> I think we all shouldnt be too quick to assume that the problem starts with the person doing the bullying
I don't think anyone is making that assumption, but being ok with corporal punishment likely comes down to three things:
1. We should care more about victims of violence than perpetrators, and all measures should be taken to protect victims and prevent victimization, even if it hurts perpetrators. Meaningful consequences for violent behaviour is critical.
2. The belief the physical deterrents work, if applied consistently and not abused to the point where it doesn't provide clear guidance as to acceptable behaviour.
3. That the primary job of schools and educators is to provide a safe and effective learning environment. Being therapists that get to the root of problematic behaviour is neither in their training nor in their job description.
How about when the perpetrators are also victims? If child A is bullying child B because they themselves are suffering abuse at home (as is often the case), don't both kids deserve help and support? Just beating up child A is no more productive a solution than throwing people in jail.
At the point a parent is beating up their own kid I wonder what options are available. If they're removed from the family then placing them in foster care almost always leads to worse outcomes than leaving them with the abusive family. The state doesn't know how to raise children.
Then surely the focus should be on solving that problem? Just clamping down on the proximate cause doesn't really help - as others have pointed out, it seems likely to incite revenge attacks rather than stopping the bullying.
> If child A is bullying child B because they themselves are suffering abuse at home
Experiencing hardship doesn't excuse violence against others, just like it wouldn't excuse breaking the law. You can say "here is the punishment for your bad behaviour, now let's ALSO have child services remove you from that environment AND have the justice system punish your parents' bad behaviour". Everybody has their job and if they do their job, then what's the problem?
> Just beating up child A is no more productive a solution than throwing people in jail.
Firstly, there's no "just do X" for multifaceted problems. Secondly, people these days dramatically underestimate the value of prison. Over 60% of violent crime is committed by under 5% of the population. Don't underestimate the value of simply removing repeat violent offenders from society.
> Experiencing hardship doesn't excuse violence against others
I totally agree, but I don't agree that forgoing violence as a punishment is the same as excusing the bad behaviour. The best outcome for everyone is surely rehabilitation, no? There are other punishment options if you still insist on inflicting some hardship.
> Over 60% of violent crime is committed by under 5% of the population. Don't underestimate the value of simply removing repeat violent offenders from society.
That neatly avoids the question of why they reoffend, which is precisely my point. If prison is effective as a deterrent then why do they keep coming back? "Simply removing them" for a period of time simply perpetuates the problem, thus helping to ensure more violent crime in the future, not less.
> it is a curious argument that, in order to show that stronger people should not hurt weaker people, you think it's okay for stronger people to hurt weaker people
Not curious at all. Ingrains the lesson that, should you feel inclined to abuse your strength, there is always someone stronger. That's a clear lesson that even works on psychopaths who otherwise feel no remorse and cannot be influenced by other means.
Conversely, it also ingrains the lesson that it is ok to abuse anyone weaker than you A) if you know you can get away with it (because someone stronger is not always around/aware/inclined to intervene), or B) because that is just normal / the way the world is.
I don't see how that follows. In an environment in which physical correction has no reason, and is doled out unfairly (as with alcoholic parents), then sure, someone would ingrain the idea that the world is callous and unfair and they should get theirs at the expense of others if they can. If they instead only experience physical correction due to specific reasons that are deemed far outside the bounds of acceptable (such as inflicting violence on others), that's a whole different lesson.
> it will only make the bullies taking their revenge on vulnerable ones with even more cruelty. And they will plan it carefully to be hard/impossible to prove. It will lead to the escalation, not to the resolution
Bullies are generally not very intelligent. Deterrents absolutely do work if applied consistently. A society that applies corporal punishment at multiple levels, as Singapore does, strongly ingrains the idea to straighten yourself out, because there's always someone with a bigger stick.
> In severe cases, I can think of suspension or exclusion from school or another kind of isolation.
In my experience, this isn't the deterrent you think it is.
Bullies certainly can be intelligent. Intelligence and sadism are orthogonal traits.
The only thing that unites bullies is the willingness to inflict misery on others. A bully could be a simple thug who uses violence because they have nothing else going for them, or a popular kid at the top of their class who manipulates others for their own amusement.
Good thing that's not the lesson then. Of course if you see any use of physical correction as violence and abuse, then you're just assuming the conclusion.
I see any use of violence as violence, yes, and find it abhorrent to see people justifying violence against children. I'm happy I grew up in a civilised country where it was and is a criminal offense
I don't see how that follows. The brain could be experiencing all sorts of things while processing, but simply not record it, and so of course the person will have no recollection of experiencing anything.
I broke my leg recently. Shortly after that I've lost my consciousness. It was very painful, the body reacted with a lot of adrenaline, and after a several minutes when adrenaline was drained away my consciousness was drained too.
I experienced something like this several times, though not to the point of fainting. But this time was special in other way too: I had friends near me, they observed me through all the process and we could compare our observations later. It seems, that my memory stopped recording before I fainted. I was still operating to some extent, but I couldn't remember a thing. When asked something I grunted in answer. When one of my friends insisted that I stand up and come to a better place to sit down, I actually stand up and did several steps before stopping and slowly (and carefully) sank to the ground. (An interesting observation, my controls over my body were weakening, but I was still using them for what they worth. It fits with all other similar experiences: the limbs and all the muscles seem to be losing their strength, and it takes a lot of will to make them work.)
On the light of this, I'm very interested what proponents of the idea, that feelings need consciousness to work, would say about my half-unconscious state. Did I feel myself extremely bad at the time? Or maybe I didn't feel anything? My friends are sure that the former statement is true, but they may be mistaken by my outside looks. I personally don't remember. Up to some point I remember that I felt really bad, but the next thing I remember I look at the sky and I'm surprised by what I see (I was not in a place I expected to be). And at that moment I was pretty ok already, no more adrenaline issues, just my leg was aching.
Was I experiencing qualia is another interesting question. I'm pretty sure I was, but I'd like to hear an argument for the opposite.
Maybe it was a different part of your nervous system experiencing them, akin to a BIOS versus the operating system. The brain is a very complex and fractal thing, it is entirely possible that a more basal part of "you" took over for a very traumatic part of your life, very similar, but not exactly, to those with multiple personality disorder act.
> I'm very interested what proponents of the idea, that feelings need consciousness to work, would say about my half-unconscious state.
I’m not one of these proponents, but to play the devil’s advocate: The fact that you can’t remember it doesn’t necessarily imply that you didn’t fully consciously experience it at the time.
> It's not uncommon to see a gemma vs qwen comparison, where qwen does a bit better, but spent 22 minutes on the task, while gemma aligned the buttons wrong, but only spent 4 minutes on the same prompt.
Yes, Gemma 4 is very promising for its strong performance and token efficiency, but it's unfortunate that it's sliding window attention has a fatal flaw that makes me seriously hesitate to rely on it. See the series of videos on this channel:
On top of Qwen3.5/3.6's superior recall, it's attention mechanism dramatically reduces KV cache requirements, so you can fit longer sessions in the same VRAM (or more concurrent sessions if you have agents running), which is critical for local hosting.
At this point Qwen3.6 with thinking mode disabled seems like the best balance.
Submitting patches that are correct and match the project's desired standards¹ is joining forces and helping out.
--------
[1] And align with the project's direction. This part is of course much more subjective so could very easily be an honest misunderstanding of the situation.
> We had no idea — and Railway's token-creation flow gave us no warning — that the same token had blanket authority across the entire Railway GraphQL API, including destructive operations like volumeDelete.
So you effectively gave a junior dev a token with the authority to destroy your database, and then complained that the junior dev actually did so by accident while trying to solve some problems it had?
Obviously the AI shouldn't just search everywhere for bearer tokens to try when it runs into a roadblock, but frankly most of the blame does not fall on the AI here IMO. Know what authorities your bearer tokens grant, and understand the consequences of where you store them.
> In particular, Wren gives up dynamic object shapes, which enables copy-down inheritance and substantially simplifies (and hence accelerates) method lookup.
A general rule of thumb is that if you can assign an expression a static type, then you can compile it fairly efficiently. Complex dynamic languages obviously actively fight this in numerous ways, and so end up being difficult to optimize. Seems obvious in retrospect.
I don't think anyone is making that assumption, but being ok with corporal punishment likely comes down to three things:
1. We should care more about victims of violence than perpetrators, and all measures should be taken to protect victims and prevent victimization, even if it hurts perpetrators. Meaningful consequences for violent behaviour is critical.
2. The belief the physical deterrents work, if applied consistently and not abused to the point where it doesn't provide clear guidance as to acceptable behaviour.
3. That the primary job of schools and educators is to provide a safe and effective learning environment. Being therapists that get to the root of problematic behaviour is neither in their training nor in their job description.
reply