Security consulting in Abu Dhabi.

Trust me, you don't want to work there. Not for any money.

So what may be my issues?

Pretty much this.

The internet has been turned into a cesspool of rubbish. If anything, something that "changes the internet as we know it" can't really make it much worse anymore.

Or rather, if it does, maybe even the muggles finally realize it.

Google has access to one of the biggest data pools, if they're not the biggest aggregators of data altogether. They also have a bunch of incredibly talented statisticians and pattern recognition systems in place.

If there is a way to detect AI generated bullshit, they have the means to do it.

It is funny how you think that it is the red states that will kill this. Noncompetes are already not enforceable in many right-to-work states. It's the blue states where noncompete clauses had weight.

I actually believe that. Probably because that's what Hasan Ibraheem is quoted as saying in this article. He was already part of an organization No Tech For Apartheid. Here's the requisite quote from the article in case you don't feel like clicking on a link.

I don't see why this should be a surprising take. There are quite a few people that have become professional protestors. Nine people sat for a while in an office building with some very nice banners and somehow this has been in the national news for a week. These people came prepared, they were well-funded, and they clearly were plugged into the media well beforehand. He's done it once. I am sure that he has a long career ahead of him in this profession.

I want to make this very clear. I actually applaud this guy for his work. I am quite sure that he is genuine in his regard for Palestine, and it is hard to argue that it isn't an important topic. I just don't believe, even for a second, that any of this was a surprise to him. Hasan used his job at Google to catapult himself into this role.

And another set of professions, this time astroturfers and SEO bullshitters, losing their job to AI.

This time around, though, it's hard to feel sorry.

I'm not *too* worried about the cancer thing. By huge margin, the majority of gene errors either do nothing or worst case kill the cell (Cells have some fairly robust mechanisms to detect errors and suicide the cell if it detects them to protect the organism). Thats not to say its impossible, and some mechanisms are more dangerous to tamper with than others (especially around ageing. Ageing is in some respect a function of the body protecting our genes from cancers. google "hayflick limit".) but I suspect a lot of gene modifications theres a fair degree of slack as to whats safe or not.

The ones that drive me around the bend are when I'm looking for technical stuff, and I find a tutorial that looks like its human written, isnt on medium, and and isn't on something thats pre-fucked like MS help forums. I'll get quarter way through when I start noticing that something about the language is a bit .... off.... and then some absolute gibberish turns up and only after wasting 10 minutes of my life do I realise I'm just reading cGPT generated content farm gibberish.

A GP friend found a classic though the other day that had a serious article about some heart condition and mid paragraph towards the end the classic line "As a chatbot from OpenAI it would be unethical to.....". On closer inspection the entire article was apparently nonsense. But even he as a medical doctor, brain bigger than almost anyone else I knew , had been strung along for quite a few paragraphs before it literally said it was chatgpt. If he can be suckered , what hope for us mere mortals.

damn posted reply to wrong person initially. The only difference is China uses the government to screw people over whereas elsewhere we use corporate lawyers and bank balance plus the courts to steal secrets. ethically and morally they are the same.

The only difference is China uses the government to screw people over whereas elsewhere we use corporate lawyers and bank balance plus the courts to steal secrets. ethically and morally they are the same.

If the bullshit hashicorp has been pulling lately towards open source projects is anything to go by, I'd say hashicorp have no problem self-enshitifying. With luck IBM will throw them in the barn with Red Hat and we might see an actual improvement in corporate behavior (red hat are no saints, but at least their lawyers are kept on a leash)

No, they usually negotiate with the company pretending a partnership deal is on the table, once they have all the technical details they decide not to go ahead with the deal and create their own version of it (sometimes even by poaching staff of the potential partner). Why pay for the company when you can steal the assets.

So that explains the license change last August. Valuation bump and/or a demand from IBM in order to close the sale.

RIP Terraform.