3,315 karma · joined March 28, 2014
It would really suck to have to go through security after your first flight whenever you are connecting.
They didn’t entirely “reverse course”, the society changed and evolved at each point, but it remained recognizably Roman. And that’s just the western empire.
At least not yet.
If my kid takes their tablet to grandma and grandpas I want the preferences and signals to carry forward, even when connected to a network at household that is nominally only adults.
These technologies don't need to be bullet proof to be effective and they don't need to send more information than "treat all requests from device as being from under 8/13/18." The ills these age verification efforts are trying to address (and they are real problems) are from excessive, not casual or incidental use. Yes, there will be many kids that get around any reasonable control, but just making it less convenient will reduce harm.
I have various content controls on at my house. I'm the admin, I can turn them off whenever I want to. I almost never do, because 1) the block reminds me I should probably shouldn't be going to whatever site I'm going to and 2) for the most part, my experience is better with the "restricted" search engines/youtube/social media.
I think that’s what makes this story so funny- the FBI was acting appropriately and rationally, but ended up with a relatively absurd result.
There is a ton of evidence that there are harms to unrestricted online access for kids and teens (the book The Anxious Generation is cultural touchstone for this topic at this point). There is a real, well reasoned, and valid movement to do something about this problem.
The solutions proposed aren’t always well targeted and are often hijacked by the pro-surveillance movement, but it’s important to call out that these solutions aren’t well targeted instead of declaring the age verification push isn’t addressing a real problem and constituency.
On internal projects it’s different- my code is the teams code. It’s never actually been mine. My colleagues comment on it, provide feedback and help me improve. After all, we are all supporting it. I’ve had almost exclusively positive experiences doing this, even if sometimes I had to change some of my priorities or opinions on things.
At this point I have a fancy enough title that, in the rare cases I get to write code or docs, people lower in level are willing to give me feedback and everyone higher in level is too busy. I miss it- it’s hard to improve without feedback and genuine collaboration is fun.
So I say publish it. Most likely no one will say anything. Maybe you’ll get some feedback and you’ll normalize managing it. Maybe you’ll find a collaborator. Maybe you’ll get flamed by a troll and you’ll learn there are idiots on the Internet. But most likely a few people will just look and say nothing.
An aside, this assumes you are not in some toxic subculture. Your mention other students- if you are in some form of university environment where there is a culture of belittling others you might want to wait. I promise that’s abnormal.
Google YouTube TV for NFL Sunday ticket Robinhood Some dog tracker thing Detergent Peloton Liberty mutual Some truck brand Foam insulation
Other than how to buy gold ads and sandy hook promise, my ads are very mild. YMMV
I know it probably won't matter, but it's kind of fun for me.
Definitely worth opening the shade for if you have the opportunity
If my beloved team wins, I’m ecstatic and don’t really care I lost $50. If they lose, well, at least I have $50.
If they are just using the program to pay less than they otherwise would for labor that does exist in the us, well, then we have another issue.
I would modify the proposal to include a larger annual fee rather than an application fee, so that the initially sponsoring company isn’t solely bearing the cost. There should also be a floor pay rate for the visa holder, something the 75th or 80th percentile of both the company and of income in the MSA the visa holder is located in.
AFAIK nothing was proven, but it got a reputation.
While the article presents cases that appear the be problematic in the particulars, I think coming to the conclusion that bosses/managers shouldn't be pushing or mandating the use of AI tools in general is incorrect.
It's quite possible that any one new AI tool is wrong, but it is unlikely all of them are. A great historical analogies are the adoption of PCs in the 80s and the adoption of the internet/web in the 90s. Not everything we tried back then was an improvement on existing technologies or processes but in general if you weren't experimenting across a broad swath of your business you were going to get left behind.
It's easy to defend the utility of these tools so long as you caveat them. For example, I've had a lot of success in AI driven code generation for utility scripts, but it is less useful for full fledged feature development in our main code base. AI driven code summarization and its ability to do coding standards enforcement on PRs is a huge help.
Finally, I find the worries in the article about using these tools on sensitive data or scenarios such as ideation to be rather overdrawn. They are just SaaS services. You shouldn't use the free version of most tools for business purposes due to often problematic licensing, but purchasing and legal should be able help find an appropriate service. After all, if you are using google docs or Microsoft 365 to create and store your documents why would (at least with some due diligence that they don't retain or train on your input) you treat Gemini or Copilot (or their other LLM options) as presenting higher legal peril?
While movies are art, they are primarily an entertainment product, especially when they cost $65-200M to make. Jurassic World is selling really well, so they aren’t going to change the product to produce “better” art.
It is interesting that Jurassic Park are the only (non animated) dinosaur movies to get much traction while JW is taking in so much money. But it’s got to be tough to come up with a dinosaur movie concept that doesn’t sound like a JP knockoff and doesn’t confuse viewers.
Maybe Marvel will make a Savage Lands movie. But I don’t think this what the author wants.
100k/305 residents= 325 people/restaurant. Average per capita spending on food away from home is $4500. That means that each restaurant has $1,475,000 of addressable market on average, which seems totally viable? (https://www.michiganfarmnews.com/boom-in-spending-at-restaur...)
I remember another parent ranting about their 3rd grade kids “stupid homework” since it had kids learning different ways of summing numbers. I took a look at the homework and replied “wow, the basics out set theory are in here!” We then had a productive discussion of how that arithmetic exercise led to higher math and ways of framing problems.
Similarly, writing produces a different form of thought than oral communication does.
History is a bit different, but a goal of history and literature is (or it least should be) to socialize students and give them a common frame of reference in society.
Finally there is the “you don’t know when you’ll need it defense.” I have a friend who spent most of the last 20 years as a roofer, but his body is starting to hurt. He’s pivoting to CAD drafting and he’s brushing off a some of those math skills he hated learning in school. And now arguing with his son about why it’s important.
Those are the fundamental defenses- that we are seeking not skills but ways of viewing the world + you don’t know what you’ll need. There are obviously limits and tradeoffs to be made, but to some degree yes, we should be forcing students (who are generally children or at least inexperienced in a domain) to things they don’t like now for benefits later.