I can find no relevant recent updates not covered by this late 2021 article.
It includes the 2021 update which expanded the PCA’s coverage to include the Navy, Marine Corps, and Space Force, in addition to the Army and Air Force, and the Modernization of Military Guidance in 2019 when The Department of Defense updated its internal guidance on the PCA, reflecting evolving interpretations and regulatory practices.
Not yet enacted into law: Strengthening the Posse Comitatus Act of 2020 (H.R. 7297) was introduced in the House in June 2020 to further expand the PCA’s applicability to all branches of the Armed Forces and prohibit the use of evidence obtained in violation of the Act.
It is impossible for that article’s date to be correct and it to mention the expansion which did not become law until December of 2021, 5 months later. And indeed, it refers to a different section, as I said.
There is no need to for you to have been hostile about this point. I know how much it bothers people here when people with primary experience comment. References to different statues and slightly different wording may seem irrelevant to you but they are not.
In any event, there is a more recent article from lawfare that explains the current situation better. GIYF. I don’t need the upvotes as much as you, so I didn’t feel the need to post it to a coder/startup board.
Also, the Brennan Center isn’t a totally neutral source and makes no mention nor discusses in any detail the basis currently being cited as the grounds for using the military the way it is being used, which the lawfare article does. It’s advocating for a change to the law in response to January 6th, not talking about the specific issues currently relevant.
Surely that's not what the JAG is referring to since the article covered it
"While the Posse Comitatus Act refers only to the Army and Air Force, a different statute extends the same rule to the Navy and Marine Corps. The Coast Guard, though part of the federal armed forces, has express statutory authority to perform law enforcement and is not bound by the Posse Comitatus Act."
I did above in response to the passive aggressive Dunning Kruger reply to my simple comment suggesting an advocacy piece from 4 years ago might not be 100% useful for today’s news.
This is really the perfect HN post. A window manager coder has thoughts on how labor needs to re-organize itself… to prevent climate change. No mention of how labor’s record on climate is… mixed.
Labor organizing is the only way for the working class to wield political power, as all political parties, and indeed the entire system, is corporate captured.
Leaving aside any discussion about what you said, that political power has not been consistently wielded in favor of the climate. And somehow I don’t see Drew as the next Eugene Debs.
What do you mean without top talent? Just because they dropped their galacticos approach didn't mean they brought up a whole squad of academy talent to do this. They do, in fact, have top talent. Just because an aging Messi and Neymar are gone and Mbappe is gone doesn't mean the rest of the squad isn't top talent.
PSG just proves that over time money conquers football.
I had a similar take after my first experience using AI to help me code. I put it aside as a curiosity. But when I went back recently, it's not that it's perfect, but the improvement in that time was massive. Does that mean it will continue to improve at that pace? Not necessarily, but we haven't seen the end state yet, so anything we say is just a judgment on what we have at the moment.
But do you use it now to help you code and if yes, how? The negative effects of relying to heavily on AI while coding are greatly discussed, hence I am wondering what a „good“ use case would be.
> The negative effects of relying to heavily on AI while coding are greatly discussed, hence I am wondering what a „good“ use case would be.
Really depends on your perspective. For some executives, a "good" use case may be the equivalent of burning goodwill to generate cash: push devs to use AI extensively on everything, realize a short term productivity bump while their skills atrophy (by haven't atrophied yet), then let the next guy deal with the problem of devs that have fully realized the "negative effects of relying to heavily on AI."
That’s a pretty dark perspective but it would imply that those executives are some kind of evil geniuses that grasp the extent of this situation. I personally try to count this kind of behavior on the statistics one of the ignobels present: 80% of asked uni professors felt they’re above the average (iq wise).
I haven't used it directly on anything except little test projects. But my general view is that it's like being an editor as opposed to a writer. I have to have mastered the craft of writing to edit someone else's copy.
I couldn’t agree more, thanks for answering! Anecdotally I’ve witnessed people using and talking big about ML/ LLM‘s while being in shock when learning about the fact that there are fundamentally basic statistical concepts behind those.
Not OP, but I specifically like to use AI to explain obtuse sections of code that would take me longer periods of time to understand by reading.
If I have a bug reported and I’m not sure where it is, pasting the bug report into an LLM and asking it to find the bug has yielded some mixed results but ultimately saved me time.
Interestingly enough, I also was wondering if I could improve my efficiency by condensing written text. The idea would be to remove the usual padding or „slop“ you have within most of the modern web environment.
Wouldn’t you loose a bit of that brain power if you stop to make those connections yourself while trying to understand those code sections?
