vorhemus

Turns out even they were a bit too optimistic: http://stadiacountdown.com/

The message might be indeed end-to-end encrypted but the local WhatsApp installation could extract keywords as you type from the message and send them to Meta.

In previous times you really had to make an effort to insult someone - engraving this probably took some time.

I used to think corporations strive to reduce costs and therefore keep their workforce to the minimum necessary. Now my theory is that managers in a company try to maximize their influence and standing and this is mostly done by making sure they have as many people below them as possible. Therefore they hire consitantly for their teams and create new sub-hierarchies below them.

If this is the case, the obvious side effect is the emergence of bullshit jobs as the purpose of hiring is not primarely to finish work but to increase power of managers in corporations.

Some of these answers seem to be too good to be true and certainly need to be verified by others.

Beside that, even if the interview is not manipulated, it is not a proof for human-like sentience. Human emotions are based on neurochemical processes. If emotions can actually arise on the basis of electromagnetism as well, that would be a groundbreaking discovery. But an "interview" of a part-time researcher with a computer program is not enough evidence to seriously claim this.

Some popular packages are Python version dependent. For example, I was using Python 3.10 early and no Python wheels for 3.10 were released for PyTorch back then. The only thing you can do in this case is to either wair for the publisher to provide these packages or use a lower version Python interpreter.

> Elon Musk has something special that you don't have

I believe that there are many Elon Musks in the world but due to various circumstances (born in the wrong place at the wrong time, bad luck, terrible parents) they never get the chance to shine.

The difficulty in making accurate predictions here is based on the fact that we humans tend to think the status quo linearly into the future, which is why many wrong predictions have been made regarding the adaptation of computers or the Internet or other technologies. However, it has been shown that certain unpredictable ideas may be developed based on these technologies, leading to mass adoption of the respective medium.

Long story short: If you don't know which horse will win and you have enough money (time), bet a certain amount on the most promising ones.

Critics might now argue that the goal of the diversity movement was never to create equal opportunities for everyone but to promote specific groups.

Anyway, the illogic of this movement already starts with the fact that only certain characteristics are seen as a source of discrimination, while others are not. Skin color and gender are known to be factors of discrimination. But what about "beauty," "social origin" or "age"? It is known from studies that attractive people are considered to be more competent or more successful and are promoted more often - less attractive people therefore suffer an unfair disadvantage. Shouldn't this therefore also become part of any effort to stop discrimination?

Olympic Games have been used before to underline the power and greatness of a nation - look at how the 1936 Games were used propaganda-wise, so I don't think this is a new phenomenon. What has definitely changed is the importance of live events on TV. In the German speaking area in the 80s to the 2000s, Saturday night shows were popular that gathered the whole family in front of the TV (I'm just saying "Wetten Dass..?"). Due to on demand entertainment that can be perfectly tailored for the desired target audience on Youtube or similar platforms, such TV events have simply lost their importance.

The idea that there are KPIs that can be used to objectively measure the performance of an SE and that the worst performers will be fired is an illusion. In reality, the direct manager has it in his hands: If he wants to get rid of one of his employees, he will find means and KPIs to do so. It is a political and human decision, KPIs only serve to justify his decision.

I don't think people who say they work 14 hours a day are lying. They just count in everything that is somehow related to their job, like reading about their business in the newspaper or thinking about work in the shower. And that's the crux of the matter, in jobs that don't have clearly assigned shifts or where attendance is measured, the boundaries between work and leisure become blurred. And then again, comparisons of who works how long are completely useless.

Why does this get so many upvotes? There is no value in the linked post other than saying: Buy my masterclass!

It's like telling the government to put certain companies out of business because the owner has a worldview that I don't like.

Most big tech companies now use "conditional access" for their login with the hypothesis that this increases security. Even if it does, it leads to a drastic reduction in user-friendliness as OP has seen. It is like saying: The best way to prevent unauthorized access to our servers? Let's just turn it off!

This is a how things are handled at companies that get 500+ applications for each open position and/or are just incompetent. At smaller companies it is very likely that actual humans read a résumé without the keyword matching bullshit.

To me, the most promising use cases for a blockchain would be activities that are today carried out by government agencies, states or lawyers. Anyone who has ever bought a property in central Europe knows how much money has to be spent on trustees and notaries. If such transactions can be carried out in a secure way between buyer and seller without an intermediary, that would be a huge win. However, the lobby of lawyers and notaries is big, the connections to politicians are tight and they will not give up this business easily. Additionally the public sector is not known for its fast technology adoption.

I have a smiliar feeling. Humans have certain wishes or desires and use language as a vehicle to express their feelings. Language models in turn just predict the next best tokens based on a large corpus of training data without an agenda behind. Even if the result (the produced words) are the same, there is a fundamental difference if it was produced based on statistical data or with a goal in mind.

When I write a README for a library I always try to include 1-2 code samples of the highlights of said library. So the reader sees quickly what to expect.

Decentralization and taking power out of the hands of large corporations is no guarantee of success - otherwise Napster would have to dominate the music streaming market today and not Spotify.

> prior to the Bitcoin Paper we literally didn't know how to have permissionless

Simply not true. Torrents allow you to store and retrieve objects from a decentralized object "database" without an individual having control over it.

I can safely say that most of the time upper management spends in meetings is wasted but what counts are the 5-10% of time when actual important decisions are made. I'd argue the same is true for developers: Changing that one line of code that is reducing build time for all future projects can be more valuable than a bunch of code written for something irrelevant.

For me the important question would be: How much do you _care_ finding that line in the haystack?

I see Bitcoin closer to the art market then to gold or a currency. There is de facto no universal rule for pricing a work of art other than what someone is willing to pay for it at auctions. As long as everyone assumes that artworks will be sold more expensive in the future and no one sells below the purchase price, the prices will rise - provided that the interest in it remains upright.

As much as I admire the idea of free information sharing, I think the decoupling of time and effort put into the creation of digital content and its monetization is a fundamental problem. It may be that many creators produce their content only as a hobby, but when I see how authors of popular software libraries rely on donations while big tech companies earn millions with their code, something is wrong.

It might be interesting to think about ideas where creators are automatically compensated for their digital content, even if it's just fractions of a cent per view or code execution. Many authors of popular answers on Stackoverflow would probably be rich already.

Most likely the leadership team is aware that these "viewers" just exist in theorey but they can fool advertisers into thinking their channel has a higher reach and collect more advertising revenue in return.

I'd have guessed that it should be possible to get a reasonable amount of $ for selling access to FBI email servers but maybe the person(s) behind the attack don't care much about money.

In my opinion a complete misuse of the term "robotic". Similarly how the term "AI" was (and is) abused by tech companies marketing departments.

An old discussion but I still think that interview questions like the TicTacToe example completely miss the point. The vast majority of engineers are stopped by questions like: Why does this version of a library no longer work? How do I address this legacy API I need to include in my program?

These interview questions exist only for the purpose of filtering out as many as possible from an enormous number of candidates, not to find the most suitable engineers.

I wonder how many of these meetings just exist to fill time and feel important. Yes, communication and dicussions in a team are important but I throw the hypothesis into the room that most of these could also be solved in a 5 minutes walking meeting.

If I think about things that should be automatized with robots in this world my number one priority would be boring or exhausting work like repairing roads, mine work, deliver goods from A to B. Why should we replace the "human" part in human-to-human communication with robots when social interaction is one of the pillars that define us? I'd rather speak with an unfriendly real person in a call center than an emotionless "friendly" robot.

But yes, if "improving conversion rates" is your main priority, it may be helpful.

I once applied for a job where I knew the hiring manager already but of course I had to go through the whole interview process. The job description was rather generic with phrases like "3+ years of experience in C++/Java/C# that I think I fulfilled pretty well. Next day I got a standard rejection email from a "noreply" address without any explanation why. I called the hiring manager and asked if he could figure out what happened, I didn't expect to drop out at the resume stage already. He came back to me telling me that the keyword "C#" was not in there, so I was automatically filtered and rejected. I didn't know that "experience in C++/Java/C#" apparently means experience in ALL of them, all these languages/keywords must appear in the CV somewhere.

Two things I learned here: 1) If I didn't know already someone at that company, I would still be clueless why I wasn't accepted. 2) The first hiring stage at big companies is indeed a silly keyword filtering process.