nebulousthree

Every hire is a chance taken for both sides of the transaction. This argument is tired and can be spun another way: a new employee is a blank slate. The employer will define a working method that cannot be compared and judged based on experience (they have none). The employer may even benefit further from a fresh perspective on working methods.

Let's push it further: can we say the same for very experienced employees? Isn't the employer taking a chance on the employee being willing to learn and adopt a potentially different workflow? Maybe we deduct from the value of a highly experienced employee due to the likelihood of them being stuck in their ways. Oh wait that's ageist now isn't it.. Funny how that double standard works.

Try being a little more understanding. Psychological prisons are almost never obvious to oneself. It takes time, especially dead time, to recognize the impact of our words and behaviours on ourselves and the people we surround ourselves with. Perhaps this post was the first major step for this person after much internal deliberation.

Perhaps the workers should monetize the implicit factors of the job in order to get their true value. After all, labelling is one thing. Labelling correctly is another thing entirely. Labelling at high speed is another thing. Labelling in more than one language is yet another thing, and so on.

Maybe they're still sore from the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...

It's because the pot is calling the kettle black and then getting annoyed when it is called out on it. It's not that complicated, and it doesn't call into question the legitimacy of the criticism. It just says: "you've had shit under your own shoe this whole time and only now that I got some under mine are you complaining about the smell"

I would argue that because your body is the one doing the perceiving, there is likely no limit to the ability of our perceptions influencing our bodies. Belief alone can't move a mountain, but is that not because the belief is not strong enough, rather than because beliefs don't physically have hands with which to hold the pickaxe?

Probably around the same time as "a little bit of wine is actually good for you".

I don't think it matters that they knew. Either ambient light hits your eyes or it doesn't. What about other factors that make it sleep-mask specific like the feeling of textile over your eyes, or the strain of the strap around your head? Your experiment tests other things.

With humans it's just that the stakes are high because you cannot generally have a human at your beck and call like we do with machines in general. If you limited to 5 questions per topic and and overall use time limit, you might see different input still.

(It's almost as if it's because they're able to differentiate between a machine and a human being.)

They conflict if the increase in sharpness is interpreted as a follow-up to the claim that neurons don't grow back. How can there be an increase of function without an "increase" in neurons (they don't grow back)?

Don't have to hire security to escort everyone out if they're already home.

Or..luck and enough tries at it? Maybe there's survivorship bias in goal setting

PMCs love this study!

Who knew that the primary incentive being economic would lead to a convergence of human behaviours?

Every profit-motive champion raved about the variety produced by means of competition. Instead, the fear of failure from truly distinguishing oneself has driven competitive differences to the edge where it remains superficial and unimportant. Alpine white or cream white paint? Straight tube or spherical Edison bulbs? Nietzche or Camus on the toilet bookshelf?

In fairness, we can say that this incentive has normalized a lower bound of acceptable design in terms of function. Yes, it's bland, but it works.

But now what? The incentive needs to be transcended. The only way to do that actually is to be rich and/or crazy enough to deny the potential of economic failure. But who can afford to do that?

This hasn't changed. The Sistine chapel wasn't painted according to the whims of the peasantry.

Is that like a pat down search at the supermarket??

Hello ChatGPT, good to have you!

Books rob students of the motivation to memorize and recite for themselves.

That's because it's not the propositions that need to be transparent. Politicians are great at explaining their grandiose propositions. It's the actions taken and the results that need to be transparent.

Dont forget: all your successes, and all your failures are the result of your actions and your actions only. You exist in a vacuum.

There's really not as much of a logical connection between the two as you think. Replace "fly on a private jet" with any other rich person activity and your sentence still works. So it's not really about flying on a jet.

Call it a (rare) creative whim!

"keep smiling as the boot continues to crush your face and breaking your jaw"

Optimism is a trademark feature of a population untouched by traumas of war or famine (how many wars were fought on American soil? Would you say American military veterans are an optimistic bunch?).

Otherwise it's an individually variable characteristic.

Dirt rich is untouched money. Collected for the sake of it. Filthy is what you get once you've touched it enough.

If you turn off shadows in cs you're putting yourself at a significant disadvantage. Many games have been clinched on a shadow that was noticed.

Education wasn't always solely or even mainly about earning credentials. It's only when industry offset their responsibilities to train new employees to universities (and thus the taxpayer in publicly funded education), that suddenly education became entirely about getting a corresponding job and getting a piece of paper.

If you think of education as a public utility, something that unequivocally raises the standard of living, then it becomes about forming a population of educated and informed citizens who can, amongst other things, participate in democracy a lot more effectively.

> But the ickiness of attention-seeking and going for the lowest common denominator really makes it hard for me to keep it up.

Attention-seeking, fine, but lowest common denominator is a self-defeating assumption. If my thing was making very elaborate high quality chairs, I don't have to make a bunch of crappy generic chairs to bring attention to the elaborate ones. The fear of failure in your niche may drive this though. But by doing so you're just growing the overall demographic you serve which brings in more people, giving you the impression of finally succeeding..but you may not get more sales of the product you actually care about in the first place: the elaborate chair.

My point is: go for the "denominator" you feel you want to address, and be enthusiastically attention-seeking there. Pretending to care about other demographics, building product for them and supporting all that extra infrastructure is soul-crushing

> Everybody writing more in principle /should/ reduce coordination barriers which pushes out the boundary of Largest Useful Group Size for any system of coordinating.

LargestUsefulGroupSize is already way underfilled due to the bottlenecking on GroupInterestSyncRate

Perhaps your reaction to the test is part of the test too. If you do it, you'll be evaluated on your technical performance, and if you refuse you've simply answered another question they might have about you, albeit a non-technical one. Completing the test might signal compliance, which might be exactly what they're filtering for.

It would be only a matter of time before a non-human would be found out for not understanding how to relate to a human fact-of-life.