Yes, exactly, this is it.

In this case, it dug up something on a company website, and then I could go read the real information there.

True, there's a huge downside to being fed the answer.

I do spend a lot of time looking at virtually random stuff, anything that just seems interesting. What is maybe more alarming about AI isn't the job replacement scenario, but the killing of creativity and synthesis.

Being able to talk to the computer to ask it to find things based on meanings is like Star Trek technology and it's sad in a way that the hype is distracting from what they're good at. For example, yesterday I had a problem (not tech but a field I know nothing about (oh wait like tech then)) and the first AI search I did gave me an excellent find. Maybe I would have found it after spending all day browsing, but this was a great answer. And what about when we were supposed to wait for the semantic web and all that. So it's a bit sad it gets hyped as being able to replace people.

I think different.

Socialism with American Characteristics

Iowa's rolling farm fields of coffee

Indeed, I fully agree. The funny thing is, monthly numbers would help us move away from the distortions of the quarterly cycle. If key data reporting becomes frequent enough, you can't get into a cycle of "do adverse-numbers stuff early in the quarter and then cram positive-numbers stuff into the end of the quarter". You have to - *gasp* - just run your business normally.

Some businesses could still manage to switch to a monthly cycle, but anyone who deals significantly in transoceanic feedstocks/parts/goods shipments won't be able to.

BLS numbers aren't some sort of dark art. They're literally just the compiled numbers reported by companies. Numbers are what they are. To fight against jobs numbers is to fight against reality.

People get confused by the existence of revisions. The problem is that not all data gets reported in a timely manner. When late data comes in, it causes revisions to the earlier reported numbers, either up or down.

Firing the head of the BLS because you don't like what numbers US companies reported is just insane Banana Republic-level nonsense.

Yes, and not just functional but I doing it detracts from the emotional experience for the user.

I have an older iPad which is light and thin and wonderful and all that, except it has a protruding camera. It won't sit flat on a table. I dare not rest my hand on the screen whilst writing because I don't know how much or little force is needed to bend the pad given there's this protrusion in one corner.

And why should I wrap it in a thick case when the back is already metal?

I find it totally stupid.

I find it incredibly ugly (I am an iPhone user).

I don't like notches in screens either. It's a stupid aesthetic and functional lie.

Oh and the daft Apple TV remote that's too slippery, plus it's hard to tell which way up it is.

I've tended to be a fan of Apple for their design, and that also means I kinda hate them when they screw up the design.

Design is about compromises but don't make the wrong compromises.

Yes, he fired the same person who was ultimately responsible for putting out crap numbers.

US reporting has always been the gold standard. Nobody has accused the BLS of "crap numbers" until Trump decided he didn't like them. It's is so way outside the norms it doesn't even resemble something that could conceivably happen in the US; this is banana republic-level stuff.

Yeah, as an investor, my reaction to this proposal was, oh HELL no.

TL / DR:

BLS chief: "Jobs are turning bad now."

Trump: "Fake news, you're fired. I'm appointing a January 6th rioter conspiracy theorist to head the BLS!"

BLS today: "Jobs were ALREADY bad!"

The fact that you take at face value a revision of Biden-era job numbers, immediately after Trump fired and replaced the BLS chief explicitly because he published jobs numbers Trump didn't like, is....

Well, it's certainly a choice.

I was thinking the same thing. What sort of an idiot will take US jobs numbers at face value right after Trump fired the Bureau of Labor Statistics chief after he reported numbers that Trump didn't like?