if it is violated. deterrence by punishment is cheaper.
it’s best to do both, but if you slack off on denial you may actually have to punish. Then you end up with Gaza, and our many dilemmas surrounding Ukraine.
@akkartik you have to meet Darth Vader with a credible threat of punishing his unilateral alterations of the deal. but the point of maintaining that credible threat is to sustain the deal without ever having to resort to violence at all.
@akkartik (even better than punishment, much better than punishment, is to ensure he never has the capacity to unilaterally alter the deal. because even when you can punish, adventurism+effective punishment means an awful catastrophe, while prevention, denial of the capacity to adventure at all, yields a mutually beneficial peace.)
@akkartik right. GHWB, for all his flaws, understood that enforcing the norm of sovereign borders would be undermined by a noble crusade against an evil leader. unfortunately, he failed to plan for how to find a new “normal”, a reasonably just peace, if Saddam didn’t fall to internal rivals, as his administration anticipated. the US was left unwilling to accept the peace our own war created, creating pressure to “finish the job”.
@akkartik absolutely. but when that happens, it reflects a failure. Putin’s crimes are on him morally, but in a technocratic way we signally and pretty egregiously failed, grew lazy, took some kinds of war to be unthinkable so ceased to take seriously sustaining conditions under which a would-be adventurer would either not dare to, or else not desire to, transgress. we did a poor job with both the stick of deterrence and the carrot of integration with respect to Russia.
@akkartik he’s a bad motherfucker, for sure! but that’s not what matters. the reason we don’t and shouldn’t cede Ukraine to him is that would set the condition for further military adventurism by him and others. the credible threat of defensive war is almost always an essential condition of a reasonably just peace. 1/
@akkartik but we do not fight Putin to destroy him, even though he’s a bad motherfucker. we resist his adventurism to sustain the preconditions for a reasonably just peace, in particular the condition that territorial borders cannot be revised in favor of an aggressor by military force. 2/
@akkartik the world will always have bad people, including sometimes horrible leaders, and we will be horrible if we make it our task to stand as judge, jury, and executioner of those we (even correctly!) consider bad. some countries we are friendly towards have mass murderers as their leaders too. 3/
@akkartik but we should, and i am glad to say mostly do, draw the line at the lines. it might feel more noble to depose Putin, Netanyahu, Xi, MBS, all of whom in their way are pretty plainly mass murderers and oppressors. but that would set the stage for eternal war, rather than reasonably just peace. 4/
@akkartik enforcing a broadly consensual Westphalian settlement, on the other hand, is something nearly all political communities can live with, a consensus against which violators can be rendered pariahs and met with overwhelming force and likelihood of failure. /fin
@akkartik who is the oppressor? it’s a very totalizing word, like the devil to Christian nationalists, a kind of reification of implacable evil rather than an analysis of concrete institutions, relationships, and mechanisms that might be altered.
@SteveRoth I can't speak for David, but I think the claim is that in a Ricardian regime, there's an equilibrium inflation rate. An increase in the interest rate will temporarily bring the inflation rate lower than that, but it will be transitory — the rate will return to the equilibrium. 1/
@SteveRoth In a non-Ricardian regime, the equilibrium inflation rate is not independent of the interest rate. 2/
@SteveRoth So if the inflation rate starts at an equilibrium of n%, increasing the interest rate will (cet par) lead to a transient decrease in the inflation rate to some rate <n% (same as before, the conventionally anticipated effect), but when the transient effect wears off, the new equilibrium at the new interest rate has inflation now at some rate *higher* than n%, rather than merely revering to n% as under a Ricardian regime. 3/
@SteveRoth So if a naive central bank targets n% by raising interest rates when actual inflation is above n%, they get a "sugar high" (or sugar low) of disinflation, it seems to work, but then inflation reverts to a value even higher than its starting point, then the idiot central bank does it again, etc. each tightening's respite is just a prelude to an even worse catastrophe. 4/
@SteveRoth So even though in the short run, raising interest rates works under both regimes, only under the conventional model of a Ricardian regime is interest rate policy straightforwardly good policy. The effect is transient in both cases, but under the Ricardian regime it does no long-term harm, while in the non-Ricardian (more realistic, at least on face) regime, the transient desired effect is just a prelude for an even worse situation. /fin
much nobler than the fight is creating the conditions for or helping to sustain the conditions of an imperfectly but largely just peace.
our consummation left us unconsumed, and then we were unsure how to continue to live.
neoliberal porn:
did you ever wonder just how much the market will bare?
