quonn

I did not choose this framing myself, I was responding to the paper which claimed that these jobs will be fully replaced by 2027.

And regarding your other point:

> both of which are arguably replaceable with LLMs today

Arguably, but they are not. That‘s my point.

So if we supposedly already have passed the point where LLMs are at the level of high schoolers, how comes that almost no tasks or jobs that high-schoolers are capable of doing have been replaced by LLMs?

Neither will more advanced work be replaced by 2027. End of story.

Moreover, if you arrive at the airport 3 hours before but spend one hour in the check-in queue, you will fall into the two hours time window and pay 50 EUR for effectively having the boarding pass printed.

A court in Vienna previously ruled against them, but they just ignore that everywhere else.

GraphQL is a great choice for internal applications hidden behind strong authentication that do not need to be heavily cached and where things like DoS are less of a concern or no concern at all.

It is often a poor choice for websites that should be cached, are publicly accessible and have simple and predictable data access patterns.

GraphQL has a fairly flat but very long learning curve which makes it a power tool that is great for those who have learned it in depth. Without that experience one is almost always better off using REST.

But the AI has likely seen baby giraffes and still makes the mistake.

The overlap in terms of the used technologies, the required skills, the actual products and the target market is minimal. AI is not mostly Hadoop, it's not MapReduce, the hardware is different, the software is different, the skillset is very different and a chatbot or image generator is very different from a batch job producing an answer to a query.

The future could also be comprised of the few that do engage with these technologies having one child lording over the many with 10 kids.

Not saying it will, but I want to point out the flaws in your logic.

I had to read this a few times to understand it:

case A: 99m 100f

case B: 100m 1f

Obviously the comparison is not symmetrical. So it‘s nonsense. Maybe a „not“ was added accidentally.

In any case, it‘s also factually wrong. The majority of men do not have sex with a very large number of women. And those who do would be well advised to use a condom to prevent STDs.

In fact the opposite is the case: Since the number of men who have sex with a very large number of women is known to be small, the few men taking the pill could replace a large number of women having to take it, therefore the pill for men would be more efficient.

Fun fact: Lehrer is the German word for teacher.

Actually almost nobody got replaced by a computer. People retired and nobody new was hired. For others, roles shifted in a minor way.

If AI ever replaces white collar jobs then that will be at an unprecedented scale and with essentially nowhere to shift to.

But so far it doesn‘t seem to happen.

Would it be possible to correct for the rotation by counter rotating if the orientation of the camera is known (or determined by GPS + compass)?

The article describes making "number" a different type, not A and B. It's true that making A and B different is a unique problem of TypeScript, but making number a different type is a common issue in many languages.

I was not talking about eating, I was talking about living conditions.

Furthermore (again regarding living conditions): Still no, because those humans likely have loved ones or family and additionally no because of what this would do to the other humans who housed them so.

Most of the human suffering in this concept comes from being able to think, compare and ideas about the good life and then those thoughts create the suffering. The actual physical suffering is limited, although present.

Cows can‘t do that and don‘t have the point of reference to compare. I doubt even humans could unless they are raised to be taught all the cultural norms and what‘s good and bad.

And it isn‘t just a number. A number doesn‘t feel like anything but pain does feel like something.

It would be honest to admit that we don‘t know why consciousness subjectively feels like anything. Pointing to complexity or integrated information doesn‘t explain this at all. It‘s easy to imagine a complex process that doesn‘t have a subjective experience.

Nowhere have I mentioned the conflict nor have I mentioned whether reporting on it is easy. Not blatantly lying is pretty easy though and Al Jazeera fails that test.

More importantly, Al Jazeera is not merely reporting on the conflict, they have been „reporting“ about many other things for a long time. That’s enough data for me that can be compared to the sum of ALL other outlets.

None of that is surprising either - Al Jazeera is a government propaganda tool, run by a dictatorial kingdom that ranks rather low on freedom of the press.

The fact that you drew a comparison to BBC is telling.

> I could say that I have read and compared the BBC to Truth Social, and decided that BBC is "fake news"; that doesn't mean it's actually true.

If you decide that 2+2=5 that indeed doesn‘t make it true.

I have merely said that I found that 2+2=4.

I didn‘t ban it and the Israeli government certainly didn‘t ask me for my opinion. They had their own reasons and their own evidence and I only gave you _my_ reason for considering it fake news, which most of it is.

They will not be banned. There is zero evidence for this.

There is a big difference between banning what can only be described as a fake news outlet controlled by the adversary government of Qatar vs. banning the most important or second most important independent newspaper in the country.

When _that_ happens then the completely unjustified outrage in many comments here will be justified as that would indeed be an unprecedented step.

There is plenty of precedent as others have pointed out, including in the EU.

And we are talking about a media outlet controlled by the government of a foreign country that also directly finances the opposing terrorist group and houses their leaders.

Democracy merely depends on free media, not on free foreign or adversary media.

> Even diclofenac seems to have some human use.

Sure. Voltaren.

Short-term, perhaps, but overall the cost of replacing a dead soldier is higher (like 15 years of schooling and parenting and all the other costs). A wounded soldier might be back on the battlefield half a year later.

And what does „hard“ even mean? Hard for whom? Hard for the average person? For the average developer? Hard for an expert on a particular topic? Hard for someone having practiced a lot or not?

Just call it Type 4.

The NACS is not part of CCS. The plug type is not part of CCS either. And what you called „Type 3“ is in fact a completely different plug that uses this name as standard.

And I‘ll leave the „discussion“ at that.

No, it‘s not the third plug and it‘s certainly not „Type 3“.

> The Tesla plug is no longer proprietary. It's been standardized as SAE J3400.

Of course, that‘s the very meaning of opening up the plug.

You claimed „It's CCS type 3“, which it is not.

Instead the NACS is the proprietary Tesla plug but using the CCS protocol instead of a CAN-based one. Practically this means that all superchargers remain compatible and it also means that all cars with the CCS plug are not compatible (unless the plug is changed or an adapter is used). Therefore your statement is misleading in addition to being plain wrong about „Type 3“. Tesla has, of course, always also supported the CCS outside of the United States, both inside the superchargers and inside the cars.

Please stop your disinformation campaign here.

You are making things up and as part of that you are giving an industry standard name a new meaning.

This seems to be wrong, CCS type 3 looks completely different: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_3_connector

The problem is really the business side or pressure from management. 30 Years ago if the software was not efficient it would be either dog slow or just not work at all.

Now it is merely not elegant or not as fast as it could be or at least fast enough initially during development and so no effort is spent on making it better.

I believe this could only be fixed through regulations which either make the engineers liable (thereby empowering them to make decisions) or by regulating energy use and user experience.

If we don‘t want this, then things will just be the way they are now.