doktrin

> I think they just want families with young children to pay to sit together, like everyone else has to

Oh great so now I have to sit next to someone’s unattended child in the name of fairness? Am I gonna get the option to subsidise the family’s seat grouping instead of being saddled with that noise? Talk about creating problems for no good reason.

> a condition you presumably don’t have… extrapolating your theories…

You presume incorrectly, and they’re not “my” theories, but they do track with my personal observations and experience.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/research/treesearch/38511

Sounds like you don’t even dispute his point, so how could you have refuted it?

To your point about relevance : nobody here has claimed this competitive advantage is wildly useful in a “first world” context, something the GP actually framed explicitly.

Personally I don’t think one needs to invoke post apocalyptic scenarios, as there are plenty of “first world” professions or scenarios that benefit from the same skill sets - military, emergency medicine, firefighting, just to name a few. The first world isn’t all spreadsheets and jira tasks.

You reject his premise but you did not refute it. Reiterating the adaptive struggles you and other ADHD sufferers face does not invalidate the idea that it is a competitive advantage under certain circumstances.

Could not disagree more. Nothing is “interesting” in perpetuity. Hence why so many with ADHD engage with various topics in an intense but sporadic manner.

In the overwhelming majority of cases this scattershot approach is deeply frustrating for the individual, and orders of magnitude less productive - in terms of meaningful creation and innovation - than persevering on a focused set of tasks.

Well, that or earwax.

You tell me. Did he make meaningful technical contributions to OAI?

This is going to vary based on geography and circumstance, but some home office expenses are eligible for tax deductions.

> He might not be a super technical software engineer, but is he "non-technical" in that he can't even write some simple python or something equivalent?

1. that's a very low bar, almost to the point of making any distinction meaningless

2. imho, "technical" and "non-technical" are context dependent, and not intrinsic human qualities. Speaking for myself : I'm a technical individual contributor on my current team, but there are plenty of domains (bleeding edge AI research likely being one of them) where my technical acumen would fall short of expectations for an IC, and hence where my most logical role would be non-technical in nature.

Purely out of ignorance - what's the context here? I'm not in this space, but afaik Ghidra was released years ago so I'm guessing this post was triggered by a recent development, but it's not clear what that might be.

It probably should. The amount of ancillary and contextual information required to correctly distinguish between legal and illegal settings and application is invasively high.

Your observation is neither novel nor helpful. People suffering are often not suffering due to a lack of information, or because they’ve never taken middle school history.

Possibly due to social stigma. I don’t know that what I’m describing can be attributed to the safety net itself, but many countries with excellent social safety programs also have a low social tolerance for failure. This is not limited to using social benefits - e.g fail in business and you’re a business failure who will struggle to get any financing ever again.

I wonder how many others instantly recalled the ICQ notification sound on reading the headline.

Not every opinion is equally valid

I can’t pretend to know the man’s mind but I always got the vibe he didn’t really feel at home in the cultural landscape of the late 60s and onwards

Personally I think his contributions would be welcome in any era, and either way “this is the year that was” is a certified banger

Every language has turns of phrase that are not necessarily intuitive to non-native speakers.

If praise is the intent, it would be phrased as "... cannot recommend X highly enough"

> I'm not buying that people here are "fine" with this. This is one of those things people might be fine with, until they find themselves in that exact spot.

I'm gonna suggest that people who are blase about this issue are comfortable in the knowledge that it will never affect them. HN contributors might have 99+ problems, but being lusted over by the internet at large isn't one of them.

> I cannot recommend X too highly

This isn't a veiled statement. It's outright dunking on the applicant.

That’s quite the narrow goalpost you’ve set up. What happens if a problem can’t be expressed as a Jenkins pipeline operation?

1. Audit / evaluation / quality assurance teams exist across multiple verticals from multinationals to government, and cannot reliably function when overly subservient to the production or “value creating” side

2. Boeing is a good and timely example of the consequences of said internal checks and balances collapsing under “value creation” pressure. That was a catastrophic failure which still can’t reasonably be compared to the downside of misaligned AI.

You might have responded to the wrong comment.

At my current company, management is an entry level position that recruits fresh grads. It’s essentially secretarial work under a different name.

So certainly in our case there’s no justification for a manager out earning any individual contributors (but they still do, because manager).

> What do I care what others do?

This is libertarian virtue signalling that simply does not stand up to reality.

> Everything legal

First of all, this unironically reminds me of Borat.

More importantly, you keep citing legality in this thread as if that should basically end the discussion. Quite frankly that strikes me as a position of convenience, because clearly HN is not a court of law and the scope is not restricted to whatever happens to be legal in any given jurisdiction.

Do you for instance support all legal acts in your country? Going out on a limb I suspect you find at least a few morally dubious or worse.

Just some examples off the top of my head : IVF for single women? State support for all mosques? Fosen windfarms and a broad co-signing of feel-good UN resolutions? Preferential hiring based on either gender or ethnicity? Slap on the wrist punishments for basically all offenses? Enshrined trans rights? Teachers being at the total (legal) mercy of abusive students?

I dunno man, almost like “it’s legal!” is not the QED you think it is.

The case involving a large and well known religious organisation that “employed” an army of unpaid volunteers? Can’t see how that relates to the broad description you provided earlier.

Your own quote directly contradicts your assertion.

Egypt is categorically not closing their border to Palestinians out of fear of an Israeli invasion.

So in your view 100 million MAU is not mainstream while 1 billion is. Where is your cutoff? Absent some criteria you’re just arbitrarily defining goalposts.