It feels like Boeing divested itself of Spirit to try and avoid the responsibilities of having to manufacture various components, but the awful culture was retained at Spirit and probably made worse by the priorities of its private equity owners.
I think this touches on an interesting question. What obligation do free or open source project maintainers have?
Even if a maintainer slaps on a, “I do what I want with this project. I am not responsible for any damages. There is no support” disclaimer, I am not sure that necessarily removes some social responsibilities.
This is not an "open source project", this is a service. When I use a open source project I take it as it is now and take a risk on it not being updated, but any updates are "pull", as in that I willingly take in changes.
In this case the service is "push", which is very different. Any website that used polyfill.io can have any changes pushed to it, regardless of if the author even had known about a change being made.
If my popular project is replaced with a single poop emoji on NPM any existing user is fine (especially since NPM keeps old versions after the whole left-pad thing) and will find an alternative. If polyfill.io replaces their code with
document.documentElement.innerHTML = '💩'
that's not fine, since it affects existing users without any update step.
I think that nobody should use these public CDNs at all, including things like unpkg and cdnjs, or at the very least using subresource integrity. Either way this has been something that has been on the horizon for years and similar to the buying of popular webextensions.
I don't have an answer, but the idea that the person providing you with a free service owes you anything at all just reminded me of this Simpson's quote I think about sometimes.
---
Comic Book Guy : Last night's Itchy & Scratchy was, without a doubt, the worst episode ever. Rest assured that I was on internet within minutes registering my disgust throughout the world.
Bart Simpson : Hey, I know it wasn't great, but what right do you have to complain?
Comic Book Guy : As a loyal viewer, I feel they owe me.
Bart Simpson : What? They've given you thousands of hours of entertainment for free. What could they possibly owe you? I mean, if anything, you owe them.
I think the general consensus is that Greenspan was an ideologist and effectively a useless Fed chair since he didn’t believe in regulation. The only reason he was probably not ousted was because he had enablers with the added leverage that the economy was doing pretty well during his tenure.
At some point Cormen had a page of shame where he would name people who asked him for solutions to some of the problems. I remember it was removed with a note that it was a bit much. Though, I suspect it was pointed out to him that this made him look bad.
I think this says a lot about the logic of the authors, though.
i frequently see him post on Quora--he appears as a pompous, abrasive and highly anti-social individual who acts like a gatekeeper to knowledge. He grudges the readers their knowledge by making it extremely boring and difficult to break into. Many 'authors' are like that. Which is feels like a conspiracy.
This is the main reason I think disbarment as the punishment in this specific instance may not be fair. There are people who are unaware of the limitations of these systems and the risk of these confabulations occurring.
While I don’t think disbarment is inappropriate, I would rather see the New York State Bar use this to require some better understanding of these emergent technologies or even better have all the State Bars start discussing some standardized training about this because it’s easy to see a person trying to treat this as LexisNexis.
If your doctor asked ChatGPT to tell him how to remove your appendix, followed the directions, and subsequently removed a kidney instead, would you want him to lose his medical license?
For sure, but the difference there is that someone was actually severely wronged. The worst that happened here was some people had time wasted.
I think a punishment where the lawyer had to pay for all the time he wasted for the judges and various legal clerks (and his client) would be sufficient personally.
He is unlikely to make the same kind of mistake again I would think.
> The worst that happened here was some people had time wasted.
At least one party to the suit, if not both, are going to end up spending extra money. Plus it wasted public resources – the time of the judge and court staff, and their salaries, and more – and cost taxpayer money. Your remedy of having the lawyer pay might bankrupt him, and it doesn't really make whole the other party. In cases where one party has limited financial resources or perhaps is close to death (thing capital punishment, or malpractice), this isn't just waste. Someone could be severely wronged.
that is not a meaningful difference when the issue is that both professions can use tools but are responsible for the results of using them, and thus obligated to apply their professional judgement before and after using a tool that can hurt people (in this case, their clients, at least)
Is disbarment about fairness? Is the primary goal of such proceedings to rehabilitate and apply a sort of justice?
Certainly, civil and criminal courts have those as their raison d'être. But I thought licensing boards had an entirely different purpose. If I surgeon was a good guy who genuinely wanted to help people and who didn't engage in any sort of malfeasance... but even so, he just kept slicing aortas open accidentally through incompetence, the board should say "aw shucks, he's had some bad luck but he really wants to heal people".
This is the same. The court system is replete with circumstances where a client does not get a second chance at pursuing justice. A lawyer that fucks that up, even if doing so in good faith, leaves them with zero remedies. This might have been a bullshit "Slippin' Jimmy" case this time, but the stakes could've easily been higher.
I don't think I want to live in a world where fairness plays any part in the decision by the bar on this matter.
Disbarment is usually considered a punishment of last resort. That the failure of the attorney to carry out their obligations is so absolute, that it justifies taking away their right to practice law in a given state. There are certainly other measures that can be done here that are of a similar rebuke, just not as final. A suspension or temporary disbarment is also possible.
We don’t know the full situation here, but a personal injury case against a bankrupt airline for striking someone in the knee with the serving cart seems remediable?
Disbarment usually happens in cases where attorneys fail to file timely repeatedly at the expense of their clients and after multiple admonishments to stop that; utterly fail in their fiduciary obligations (i.e. they were acting like an escrow and then instead gambled the money away in Vegas).
> that it justifies taking away their right to practice law in a given state.
This seems a little weird. As far as I understand it, no one has a right to practice law.
There is a privilege that can be acquired, it one meets the requirements. If you somehow got through without meeting those, or if you start to fail to meet those... time for a new career.
> We don’t know the full situation here, but a personal injury case against a bankrupt airline for striking someone in the knee with the serving cart seems remediable?
I don't know about this particular case, but many cases and circumstances can be a "one shot at it" scenario. You fuck it up, it's tossed and you can't refile. There are many reasons and details, any of which might be messed up by a lawyer relying on a silly chat program to draft motions. One might miss an absolute deadline. It might be dismissed with prejudice. Appeals might be exhausted. This could even be true of the case in question.
In some cases, it might even be true if it was a criminal trial and your defense attorney was incompetent, that you don't get a chance to appeal. In California, I think, those are Marsden cases (someone correct me if I'm wrong). For those, you have to raise an objection during the trial.
So, if someone found out that ChatGPT gave their lawyer bad advice the day after their conviction... well, oops. No appeal for you.
I'll say it again. I do not want to live in a world where law license proceedings are decided on a "what's fair to the bad lawyer" basis. No one has a right to be a lawyer, if you're bad at it there are plenty of other occupations you might make a living with where incompetence doesn't threaten so many lives and livelihoods.
Imagine getting fired and barred from writing code ever again over a bug you introduced because you used copilot and didn't spot the issue.
Pretty sure that would be considered an unacceptable infringement of basic human rights here.
You can assert your ideals all you want but the fact is that professions that govern themselves invariably end up with "what's fair to the bad lawyer".
Licensed professionals are licensed (should be, there are notorious exceptions) because if those professions remain unlicensed, horrible things happen.
Lawyers and medical doctors are two of those. Yes, it would be wrong to prohibit the Starbucks barista from making coffees, no matter how many times such a person burned it.
Software engineering probably falls between licensed professional and burgerflipper on that scale... but let's not full ourselves. If you were working on firmware for medical equipment, then yes banning you from ever doing it again because you used ChatGPT when making a heart rate monitor is just and fair.
Not all of our software matters. But the people working on code for space vessels or aircraft or as in my example, medical equipment? I'm more than happy to see them banned from these things for life if they were to do that.
> You can assert your ideals all you want but the fact is that professions that govern themselves invariably end up with "what's fair to the bad lawyer".
This is irrelevant. We're all aware of how underperformant oversight tends to be. The point is to fix that, to rally against its eventual decline. Certainly I don't know why anyone would want to embrace your attitude of defeat/acceptance.
Accenture is Andersen Consulting. It left and changed its name to Accenture because of internal infighting and politics prior to the Enron scandal that took down Andersen entirely.
- Is it a desirable location, and the zoning laws cause the prices to skyrocket because not all the people that want to live there can
- Is it desirable because the zoning laws make sure it's a certain type of environment, and the desirability is what causes the price to increase
- Is it a combination of the two.
I think any reasonable person would say it's a combination of the two. And removing the zoning laws would both make it less desirable _and_ lower the price of housing. It would not leave it just as desirable, but with more people living there.
> Based on the fact that they've gone through several waves of layoffs and nothing significant has broken yet.
This logic is just specious. Passing judgment on a large, distributed system based on its continued uptime is a bit like arguing that firing the flight crew of a jumbo jet was a good idea because the autopilot is working. It betrays a lack of understanding of what is really going on.
