Except it's not a concerning issue. Hantavirus doesn't spread well from human to human except when in close quarters (e.g. cruise ships). When you do the math based on the number of people on the ship, the likely R_0 would be *way* less than one out in the real world. So realistically, if they had evacuated the cruise ship after the first case, most of the people who got sick wouldn't have gotten sick, and you'd have at most maybe one or two cases in people who weren't on the ship, and that's about the realistic limit to its spread.

I don't remember the exact numbers I came up with, but it was something laughable like an R_0 of 0.15 or something.

It's a human interest story, because folks felt for the people trapped on that ship, but it was not a meaningful public health threat given the numbers involved.

It of course works to some extent. It doesn't work to an extent that it can replace a meaningful part of engineer time, though it can certainly be used for rapid prototyping and other special cases.

Most of engineers' time isn't spent writing code. It is spent reviewing code and understanding the code. When a person writes code, they are doing this while they write the code. When AI writes the code, that time is spent on the back end while reviewing the code. This is actually more mentally intensive than writing the code to begin with, because you're having to concentrate much more continuously. This means it takes longer, on average, and you're much more likely to make mistakes and miss critical errors during the review process, because you're trying to shove all of that mental effort into a much smaller amount of time. So you save a lot of time up front, and you pay back nearly all of that time at the end.

Until such time as AI can write perfect code that doesn't require human review, the review process will continue to be the bottleneck, and I'm not seeing any evidence that AI is approaching that point.

AI is great for creating demos that you're going to throw away and rewrite a dozen times. Teams that are playing with ideas for new features can potentially generate a lot more prototypes quickly by using AI. But they're saving time precisely because it's throwaway code. As soon as you're trying to use it for production code, the savings evaporate. Or at least this is what I have seen pretty consistently.

This is not to say that AI is useless for coding. When used as a glorified autocomplete engine, it can save you from a lot of tedious busywork. When used for code review, it at least has the potential to catch interesting bugs before they make it into production. And so on. But the notion that this will suddenly allow for cutting a large percentage of programmers is utterly naïve. Given their previous cuts, they've already exceeded the expected payoff from AI. So blaming this on AI savings isn't realistic.

So the real question is whether they'll be able to get their AI tech up to the quality and scalability level where they can survive on only that revenue before their social media platform craters from inadequate resourcing.

It's the dream of sociopathic greedy billionaires everywhere. Too bad for them that it's a pipe dream.

Here's the harsh reality: AI doesn't work. You can spend days cajoling AI into doing something correctly and spend days reviewing the bad code over and over until it gets it right or you can spend days writing the code. On average, the time savings are minimal, and the cost in terms of code understanding is enormous, resulting in less and less maintainable code over time until you eventually end up having to throw the whole thing away and rewrite it from scratch at an enormous cost.

Mind you, Meta was probably at the point where their whole code base needed to be thrown away and rewritten from scratch at least five years ago, given the level of bugginess that I've seen, so maybe AI lets them extend the long tail of badly written code a bit longer before they completely implode, but that's hardly a position for other execs to aspire to.

They won't. They'll have a bumpy few months followed by mass attrition from the complete destruction of employee morale, followed by panic when they realize that they don't have enough remaining employees to keep the lights on adequately, followed by even bigger panic when they realize qualified candidates aren't even bothering to apply for their open positions.

Nobody wants to work for a dying shell of a company that laid off a third of their workers over only a couple of years. As a company, if you're not innovating and growing, you're dying. Meta is dying. Their AI is basically worst-in-class at this point, and everything else is getting shoved aside to make more money for that latest boondoggle, because their execs don't know how to recognize a sunk cost fallacy.

It would take a literal miracle to save Meta from the death spiral that this will cause. If I owned Meta stock, I'd be selling in a hurry right now, or at least selling covered calls to buy protective puts to limit my losses. Stick a fork in it. They're done.

They drag them to school, but at that point, there's a record, and if it keeps happening, it becomes a legal problem for the parents, who have a responsibility for making sure their kids go to school.

To a school that is under-funded in part because kids aren't meeting the minimum attendance for the school to get paid.

All of those things are the responsibility of their parents. Those are adult problems for adults to solve. Kids can't realistically solve them, and can't reasonably be expected to solve them. And as soon as you let kids try to solve them, you're reinforcing the cycle of poverty by preventing them from getting the education that would enable to them to break that cycle. I'm not saying it's fair or good, just that preventing such things is better than the alternative, where we have child labor who grow up to be adults who earn minimum wage or worse.

What rubbish.

You must be one of those uneducated because in terms of most of things you mention there kids today have it better than almost all children throughout history, with possibly the narrow exception of those of us lucky enough to be born between the end of WWII and maybe 2001 in the USA anyway.

For anything you wrote there to be sensible we'd have to assume that the above cohort is the only mentally health group of children in most of history.. LOL

There are stupid posts, and there are rsilvergun stupid posts, this is one of the latter an amazingly it isnt even an rsilvergun post...

Even if true - irrelevant.

Why because even in the most affluent districts we still see a long term decline in academic performance. The only conclusion that can be support is driver of our education problems is not 'spending'

This complete bullshit. I have multiple teachers in the family. First through third year teachers work a lot. After that you mostly just refresh stuff a little bit at a time.

As to your whole Vietnam fairy tail also nonsense, but cause it completely neglects the demand side of the equation. It is not like any little town or burg anywhere just build some more schools and added classrooms because there was glut of teachers on the market. Honestly the stuff you post here, is fucking retarded dude, it does not pass even the basic smell test, let alone 10 seconds of google research anyone can do because they are already accessing a website.

So now we return to teacher pay... No you won't get rich, but you get incredible job security, summers off, and PTO during the year, generally solid benefits, and also a very average salary on an hourly basis using actual school days + required in service days. Is that a compensation structure that is ideal for every house hold, possibly not, but that is NOT the same saying they are under paid, in terms of career and time investment vs market value of total compensation.

That and this

We took away accountability because it hurt little Johny's "feels" and Shaikwa moaned it was 'racist'

Which a really good documentary might, simply offer the statement or some analysis to the effect that John and Yoko where conceptual artists and not everything they record offered great insights, but we can take a listen anyway to perhaps gain some insight into their process.... During which for visuals you don't then need to try and represent the conversation, you probably just show them and what their surroundings might have been at the time.

I don't know I have heard the subject materials either but at least on the surface here it seems like perhaps the wrong problem is being solved here. He notes he ran out of money. So was the real problem that he ran of actually interesting material he could produce on his budget said "i have stretch this thing out another 20min here, lets just play this old tape of some conversation that did not really go any place and does not add anything but hey it will run the clock, if play the melody of Imagine in the background his fans will watch anything" which then lead us to "ok now what can I put on the screen to while I play this"

The other question is why would you want abstract imagery to accompany a philosophical conversation?

I don't see how that could ever be helpful in a documentary where we are supposed to be learning about what Lennon and Yoko were thinking.

Either philosophy has some concrete premises that can be shown, and should be to help anchor the conversation or it is going to be ideas of a conceptual nature that does not have an visual representation that people would understand in a shared way.

I fail to see how some machine-generated-acid-trip to distract viewers from what is being said helps anybody.

Wrong again. I am running modern catalytic equipped wood stoves. They are 80% efficent and should be effectively reburning in particulate.

So if anything only slightly dirtier in terms of smoke stack emissions vs the natural gas or propane counter parts, and using a renewable fuel. Similarly my wood lot is great space for wild life and preservation of bio diversity.

I would bet the environmental foot print of my home, and domestic energy use is rather dramatically less than yours.

Chronic illness is rare, and at some point, you try to figure out a way to get the kid tutoring.

I see what you did there.

If half your kids are chronically sick, there's something wrong with your school — environmental issues like mold, social issues like bullying, or senioritis like Bueller.

Chronic absenteeism? When/where I was a kid, this was called truancy, and the police could pick you up for it. How is this still a thing?

That is dumb. I have a multi-stage electric heat pump more than capable of keeping my entire home warm enough. I also have a wood stove, and ~18 or so acres of wood lot.

The cutting and splitting wood is great exercise. Probably does me more good than any gym membership ever could.

Other than the time I put in, which for me is again at that odd nexus between recreation and chores. Kinda like lawn mowing is for a lot guys, the wood is free and renewable. The soil and conditions here are such that all the oaks grow to ~150 or so then tend die out or blow over. If I thinned the woods very selectively I assume many could get bigger. I just harvest the ones that either are not doing well, or are way to near the butt of another; but mostly I just cut up what falls down on its own. - So the wood is as close to "free" as anything in life gets.

Which brings us to the stove. It is a hell of a lot quieter than the force air heat too. Unlike the sad tepid warmth of the air that comes from the heat pump you get that nice intense heat that feels so good when you come in from outside if you stand right by it. A few fans and the entire house is comfortable and the loud electric monster can stay off.

Guests enjoy watching the fire thru the glass, so do I on my own some evenings.

In short in the right situations wood for heat is wonderful! Far better than the 'modern' solutions. Although I'll grant you if you have a 1/8 acre suburban lot and are having someone deliver cord wood by truck to you - ok I'd probably skip the stove too.

Meh. If that is about their hiring practices, on principle I'd rather they be inclusive, but it isn't likely to destroy the quality of the product if they aren't. If it is a more general statement however — "We make our product available to everyone" — then that is a much bigger concern, because it could be an indication that the software might become a lot less available.

Personally, if I used their software, I'd be more worried about the transparency -> trust change. A company like that must be transparent, because if they aren't, you can't trust them. When I see a change like that, I read it as "Trust us. We aren't sending your passwords to the NSA."