294 karma · joined June 14, 2022
I find this hilarious; the BBC has rarely provided a balanced view on many things. Indians (at almost every point in the political and social spectrum) will easily notice the bias and smug holier-than-thou attitude on India-specific news/opinion.
But I assume people will have protections against this? One can just let their credit card company know to block out the next payment, or dispute the charges; I am assuming the user will have adequate proof that they aren't able to get to their subscription account.
While what Google is doing here is scummy, I'm assuming that multiple consumer reversals will make at least a minor dent to their financial reputation with the banks? Did this even need so much AI text?
Despite presence of some very big names (Jio, Airtel), there still is healthy local competition, and the former haven't been able to play any monopoly-related games yet, since it's quite easy to switch. The past few years have been a significant upgrade compared to what I've observed happening in the US. Providers might even start offering 10+ Gbit for consumers in the future, but I doubt there's a market for it right now.
"As part of this transition, however, some premium models, including GPT-5.4, and Claude Opus and Sonnet models, will no longer be available for self-selection under the GitHub Copilot Student Plan."
They specifically said this was primarily for student plans. I'm surprised they did this for the normal pro plans too; it's likely a mistake since the plans page[1] still says that the models will be available.
However, TBH, I've never liked Microsoft's flavor of these; they always seem lobotomized compared to using the models directly in Claude Code / Codex. I rarely use AI in VS Code because it's just bad.
Corporate India is facing way too many weird problems, not just 90-day notice periods:
1. Refusal to provide leaving documents if you leave on less than excellent terms, but you absolutely need pristine docs and sometimes multiple references when joining
2. Salary expectations as compulsory form fields during job applications, but no salary ranges provided in job descriptions
3. An unhealthy approach to leaves - need doctor certificates, way too early notices for leaves more than a few days, too few leaves, etc.
4. A sudden leap in "immediate joining" requirements - you need to come at once, but you can only leave after at least 90 days
5. Playing games with insurance, salary deductions and compulsory contribution requirements to management's favorite CSR pots
In the past few years I've become so frustrated that I just don't bother with large company job applications, or messages from Indian recruiters, because there's a 99% chance there's a really crappy process involved. Smaller firms with good founders / non-Indian consulting roles are a lot more relaxing, and most of the times pay is higher as well.
I'm sure S. T. Joshi might have a bit to say about the topic. Personally speaking from very limited exposure and knowledge of language games, and me not being from an environment which has European language roots, I might have missed quite a bit of such easter eggs in the atmosphere and writing. Like, for example, your comment prompted me to find out what "rue d'auseil" (from The Music of Erich Zann) meant, I didn't bother to find out until today.
I do recommend rereading Lovecraft in English either way, since you never know what gets lost in translation!
Facts and memorization are important, but they need to be in service to actual learning and understanding.
``` Drive. The car needs to be at the car wash. ```
Gemini Thinking gives me 3-4 options. Do X if you're going to wash yourself. Do Y if you're paying someone. Do Z if some other random thing it cooked up. And then asks me whether I want to check whether the weather in my city is nice today so that a wash doesn't get dirtied up by rain.
Funnily enough, both have the exact same personal preferences/instructions. Claude follows them almost all the time. Gemini has its own way of doing things, and doesn't respect my instructions.
Oh, Trump is a joke, on the cusp of crashing out. Then Trump is a danger to society. Cycle as convenient.
Oh crypto is a joke with no uses. Then crypto is a danger to society. Cycle as convenient.
None of this stopped Trump being president twice. Nor did it stop Bitcoin shooting up to tens of thousands of dollars. A few years in, I realized that the Atlantic and its ilk are just in the business of publishing articles people will read, or maybe in the business of hyping things up (negative articles seem to just increase the hype, not taint the subject). They don't really seem to change people's opinions, and they certainly don't believe in being consistent.
Both the US and UK feel free to show me ads even when I've paid a bomb in terms of subscription costs. Not subtle ads of their own products! Top banner ads, middle-of-page scrolling ads, and the like, of whichever fancy watch or lifestyle destination has paid the most money to them. And then they have the gall to write opinion pieces on how ad-based AI and streaming channels are the bane of the world. Plus they feel free to subscribe me to a bunch of their newsletters and podcasts which I have to manually unsubscribe from. One of them actually pedals courses on how to write good.
The Indian news sites have no barrier on what is a paid piece and what is actually news. Promoted pieces occupy the same slots as paid ones. I've seen blatant advertisements masquerading as actual reporting.
I understand that news has been gutted by tech. But there is a need to be honest to a paying customer; if not, they deserve whatever has come to them.
This is EXACTLY what I want. I need my tech to be pull-only instead of push, unless it's communication with another human I am ok with.
> Having something always waiting in the background that can proactively take actions
The first thing that comes to mind here is proactive ads, "suggestions", "most relevant", algorithmic feeds, etc. No thank you.
After my first few years of experience, I specifically started filtering out companies which have people from Amazon in a leadership role. Their work culture is poison, and I'd rather not join than see myself become a zombie for the next couple of years. This has helped me stay sane in my career, but there still are some early scars that remain.
I explicitly do not believe that you can "make it anywhere" if you survive some brutal culture, and that surviving a few years in that place will bless you with the ability to "live life at another company". Why ruin my health and sanity when I can directly join that other company? This glorification of bad environments needs to stop.
I quit a couple years ago, had enough funds saved from the "golden bubble". Took a nice break, and now I'm doing a bunch of different things, a few earning me enough income to live a decent life.
> they’re just anchoring to a world that no longer exists or might quickly disappear
Good engineers aren't blind. If "value has changed shape" for the employers, then it has changed shape for the employees as well. Enough have figured out that they need to diversify out anyway, since companies today cannot and should not be trusted. Only the most desperate will stick around empty shells of regular jobs - there are enough options for talented people to pursue.
So I listen to one totally unserious podcast, and ignore the rest. Makes my day.
There's a certain joy to being with family in an environment everyone is familiar with and has a history in, which no kind of emigration can replicate.
>200 applications? Don't apply. Nonsensical questions asked for a job or company that isn't high-profile? Stop editing my application. Job description that looks like it was written by a 11-year-old? Don't bother reading further. I don't even bother applying to larger companies unless their recruiter specifically calls and says they need me to interview. Not to mention pretty much every form asking me for my salary expectations - no, I will not input them. You tell me yours first (or, I give a very high number, and they don't bother me further).
I cannot spend too much of my precious time and sanity in a system that's so badly broken. So I don't. I apply and forget. A recruiter call will probably have a higher chance of me being interested, but I maintain emotional distance in that as well, since they tend to ghost.
An honest recruiter, a well thought out and clear job description, and professionalism will get my full attention and effort.
Instead I get blanket features I cannot control (and probably cannot turn off?). They just don't end up being useful most of the time, and get shoved in everyone's faces regardless of them actually using/requesting them.
But still agree with the general sentiment that the branding is getting even worse than before.
I'd love to know the reasoning behind this transition. When I want to buy some shoes, I'd like to go to a physical store, and I _usually_ am not going to look for a specific brand, unless I'm a big fan of a sportsperson who endorses Nike and maybe they've started a product line with them. I'm going to see, compare with other shoes and make a decision. D2C is not going to work in such a flow?
If my shoes are not there with other shoes, then I might as well not exist, because I'm not even considered during the comparison phase of shopping.
But this is just me, I don't know how most people shop for shoes and would like to understand more.
I did not think it'd be this horrifying!
This tends to make them either misunderstand the text, read it literally, or just get bored of books in general. On one hand, I admire the fact that great books are read by young people (something which isn't true in my country), but I wonder whether it ends up being counterproductive.
Adaptations running away from the main story to focus overtly on stuff that attracts the audience instead of being faithful to the crux of the source material doesn't help either.
Should I also assume that you're going to just dismiss stuff you do not want to talk about as "written by AI"? Nothing I wrote was AI-generated. I have better stuff to spend AI tokens on than HN comments, of all things.
I also believe that the downvoting people have a bent towards the "orientalist woo", and getting them to put their bias into words and fact/evidenced-based discussion is expecting too much out of smaller minds, but it's not as unfounded as you think it is.
> ancient philosophies that are not held by any practicing Hindu today
You'd be surprised as to how much these ancient philosophies (or whatever translations/strains people ascribe to) still hold fort. I've seen people debating them in Indian management classes, and hold them as closer to fact instead of ancient opinions.
A lot of accommodation to context (NOT subjectivity) in ethical considerations in many of the Indian epics and religious texts, which a lot of western-oriented viewers who've grown up with more black-and-white mentalities regarding good and bad might view as corruption. Add to that a preference for oral retellings of such topics, and viewpoints start differing regarding the same topic even within the same country. However, deeper readings of the same might tell them that concepts of duty and truth are still paramount, which kind of negate the argument.
It's far easier, however, for critics to think that citizens tend to cherry-pick the arguments in such texts which somehow might justify bad actions, while ignoring the importance of personal duty, honor and search of truth. And thus, it's easier for said critics to blame things on the subjectivity of said religion instead of looking at the context, and call it a day. But there's more to the argument than that; you also need to consider the history of the land, major events, and economic and social patterns which have nothing to do with religion. You also need to consider that some individual states which have the religion as dominant are institutionally much stronger than other weaker states; also, the "extreme subjective morality" part is also prevalent in some other religions, and the countries they dominate are not necessarily corrupt.