""fascist" being thrown around trivializes the millions of people that have died from fascism or dictatorships. From Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler and others."

As someone who's read Hannah Arendt (among many others) I'm well-acquainted with the concept of fascism and the abhorrent consequences of those who espouse it.

Trump is a fascist, and the killing has already begun. See, for example: Update on Lives Lost from USAID Cuts which estimates 500,000 to 700,000 deaths per year from that single decision alone. (Of course almost all of these will be black and brown people, so Trump would prefer that we not count their lives at all.) But as awful as this already is, and it will get worse, it's only part of the killing. His insane health secretary is pushing nonsense, which is why measles is back (and it won't be the only returning disease). His drunk secretary of defense orchestrated the bombing of a girl's school. His gestapo (ICE) is disappearing and killing people on a constant basis. And yet all of these combined may only end up be a fraction of the total deaths due to his wholesale destruction of the environment and his embrace of fossil fuels at a time when we desperately need to be rid of them.

It is entirely possible that by the time he's done that Trump will kill more people than Mussolini, Stalin, and Hitler combined. First, because there are more people to kill; second, because the world situation is more fragile than it was in their time; and third, because modern technology enables killing on a mass scale that simply wasn't possible when those monsters were alive.

So I stand by the word "fascist"; that's exactly what he is. The only remaining question is how high the body count will go before he's stopped.

Tell us you didn't understand the statement without telling us.

Double down on telling us you understand nothing about this conversation. You actually manage people? Here's how it works: Until AI can pay for itself, it's a net negative. You're chained to a rock sitting on a melting ice floe.

Yes, they are, and nuclear has shitty lifetime emissions if you count the mining and processing and transportation and decommissioning activities.

It depends on what I'm trying to determine. If I'm trying to determine if they can use AI, then yes I will let them use it.

If I'm trying to determine if they can think (or control the computer), probably not. If they are having trouble, one of the interviewers can pretend to be AI and give answers. In the past I've had one of the interviewers pretend to be auto-complete, since the candidate depended on that, and I care if they can logic, not if they've memorized all the function names.

People are trained not to think, in a shrink-wrapped world where everything is presumed safe, right up you wind up in the hospital from E.Coli because a hundred farms' produce all goes through one inadequately cleaned machine before being put into the clear plastic packages.

Google has you covered there, they will simultaneously return search results which are garbage and an AI response which will also be garbage.

Apparently lots of people. That is really stupid. It's also against the T&C but in fairness nobody reads those because they are biblically long, which ought to be illegal itself.

They had one job, many years ago, and at the time, they did it rather well. Now they can't do anything well: they've turned their search into AI slop (use DuckDuckGo or StartPage instead), Gmail is one of the world's top spam sources, Google Groups is garbage, their cloud outages keep increasing in severity and frequency, they've killed off too many projects/services to count, and their CEO is a fascist thug who kneels before Trump and obeys his every command.

If any part of your computing practice or operation depends on Google, it's time to move somewhere else.

I have to use Wayland, you insensitive clod!

"Why though? These aren't elected officials, they aren't political positions. Why should their information be any more public than who your employer is (assuming you don't work for yourself in a small family owned business)?"

Because those of us who work for governments (which I've done, twice) are public servants. We are accountable to our supervisors and their supervisors and so on, but that chain of accountability ultimately ends with the citizens of the city/county/state/province/country that pays us. We are required, by basic professional ethics, to always keep their best interests in mind, and -- in my view -- to put their interests ahead of our own.

In both the cases I mentioned above, not only was my basic personal information available to everyone -- name, address, position, etc., -- but so was my salary. As it should be: the people paying me have the right to know what they're paying me, and what they're paying me for.

I give a coding interview to determine, "Can this candidate get the computer to do what they want?" Coding problems are a quick way of determining that. Of course, I could give them a month long task and see if they can complete that, but no one will tolerate that.

If a person can't manage to give reasonable, logical instructions to a computer, the LLM isn't going to help.

"Clearing the neighborhood" ought to include also the possibility of two planets in the same orbit on opposite sides of the sun. In any case I was hoping to start good conversation and I think I succeeded.

There are multiple proposed definitions for "clear the neighborhood.'

And it turns out that your logic is better than the IAU, also.

That's what happens when you get a dwarf boat.

That is interesting. It seems to imply that organic matter from Earth would also land on our moon, just with a much smaller probability.