ken47

Democracy being influenced by wealth has always been a thing.

Folks from a given country tend to network with and feel more comfortable with people from said country, affecting their hiring and promotion practices. That’s only natural.

It seems like Team Ding's strategy was to survive until tie breaks, where he would have been the favorite. Given Ding's form, they probably didn't believe he could reliably win games in classical versus an in-form Gukesh.

As such, Ding went for draws in multiple games with clearly superior positions that someone like e.g. Magnus Carlsen would have played out and won. I'm sure they regret that strategy now.

The child and their mentors could surely decide. If a kid doesn’t want to specialize, then they can defer until they’re ready.

I don’t disagree. I need to point out that I used the word “let,” not “force.”

1) A nation's average score essentially has no relationship with the quality of its research institutions - only the top 1-5% matter - and that top 5% might just happen to contain a lot of immigrants.

2) The quality of research institutions is way more than e.g. summing the horsepower of the population of the containing nation. Reputational inertia attracting top talent is a real social phenomenon with more than a trivial effect.

I question the emphasis on averages. Moving the average of a country as big as the USA is very hard, with questionable ROI.

The top N% in any given subject is going to drive a nation's progress. We aren't going to be putting tens of millions of Americans into jobs where their output is highly dependent on e.g. their mathematical knowledge and ability.

Isn't it time to do away with the outdated goal of training everyone to be a well-rounded unicorn, and let students meaningfully specialize before ~20-30% of their life has expired?

For a sample size of 1, I'm confident I'd be significantly more valuable economically in adulthood if I could have specialized in e.g. math at an early age, rather than spending countless hours on subjects that I had little interest in and barely use today.

React and similar frameworks have made it easier to manage a given level of complexity. The complexity of app features have adjusted and will continue to adjust to the new frontier enabled by said frameworks.

> rumored to happen for months

Source?

If the principles of languages like Erlang were taught in American school, things like this would be much likely to occur. Silly that Computer Science is regarded more highly by many than Software Engineering for Software Engineering jobs.

My work at FAANG and FAANG-adjacent companies would suggest that it’s far more probable that a random e.g. finance professional is driven primarily by perceived status than a software engineer.

The media and general public still openly poke fun at tech titans like Mark Zuckerberg and even Jeff Bezos in a way that they would never do to e.g. Jamie Dimon. The perceived statuses are still incomparable, and I think any competent Gen Zer knows it.

Can we stick to stats over caricatures? If we’re going to go by “gut feel,” the stereotype is that the status climbers primarily go into finance, consulting, medicine, and law - not engineering.

Without context, not very meaningful. Does this simple measure lines of code? Characters written? Is it “oversuggesting” code that it shouldn’t be confident in? Does this code make it into production or is a large percentage of it fixed by humans at great cost?

Google, and really, the whole financial machine has a vested interest playing up the potential of AI. Unfortunate that it isn’t being given time to grow organically.

You’re absolutely right. The education system was meant to be a factory of production line workers, at the cost of missing out on geniuses who don’t care about other subjects.

This system is meant for a worker that no longer exists. If someone wants to specialize at the age of 13 and has shown reasonable aptitude in that subject, then let them do it. Sure, give them a well rounded education, but don’t weight those grades anywhere close to equally.

No one called for reality to be censored - simply a toggle that shows the summary stats with and without outliers included. This is the kind of thing folks learn in Stats 101.

You're getting caught up on "soul-draining," but FAANG's and adjacent are generally acknowledged to have the highest TC. It would be useful to know what the statistics are with these outlier companies removed.

These AI tools are able to do a small subset of what a professional human is able to do, with greatly reduced flexibility, e.g. tasks like leetcode where there is an abundance of concentrated training data.

I would bet that the current paradigm in ChatGPT will never be able to replace a minimally competent human at real world programming - the kind of programs people actually pay for. Let’s see.

Don’t turn off the money spigot with your “questions.”

[flagged]

You're going to attribute even a small % of this to politicians rather than the actual innovators? Sure, then let's say they're responsible for some small % of its success. They're smart enough to not nuke their own economy.

Care to elaborate on the second sentence with any proof?

The conflict of interest might have something to do with the fact that OpenAI's CEO/founder was once a major figure in Y Combinator. But I think you wanted to insinuate that the conflict of interest ran in the other direction.

Once ChatGPT can even come close to replacing a junior engineer, you can retry your claim. The progression of the tech underlying ChatGPT will be sub-linear.

We have those TOS's in the software world because it would be prohibitively expensive to make all software reliable as a publicly used bridge. For those who died as a direct result of CrowdStrike, that's where the litigious nature of the US becomes a rare plus. And CrowdStrike will lose a lot of customers over this. It isn't perfect, but the market will arbitrate CrowdStrike's future in the coming months and years.

> So this "one weird trick" will disappear without any special measures.

> Better training, larger models, and larger datasets

But "better training" here is a special measure. It would take a lot of training effort to defeat this check. For example, you'd need a program or group of people who would be able to label training data as realistic/not based on the laws of physics as reflected in subjects' eyeballs.

In most companies, businesspeople without any real software dev experience control the purse strings. Such people should never run companies that sell life-or-death software.

The reality is there is plenty of space in the software industry to trade off velocity against "competent" software engineering. Take Instagram as an example. No one is going to die if e.g. a bug causes someone's IG photo upload to only appear in a proper subset of the feeds where it should appear.

There's a lot of incompetence by choice.

You do realize that knowledge of CS fundamentals is extremely unlikely to have prevented this?

Blood boil? No.

Royalty commanded resources which Euler wanted to access, even if indirectly. In the modern world, geniuses have to do the same to e.g. gain funding. Maybe there is slightly more meritocracy now in determining who gains that level of power, but the improvement is not nearly as dramatic as you'd like to think. Nepotism is alive and well.

Reminds me a lot of the telecom situation in the US. There are lots of people who e.g. hate Comcast but basically have no choice in their area if they want broadband. Granted, a malware attack, is another level of terrible, but isn't it "interesting" how pseudo-monopolists seem to be resistant to meritocratic forces?

> many of the top programmers in South Korea

Odd statement. How did you know that the people you met are "top programmers?"

> I guarantee you that not one SK Telecom executive will spend time behind bars for this blatantly illegal conduct.

I mean, you're assuming that an SK Telecom executive did something illegal. I don't think anyone here is a supporter of corruption, but you're making a huge, completely unjustified leap to say that an SK executive was involved.