I was playing on a 53K USR Courier at 185 ping and that was a bit laggy when compared to the LAN at college (even if it was 4xT1s for 25K students). I really want to know how the hell you were able to do anything useful at 500+ms.
> The law "undermines the basis of the cost savings and will lead to bulk billing being phased out," the group said.
Good; it's monopolistic, predatory, and ultimately unnecessary. The entire practice is aimed at driving consistency and forced adoption rates, not anything else.
When I used to live in Glendale, California, I noted from reports from the Glendale DWP that most of the power used by the city--and by the state--was imported from places like Utah. Power would be generated in Utah, then shipped by power transmission lines to Glendale.
Will California also stop importing electricity from coal-fired plants outside of the state? Or is this simply virtue signaling by the state as they continue to export their pollution?
So we know when AI trains on data trained by AI, the LLMs become more and more unstable. (Source)
Meaning the problem is not just "Social Media will suck more." It also means that a large treasure trove of data used by AI companies to train their bots will become increasingly toxic. And this will hurt the value proposition of companies like Reddit (which depend on selling their data for training AI), as well as companies like OpenAI, who needs more and more data to train on.
Investing in what, exactly?
I mean, when you invest in a company, you're investing in the people, the processes, the products of that company, on the idea that the hard work of those folks will lead to gains in your portfolio. But if there area no jobs because they've all been replaced with AI, what is left? Some sort of weird gambling casino where we're betting on the next genius idea that AI then implements for us?
What sort of dystopian bullshit future is this?
Of course it's from a company which manages people's investments and makes money off their trades, so I can see how when all you are is a hammer manufacturer everything is a nail that needs to be pounded.
Decades ago, the move to 'open offices' was driven by bad research. That is, the research on productivity was done with college students; they found that college students in a collaborative environment do better than college students trying to study in isolation. Which--well, that makes sense, given that college students are still learning, and it helps to have some collaboration while in a learning environment.
But that research was used to justify the whole 'open office' movement--forgetting that people like software developers are not college students, and need a way to drown out the 'forced collaboration' in order to find a modicum of peace so they could focus.
Of course, open offices aligned with managers who wanted to be able to see all the veal in the cattle pens workers working for them, and it aligned with the penny pinchers who didn't want to build enclosed offices.
And it was only decades later that we "learned" the painfully obvious: that open office floor plans are a failure.
And now we're doing the same damned thing with "hybrid work" and forcing people back to the office.
Both civic leaders who want to bring workers back into the downtown corridor so they have the captive audiences for commerce in a downtown corridor, commercial real estate owners who want full buildings so they can guarantee returns on their investments, and managers who want to see full veal pens their workers so they can 'manage' them, have all aligned with this idea that "returning to the office" is better, somehow.
And now comes the research--undoubtedly being done on college students, who in fact do benefit from collaboration. And not on workers who benefit from quiet space so they can concentrate on their work.
Worse, because of the absolute mess done by the pandemic shutdown requirements--and how people moved across the country (because they could), the push to get people back into the office is often accompanied by confusion and worse: a lack of desks for workers to work at. But we're ploughing ahead anyways, regardless of the loss of productivity or the loss of good workers--and I'm sure research will be "discovered" which support all of this.
And a decade or two from now, after the wreckage is done, someone will point out that maybe all of this wasn't a good idea: that the increased carbon footprint of daily commuters to fulfill some sort of financial and political obligation to large commercial real estate owners, as well as satisfying the need to fill veal pens, may not have been the wonderful idea prior "research" suggested.
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.
The average employee lasts well less than a year at a fast casual; this had little to do w/her background.
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.
Quantum Mechanics is God's version of "Trust me."
