Agreed. For as far back as I've known it, companies are reluctant to hire less experienced workers, and mentorship is seen as a high cost rather than valuable.

In smaller environments, hiring an inexperienced worker or recent grad was seen as a cost to repay your own mentorship; everyone was expected to take at least one new person under their wing, sometimes multiple. Mentoring is generally considered essential, and it's part of the transition from senior worker into leadership. Seniors train juniors, and those approaching retirement finish out their careers training everybody, mostly just supervising and commenting, and that's a good thing for knowledge transfer, both for institutional knowledge and collective wisdom across the industry.

In corporate environments people want to hire already-trained, drop-in experts. Phrases like "hit the ground running", rather than "six month training period", unless the worker themselves are expected to pay for that training period. Companies see training, mentorship, and learning as something people do on their own time, not something the company does. And there's no retirement phase where the declining workers spend their days passing along their institutional knowledge, they're fired the moment after passing their peak, and the institutional knowledge vanishes.

It's what passes for journalism these days. Give it a few rewrites, it will be on the various news aggregation sites that you're an insider with first-hand knowledge, or that you're a spokesperson for the company.

Same, I had that for a while.

The wifi names were "Surveillance Van 5" and "Surveillance Van 24" for 5Ghz and 2.4GHz channel. I set the family's cell phones network device names "Surveillance Operator 1", "Surveillance Operator 2", "Surveillance Operator 3", and "Surveillance Operator 4". For house guests sometimes it got a chuckle, "connect to surveillance van 24". I know when I went to friends who took their networks seriously, I had someone ask about it.

Seems like this all boils down down definitions. What does a grade mean?

If a grade means understanding the material, there's no reason every student couldn't get an A. Sure, many won't, but when we're talking about Harvard students, especially at lower-level courses, the barriers to get into the school are so high that it makes sense most students would be able to master the material.

If grades are relative to other students, even if every student understands the material perfectly there's still going to be the curve, some A's, B's, C's, and some must fail.

Turning the link purple to go to the report, then following that link to the actual study, you can look at those concerns.

Oddly enough, the post-doc researchers at University College London doing research in behavioral science and psychiatry, published through Oxford University, do indeed answer the questions.

The paper shows is something they noticed and want to investigate further, presented as "the first evidence" not a final conclusion. They started from the UK Household Longitudinal Study data, data going back to 1991 and publicly available to any registered researcher, and cross checked against a few others with related sampling information. They looked at ages from 16 to 90, marital status, children, education level, employment status, household income, area deprivation index (living in poor areas to rich areas) and reported disabilities.

At the time, Apple promised that the AI features would be available on the iPhone 15 Pro and higher models. (They weren't going to be on the plain iPhone 15, I guess because it has an older CPU.)

Unfortunately that industry lobbiests got their hands on the politicians.

It has a *TON* of loopholes. The biggest loophole is all they need to do is start including these words in their disclosures: "THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM OR BY USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA." Just make sure it is included in the webpage along with all the other terms and conditions, and they can do all they want.

Yup, collusion, price fixing, and antitrust violations are a few of the ways it is an issue. Indirectly by third parties doing the collusion, as was done with apartments, is still collusion.

The special interest groups clearly got their hands into the politicians for this version. Here's the text, pick the version of the full text in the dropdown. Even though it has loopholes you could drive a delivery truck through, it's a start.

Kinda. Yes, the US-based judge could issue a judgment that affects the .org domain, as that's managed by a US-based company. But the rest? The judge has no authority for Liechtenstein (.li), Sweden (.se), India (.in), Saint Pierre and Miquelon (.pm), Greenland (.gl), Switzerland (.ch), Pakistan (.pk), Grenada (.gd), and the British Virgin Islands (.vg).

The rant about threats, harassment, coercion, not so much.

Yup, that caught my eye too.

Security isn't "my blueprints are secret."

Security comes with: "Here are the blueprints, here is the research behind the blueprints, here are copies of the safe to practice on, here are conference papers discussing the known exploits of the safe, here are the reviews done by experts in the field, and here is the list of implementations used by governments around the world, if you discover exploits you'll make global news and companies everywhere will want your brains."

Intermissions are still a thing in concerts, plays, theater, musicals, and in many types of Indian cinema.

The break lets the audience stretch, visit a toilet, talk about what they've seen, and buy the high-priced concessions. Run for about an hour, have a break, finish it up. Or a 3-act, with two breaks.

It makes a change for the writers, with a one-act movie there is a continuous momentum from beginning to end, with breaks the writing can be more episodic. Neither is really going to be right or wrong, just different for storytelling. Many take advantage of the break with time passing or off-screen events as part of telling the story effectively.

Seems you're missing the point. The article says anyone over 133K was classified as upper middle class, and ignored the location. We agree on that bit.

They counted millions of people who are low income for their region and even potentially on welfare as being upper middle class. They said 10% of the population was upper middle class in 1979 by one metric, but then using a different metric that 31% were upper middle class in 2024. They wrongly and quite openly counted millions of households with welfare level incomes, lower class incomes, and middle class incomes and claimed they were in the upper middle class. Everything that follows from the conclusion that upper middle class has grown so much is fundamentally flawed.

A huge amount of the population are millionaires if we define a millionaire as someone with thousands of dollars. That's effectively what they did here. Count millions of household that middle, lower, and welfare-level as though they're upper middle class, and suddenly the upper middle class triples in size. The claims that follow that the lower rungs of the middle class are garbage because they just reclassified them as upper middle class, even though by the author's own admission they are not.

This. The lower end of those "upper middle class" numbers may qualify for welfare in some tech hub cities.

They do point out that it varies by location, but really their number range is terrible. "classified a family of three earning $133,000 to $400,000 in 2024 dollars as upper middle class." From the HUD Section 8 income limits, expensive places the lower end of that is considered low income, like San Jose 143,600 qualifies for Section 8, versus cities like Akron where 72,250 is low enough to qualify. Location, location, location.

As this is /. lots of us live in tech hubs that even though we don't like the costs, they're very expensive places to live. In my current city despite being a full hour commute from the city center 130K is still solidly middle class. Not poverty, but not upper crust either. That income wouldn't require a trailer park, but would have a hard time affording a 3 bedroom / 2 bath home (they'd add another 45+ minutes to the commute distance), one or possibly two small vacations per year.

In tech hubs especially, those household incomes can be very middle class, not upper-middle, and in some places, lower class lifestyles.

Statistically it is not the severity of the punishment, it's the likelihood of being caught and facing consequences.

When the likelihood of facing consequences is high, even frequent offenders comply even when consequence are minimal. Even something like line jumping, it's about if they think they can get away with it, not the seriousness of consequences.

Traffic violations are similar. When "everybody knows" a curve holds a speed trap people drop to the speed limit, when they are past it they lay on the accelerator. When I see a bunch of break lights ahead frequently I will hear GPS call out "speed trap ahead" right where the others started slowing. The perceived risk of enforcement, not severity, is the biggest factor.

Scammers know the risk is minimal. In India many of the big operators include people in politics and police, it doesn't take much of a cut to bribe officials.

In general they've been on the right trend of only playing after interactions.

Most of the time they're ads, and even if they do manage to slip through my ad blocks and DNS fliters, I still don't want them playing.

Waste of bandwidth.