joebob42

Are you using it? I genuinely don't understand how people who are experimenting with the tool can feel this way

This is maybe kind of rude, and hopefully it doesn't come off this way, but where were you still getting the message that degree = job? Not that a degree doesn't help, but I graduated 10 years ago and the message was already pretty clear across the media I interacted with that that was no longer the lived experience / that you needed to be thinking about your major and the future it might offer because just having a degree was not a magic ticket.

Id hope they are better at catching fish than a dolphin, yes.

~Or Apple could remove Google Search as a choice on Safari

It could remove Google as a choice for users of safari? That seems like an insane thing to present as an approach apple might take. They could stop making it the default, but I think making it in unselectable actually would upset users enough to cause issues, at least in the short term.

That's director or higher (and the upper end is at least a vp). I mean, there probably is a director involved, but they definitely aren't the one making the padding.

I don't get what's happening in this thread. This is a pretty clear statement: hacking isn't worse than the killing that the government is already allowed to do. It's a pretty straightforward argument which for some reason seems to be being misunderstood.

I'll gently push on the premise though: hacking isn't worse for the victims than death, obviously, but I think it's possible weaponizing of exploits does more total damage. Both collateral, due to the manufacturing of exploits which ultimately leak and harm a bunch of unrelated actors, and because the marginal hacking is lower cost, practically and politically. So a given attack is likely to be used against groups we'd recognize less clearly as "terrorists" / deserving of the harm / etc.

There's "Is an ev better than a new ice car" and "is an ev better than an ice car you already have".

I think we're discussing the latter, where the upfront cost of the ice doesn't count because you already have it.

I think the naming on the split is a little disingenuous. It's "mandatory", but it's still just laws. I get that the funding is decided differently, and I'm not making any claim one way or the other regarding whether Medicare, ss, etc should be changed, but it isn't like there's some law of nature we can't adjust if we wanted.

Felt the same. I agree with the whole "why is there even an app" thread, but it being 300mb doesn't seem like that big a deal to me.

My experience is that most people don't understand statistics and can be pretty easily mislead. That includes myself, with my only defense being that I'm at least aware statistics don't intuitively make sense and either ignore arguments based on them or if absolutely necessary invest the extra time to properly understand.

Most people either don't realize this is necessary or don't have the background to do it even if they did, in my experience.

A 2% failure rate isn't impressive, but I'm fine not crediting any of the shuttle issues to software. My only point is that 100 instance of use for purpose isn't enough, to my mind, to argue that a piece of software is exceptionally reliable.

Sure, but I imagine at least some components only really execute a small number of times per flight, or possibly never in the case of certain error handling code. Stretching the metaphor more than is probably appropriate, I'd treat launching the shuttle and having it come back as a big integration test. A system that passes it's integration test 100 times isn't necessarily particularly impressive in terms of reliability.

We run our integration test tens of times a day, and it fails once or twice a month. Our system is kinda flaky :(

100 is frankly not that impressive for software. A 2-9 system will sometimes work 100x in a row, and a 3-9 system usually will.

Well, the cheapest fair class doesn't include a features they want, which has a cost to the airline. That seems reasonable. If they are eligible and get to pick seats, then it's a tax on everyone else to support that.

The past meets the future

Yes, I do live quite close, although that's because I moved closer on purpose. I enjoyed the office even before I live as close (it used to be a 30m commute, now more like 15), but the longer commute definitely made it a slightly less obvious tradeoff. I'm not required to be in the office; with the shorter commute I'm there everyday, whereas with the longer one I was there maybe 4 days a week.

For whatever it's worth: coder, like being in the office :)

The organized environment, easy coffee, and not needing to dedicate a bunch of home office space make it a big win for me personally.

Well, that seems like a dumb test for the intelligence part. You need a robot for that. But that means intelligence cannot exist without a physical presence" which I think is at least controversial.

This is such a wonderful bit of creative writing.

how are the jurors chosen? I'd expect this would be too small a sampling of people to be really representative, and I think it's often easy to confuse jurors who are (by definition) not experts.

Not that I think they system as it is is great, but I'm not sure this helps / doesn't have its own significant failure modes.

Presumably the real feature here is for admins to query the machine and ask it "how many hours of work did joebob actually do this week", and "has joebob complied with the will of his manager at all times this week".

Indeed. I think an MBA might make analogy to the time value of money concept; the time value of time would state that I'd prefer to have a free hour not working on this project now, than to have the same free hour at a later date.

In the same way a company isn't going to pay out a million dollar financial obligation early, you wouldn't expect a person to perform a 10 hour work obligation early.

And it's relatively easy to think of rational reasons to attach a discount factor to free time later. Certainly on a long enough time horizon future free time is very likely to have no marginal value at all :)

This makes more sense, thank you. I hadn't picked up on the distinction, but I agree that's more reasonable.

I still think we don't really know; it's developing technology and it's changing so fast that it seems like it's probably too early for experts on practical applications to exist and claim they know the impact it will have.

How would they know? We don't have general AI but it's written as if they already know what it will be, how safe it will be, etc.

I think it's an important topic to discuss and consider, but this seems to be speaking with more knowledge and authority than seems reasonable to me.

This got me to donate. Seems like such a high-impact way to prevent / reduce pollution.

What is the device for? Genuine ignorance and curiosity. Are there folks who cannot produce tears, and do the tears serve an important health function that makes it important to stimulate tears in this way?

You already gave an explanation before that had nothing to do with any difference in gendered behavior (it was next to the men's locker room), which makes it even more baffling that you're now suggesting that no, it really was because men were less capable of not opening the door.

In state insurers are also responsible for bailing out the fair plan, which means they're effectively responsible for policies they didn't write unless they leave the state entirely.

Wow thank you for pointing out. It's definitely an interesting read

Google too, for all practical purposes, since presumably this is mostly just watching you use chrome 90% of the time.