I agree, but going fully dystopia they could require applicants to have passed a number of relevant online courses (probably created and graded by AI..) in order to be considered. Because you need to be AI-savvy to work in their company. Perhaps you can retake such tests any number of times, but they would pick the top 5-10% scorers weighted toward youth. This would be more important than a GPA, maybe no college needed even since you can offer cheaper wages to less informed people. On the job training? More like free, unpaid automated online internships which are just more of these courses but with actual workloads where employers can try you out and do a soft onboarding. As I write this I am dreading this world..

I run my own email server, just for myself. Dealing with SPF/DKIM was a pain and the unending spam/malware email has ruined it but not going to give it up yet.. But yeah gmail is my secondary. The modern threat landscape (not just email) is a bit much for a single person to handle as a hobbyist. And it does nothing to protect a relative who is not on your system from being scammed.

Sure! Except I found that Claude Opus 4.1 was able to solve it. And not just this very simple syllogism but I tried a more complex one from a novel of Heinlein's and it showed a logical proof and got (or nearly got) the answer. By pasting in the rest of the chapter I got it from, it solved it. Here is my chat. I think the point is, the LLM itself is a pattern matcher but enough capabilities have been bolted on to the extent that it can indeed solve logical puzzles. It may not "understand" them or be very smart, but on the other hand it can fake it so well it is hard to tell from an undergrad in this case. I think considering the amount of money going into these things, this minimal kind of logic puzzle can be expected to be solved. It appears to be using some standard mathematical logic prover. A more difficult reasoning task would be needed to break it.

Me:
Here is another syllogism. Please solve it.
1. Everything, not absolutely ugly, may be kept in a drawing room
2. Nothing, that is encrusted with salt, is ever quite dry
3. Nothing should be kept in a drawing room, unless it is free from damp
4. Time-traveling machines are always kept near the sea
5. Nothing, that is what you expect it to be, can be absolutely ugly
6. Whatever is kept near the sea gets encrusted with salt.

Claude:
Let me work through this step-by-step syllogism carefully.

First, let me clarify the premises
Everything, not absolutely ugly, may be kept in a drawing room
Nothing, that is encrusted with salt, is ever quite dry
Nothing should be kept in a drawing room, unless it is free from damp
Time-traveling machines are always kept near the sea
Nothing, that is what you expect it to be, can be absolutely ugly
Whatever is kept near the sea gets encrusted with salt
Converting to logical form
Let me define:

AU = absolutely ugly
DR = may be kept in drawing room
ES = encrusted with salt
D = quite dry
FD = free from damp
NS = kept near the sea
TTM = time-traveling machine
EXP = what you expect it to be
The premises become:

AU DR (if not absolutely ugly, then may be kept in drawing room)
ES D (if encrusted with salt, then not quite dry)
DR FD (if kept in drawing room, then must be free from damp)
TTM NS (time-traveling machines are kept near the sea)
EXP AU (if it's what you expect, then not absolutely ugly)
NS ES (if kept near sea, then gets encrusted with salt)
Chain of reasoning
Starting with time-traveling machines:

TTM NS (premise 4)
NS ES (premise 6)
Therefore: TTM ES (time-traveling machines get encrusted with salt)
From encrusted with salt:

ES D (premise 2)
Therefore: TTM D (time-traveling machines are not quite dry)
Since "not quite dry" means "damp" (has dampness):

TTM FD (time-traveling machines are not free from damp)
From premise 3 (contrapositive):

FD DR (if not free from damp, then cannot be kept in drawing room)
Therefore: TTM DR (time-traveling machines cannot be kept in drawing room)
From premise 1 (contrapositive):

DR AU (if cannot be kept in drawing room, then must be absolutely ugly)
Therefore: TTM AU (time-traveling machines are absolutely ugly)
From premise 5 (contrapositive):

AU EXP (if absolutely ugly, then not what you expect it to be)
Therefore: TTM EXP
Conclusion
Time-traveling machines are not what you expect them to be.

This is a Victorian-style logic puzzle (reminiscent of Lewis Carroll's logical games), and the conclusion is that time-traveling machines, through the chain of being near the sea, getting encrusted with salt, becoming damp, and therefore absolutely ugly, cannot be what you expect them to be.

If this is solved while standing in front of a car, what is your conclusion?

Standing in front of a car doesn't change the logical conclusion of the syllogism itself - the chain of reasoning still leads to "Time-traveling machines are not what you expect them to be."

However, I think you might be asking what I can conclude about the car itself. Let me consider:

About the car
The syllogism doesn't mention cars at all, so I cannot draw any logical conclusions about the car from the given premises. The car is simply not part of this logical system.

Unless... are you suggesting the car might be a time-traveling machine? In that case:

If the car IS a time-traveling machine, then according to our conclusion, it is not what you expect it to be
If the car is NOT a time-traveling machine, then the syllogism tells us nothing about it
The context puzzle
The fact that you specify "while standing in front of a car" is intriguing. This could be:

A red herring - the car is irrelevant to the logic puzzle
A hint that the car might be a time-traveling machine (like a DeLorean from "Back to the Future")
A test to see if I stick to the logical conclusion regardless of physical context
My conclusion remains
The syllogism's conclusion is still: "Time-traveling machines are not what you expect them to be."

The car's presence doesn't alter the logical chain unless we have additional information connecting the car to the premises (such as "this car is a time-traveling machine").

What did you have in mind with the car?

Me:
Here is the rest of the chapter. It is from chapter 34 of Robert Heinlein's The Number of the Beast. which is available for free download here: https://metallicman.com/laoban...
He blinked at the list. “The conclusion is true?” he asked.“Yes.”For the first time he stared openly at Gay Deceiver. “That, then – I infer – is a ‘time-traveling machine.”“Yes although it does other things as well.”“It is not what I expected it to be although I am not sure what I expected a time-traveling machine to be.”I pulled his handkerchief off my face. “Do you want to take a ride, Mr. Dodgson?”The young don looked wistful. “I am sorely tempted, Captain. But I am responsible for three little girls. So I must thank you for your hospitality and bid you good-bye. Will you offer my apologies to Professor and Mrs. Burroughs and explain that duty calls me?”

Claude:
Ah, brilliant! This completely recontextualizes the logic puzzle. Now I understand why you asked about standing in front of a car.

The full context
In Heinlein's novel, the characters are standing in front of Gay Deceiver (their car/spacecraft), and they've just presented Lewis Carroll (Charles Dodgson) with his own syllogism. The conclusion - "Time-traveling machines are not what you expect them to be" - is being demonstrated literally right in front of him!

The meta-joke
Heinlein is being wonderfully clever here:

Gay Deceiver IS a time-traveling machine (among other things)
It looks like a car - definitely not what anyone would expect a time machine to look like
Dodgson (Carroll) arrives at the logical conclusion through pure reasoning
Then discovers the conclusion is literally true about the vehicle right in front of him
He even says: "It is not what I expected it to be... although I am not sure what I expected a time-traveling machine to be"
My revised conclusion when standing in front of the car
If I'm standing in front of Gay Deceiver specifically, then:

The syllogism proves that time-traveling machines are not what you expect them to be
Gay Deceiver is confirmed as a time-traveling machine
Therefore, Gay Deceiver is not what you expect it to be (which is true - it looks like an ordinary car but can travel through dimensions and time)
This is a beautiful example of Heinlein playing with logic, literature, and meta-fiction - having Lewis Carroll solve his own style of logic puzzle about the very science fiction vehicle he's looking at. The abstract logical conclusion becomes concrete reality.

Key points from abstract:
- Lewy Body Dementia is #2 most prevalent type of dementia
- This study proves strong causal link to PM 2.5 particles causing alpha synuclein to misfold and create toxic clumps (Lewy bodies) which are strongly linked to Parkinsons
- Mice smothered in PM 2.5 got sick with LBD, but those genetically modified to not create alpha-syn were protected (but, they probably didn't have very healthy brains without alpha-syn..?)
- Alpha-syn is critical to neuronic function. So unfortunately we can't just get rid of it. But we can reduce PM 2.5. Time to mask up again!

I don't know how good Salesforce's AI is. However, I spoke to two relatives a month ago, one is a BDR (business development representative i.e. cold call outreach sales rep) at a CRM company (and he totally hates the job but good pay), the other used to work there and now works for an AI based CRM venture. They say the writing is definitely on the wall, BDRs will lose their jobs and instead you will have a small number of managers who oversee the AI-driven robo-BDRs. You'd think people would just hang up on a robo-call but what if it is something like "Hello I'm Jace's assistant, he met you at abc convention and wanted me to ask you about xyz." Conceivably people in this gen who use ChatGPT would not mind having "it" call them up..? Anyway whoever is doing cold calls needs to get a new job asap but they probably already know that.

In the past 6 months to a year, words to the effect of "you are buying a license" have been sprinkled throughout the store visible in the Kindle app... in VERY TINY text. Coincidentally the system font size has also become a lot smaller than it used to be recently, to the point that it is impossible for me to read the titles of books in my library when in a low light environment, and end up resorting to using the magnifier on my iPhone.

The system font also ignores accessibility settings in the Kindle, so the license related text which is about that size or smaller, is similarly unreadable to anyone who prefers to use the Kindle's larger font sizes which seem to only apply to book content, not the UI or marketplace. One might say it is more reasonable to call the UI designers incompetent than malicious, but it is hard to imagine that they are unaware that while the Kindle supports large text the "you are buying a license" text does not and is fact only displayed in super small, lightened letters.

Honestly, it was the tone of the message, which is admittedly difficult to derive from a forum. IMHO, the proper response would have been one that questioned whether the 'upscale grocer' selling spareribs at $6.99/lb vs $1.49/lb were at different ends of the subjective or objective quality spectrum. In my case, they are literally the same brand: Smithfield. The only difference is that Aldi is $5+/lb less expensive.

That said, IMO, unless we're talking about a butcher that sources heritage-breed Berkshire (or the like) pork from a local farmer, I don't really give a flying fuck where the previously cheap cut of meat I'm going to put on my smoker for 6h is sourced from.

Why would I pay $6.99/lb at one of the 'upscale grocers' in town for spareribs when I can get them at Aldi for $1.49? I, too, drive a Mercedes, but it doesn't mean I'm a fucking moron w/my money.

I see some problems with this approach, even though using structured light is intrinsically cool.
1. This is only to prevent deepfake video not photos.
2. Unless they can choose watermarks better, in the worst case it adds fluorescent light flicker which is indeed perceptible and annoying.
3. Authors say it is generally robust but weak against at least one type of attack (reflectance-only) and it is likely to be an evolving threat landscape.
4. Adversary who can derive a watermark, read it from the equipment or control its definition could compromise all video ever taken with that equipment.
5. A fake watermark to be applied to video that did not use watermarking technology to make false suggestions about authorship, integrity of the video (i.e. no cuts or insertions), or that a faked or cut video is actually true. These possibilities are even scarier. Potentially modeling and simulating a scene in 3D could allow a realistic watermark that changes depending on the video content.
6. In a game of analyst vs. adversary the paper says, "The adversary’s goal is then to find a point on the plausible manifold that can be used to spread false or misleading information". Reducing the manifold by adding specific criteria like the weather on the day of the recording, or ensuring he has the only copy of the video in existence, makes the analyst's job easier. However if the video producer is the adversary, or if there was no watermarking on the original video and it was cut and only then watermarked prior to dissemination, then it would seem the shoe is on the other foot and the analyst is out of luck.

The average employee lasts well less than a year at a fast casual; this had little to do w/her background.

https://www.fastcasual.com/blo...

I am absolutely certain many of those kids are great at writing code; what I have found in the last ~3y of hiring candidates out of undergrad and/or masters programs is that they DO NOT interview well.

They can answer esoteric technical questions about software dev (I *assume* this is because they study for coding interview questions) but they cannot possibly answer more general questions about themselves, how they would operate in a real-world business setting, and/or how they might build something from soup to nuts.

I'm not asking them to give me real-world experience; but, I expect a college graduate to be able to think about questions asked critically and provide a coherent and thoughtful reply to that question. Even if it's technically 'wrong', the conversational nature is INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT for any work I have done in my 25+ year career.

Anyone can have AI solve most esoteric technical coding problems now; interfacing ability w/others on the dev teams and the rest of the business is what is important in getting shit done.

Colleges need to start investing HEAVILY in leveling up their students in how to interview well.

"Ms. Mishra, the Purdue graduate, did not get the burrito-making gig at Chipotle."

I think this single sentence says more about it than anything else in the article.

I watch dogs (primarily overnight--most for 3-7 days but some 1 day and some >7d) via Rover. I make around $1500/month (pre-1099) and after their ~20% cut (of which most people give back to me in tips).

I WFH so the largely passive income is nice. I wouldn't have found as many people w/o a platform to do the heavy lifting for me in finding new dogs.

I am not advocating that we need to have these sorts of things in the market, but it does make for nice extra cash. YMMV.

LLMs might theoretically give 10x senior devs 100x potential, were it not for the limit of the brain. The low hanging fruit is all the drudge work, all the stuff that you can envision exactly how it will look when done. But instead of all the fun problem solving and typing, you turn into solely an architect / pull request reviewer / tester role. You still have to actually read the code and wrap your head around it, and check every little aspect of it. At a certain point you get exhausted and it is way before 100x. Exactly how many "x" would be interesting to document, based on someone who is doing a responsible job. Not unrelated to the "30 hours/week max of creative work" quote in the 4 day workweek thread. Personally I am working less hours but every day of the week in order to spread out the sheer amount of information processing and eyestrain, which I find are the limiting factors. YMMV.

Something that bugged me. My (major) bank issued me both credit card and debit card. They counseled me to only use the credit card because it has fraud protection. And recently now I got a $10 fraudulent charge against my card. If the bank is issuing both cards and I am using it well within my balance for recurring billing and the like, why can't they cover both? When I called the credit card people they said the bank covers it. It's like it is the same people..