File extensions are just a hint about what the file might be and have nothing to do with what the file actually is. If the server sets the MIME type, the browser will use that as the hint.
But even beyond that, most file formats have a bit of a header at the start of the file that declares the actual format of the file. Browsers already can understand that and use the correct render for a file without an extension.
> My prediction is that junior to mid level software engineering will disappear mostly, while senior engineers will transition to be more of a guiding hand to LLMs output, until eventually LLMs will become so good, that senior people won't be needed any more.
A steeper learning curve in a professional field generally translates into higher earnings. The longer you have to be trained to be helpful, the more a job generally earns.
Type hints are were the whole Python ecosystem is going, so using them is more integration at a deeper level than using an integrated framework, which is not relying on them.
SQLAlchemy was historically a much better ORM than Django's. It's layered architecture combined with Alembic does make a difference.
I still agree that using the integrated thing anyway is probably the right way to do it if you are working in a team. I also think Django should just adopt these components and we would not have the discussion in the first place.
While it is not Django's responsibility to unite the Python ecosystem, continuing to rely on a tool a sizeable share of the community deems inferior to a popular alternative will keep these discussions open and results in the fragmentation OP is talking about.
Now of course it is not Django's responsibility to unite the Python ecosystem in the first place and they can value other factors and arguments as they see fit.
Although this very thread shows that there might have been something to it.
A corollary is the debate itself leads to a waste of effort that multiplies across all users. I use Rails only in anger, but to see literally nobody bike shed on the ORM is pretty amazing. Seems like you use Active Record or you write SQL and either way move on with life.
In ruby, the sequel database toolkit is vastly superior to activerecord, and that is a subject of discussion here and there. The difference is that rails is what most rubyists use at work, unlike in python, where choices are more diverse.
Why would Django move away from an ORM that works, at scale, in millions of deployed websites? They'd have to support both for many years in any case.
> a sizeable share of the community deems inferior
Well, yeah, SQLAlchemy is standalone, you can use it in a lot more situations than Django's ORM in practice, because you're not tied to using it in a Django site. But that doesn't mean it's "better"
New Zealand is also 4 places ahead of the US in terms of human development[0]. It would not make sense for the US to look at a country this much more developed. It should rather compare itself to its peers, e.g. Slovenia. /s
What you are describing would be totally fine, if corporations would not be able to spend money on branding and/or humans were not susceptible to that.
I’m really curious to know how a world where branding was illegal could possibly work. Branding, when it comes down to it, is reputation management. If you don’t allow anyone to manage their own reputation then you don’t really have a free society at all. Heck, even people in prison are able to manage their own reputations within the prison population.
If you suppose, by wishful thinking, that no one could know the reputation of anyone else then you would have a chaotic and unpredictable society. You’d be unable to trust anyone to act fairly in even the most trivial circumstances. It would look like an unmoderated forum where everyone is anonymous and no one can pin anything on anyone else. Quite dystopian.
From a European perspective, I would never suggest making information about individuals public, not even criminals. Even though where I am from, we seem to swing to far in the other direction when it comes to protecting the rights of perpetrators vs. the victim's rights, I think registries of any kind in that regard are a big mistake.
Nevertheless, it should be possible to set higher standards for corporate communication than for individuals. I am thinking about this more in terms of markets and information asymmetry than personal liberties. I think it is fine when corporations are required to publish what they are doing. There is room to improve how mandatory disclaimers work and for what they are required.
I'm still unclear about what you mean by not allowing "branding." Consider the following two scenarios, the first one with branding and the second one without:
1. "Hey what do you think of the new Apple iPhone 16?"
"It sounds interesting, I heard they made it easier to repair."
2. "Hey what do you think of the new Apple iPhone 16?"
"What is an Apple iPhone? I have never heard of such a thing!"
Clearly this is a rather extreme example, but I hope it illustrates what I am talking about. Branding, for Apple, involves putting their logo everywhere they can and advertising on TV, in magazines, on billboards, etc. If you disallow all of those things then it becomes much more reasonable to imagine a world in which scenario 2 is possible.
So maybe we don't want to go that far. But then where do we draw the line? Is it okay for Apple to put their logo on their stores? Is it okay for them to advertise a new iPhone on TV or in magazines? Or not? Or do you take a finer-grained approach and allow some kinds of ads but not others? Must an ad be purely informational with no music or flashy graphics/video?
I'm honestly not even clear on what the goal is with such a regime. How do you know when the law is working as intended or when it is failing to do so? Apple has succeeded in marketing themselves as an iconic fashion brand (right up there with LVMH, a European brand). Do you think such fashion brands should cease to exist? Why or why not?
The original topic of this thread was environmentalism and Apple having a greener image than they deserve, while they are just a corporation (like all others), which is following its incentives. Now, I never said I wanted to outlaw branding. I am just stating that corporations can escape the fair competition of the market by playing a meta game doing things like advertising or lobbying.
What I am suggesting is to keep the markets and let corporations follow incentives to make the best products, while trying to limit these meta games. This thread shows an example where this is arguably already working. I am suggesting to do more of it, e.g. make corporations publish reports of how they are actually doing in that regard, maybe even as a sort of disclaimer next to their own branding efforts.
I just want our rules to be a little stricter when it comes to false advertising and fraud. Why should a corporation be allowed to say: "We care for communities in America." This is not true. They care for shareholder value. There should be a disclaimer like: "We care for our community. We have no independent proof to back that up. Our main objective as a for-profit is to maximize profits. We are making XX $ / year and have in the past moved our production facilities to the cheapest location."
I am exaggerating here and am not providing a finished solution, just trying to illustrate what I mean.
> But then where do we draw the line?
That is in fact tricky, but I think our society as whole should move a little closer to facts.
We have tried systems based on some seemingly absolute moral codex. Some parts of the world are still doing it. Unfortunately it always comes with brutal ways to kill arbitrary groups of people.
I'd agree, hence that's why I said I wish there was a better system. I don't know it either. Although it might be an uncomfortable truth for me, capitalism isn't great either, but I do think it's the best system we have.
I'm currently reading a book called "Technofeudalism" by Yanis Varoufakis that investigates things along the lines you've said. My main takeaway so far is "Capitalism" hasn't always been one thing and it has evolved over the years. Capitalism of today isn't the same as the capitalism we had before the oligopolies and cloud giants, and that makes me thing differently about the statement "capitalism isn't great either, but I do think it's the best system we have."
No. If you go looking, you will find plenty of counter-examples in History. You just made a statement that the top handful of catastrophic examples were representative of the bunch.
You have massive selection bias in your sample. “Morally-based decision ends well” is not exactly something that makes headlines or that is seized upon by historians to explain memorable cataclysmic events.
You don’t need to be an ethics expert to see a difference between moral principles that lead to suffering, and moral principles that don’t.
Waving away all morality in moral nihilism is teenage-level ethical sophistication.
You are carefully trying to stay vague and are avoiding to name even a single counter-example. You are just claiming that my examples are wrong. This is the definition of a "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
Name one non-capitalistic system more moral than the currently existing ones.
All rankings trying to quantify morality and order societies by it, are consistently topped by social market economies, a form of capitalism.
> Waving away all morality in moral nihilism is teenage-level ethical sophistication.
It is also something I have never done. With the edits to your post, its nature became more and more apologetic to dictatorships. I hope this was not what you have intended.
It looked more and more like you wanted to say that morals are not an "all or nothing" thing from where it is easy to leap to being apologetic to just a little bit of (systematic) wrongdoing. But judging from your reaction, this is not what you were trying to set up.
Not at all. The main thread of my comment(s) was that moral value judgments are extremely prevalent. In fact nothing actually happens in society without someone making a value judgment. And most of the time nothing particularly crazy happens.
It’s easy to point to some barbaric act and say “see, this is what morally motivated policies result in”.
But in reality, moral value judgments are all around us in the most mundane of places. It’s moral value judgments that cause us to have anti-monopoly laws. It’s moral value judgments that cause us to configure tax codes one way or another. It’s moral value judgments that cause us to appreciate the things that capitalism gives us. Etc etc. You can’t escape it.
It also probably caused a lot of people to not be able to say goodbye to their loved ones, or miss their holiday, or whatnot. People don't travel exclusively for frivolous reasons.
I am not suggesting that airlines should see their operations as non-critical (and let a third party make arbitrary untested updates to their critical systems).
But maybe some organizations using air travel can learn from this. I am still hoping that the pandemic will have had some lasting positive effects (on top of all the pain it has caused).
