It's no worse than "colonel".

Or you can do two at a time with "lieutenant colonel".

The USA is experiencing inflation.

China is experiencing deflation.

So the different interest rates make sense.

The "C" in BRICS is China.

Even worse, harsher penalties will lead to more coverups and less disclosure.

Coupang voluntarily reported the breach. That should be encouraged.

How many components would a human design require?

Is 843 more or fewer? Better or worse?

Is the singularity nigh?

Sounds like it might have been a test to determine:
1) If you had enough concern/confidence in the quality of your work to review it and determine there was no error.
2) If you had the personal confidence to point out mistakes to upper management.
3) Your ability to communicate and negotiate with people on your team when there's a disagreement.
4) How you respond to criticism.

The entirety of the world's wealth, resources, food supply, infrastructure, governments, etc. are embedded in stock markets which are linked together in such a way that a crash in one not only dominoes to all the others but can spark runaway reactions far beyond the original devaluation.

Everything these traders do affects all 8 billion humans on the planet.

The past 5 years and 10 months have been a nonstop wild ride of irreconcilable contradictions in whether we are, or or not, responsible for the social consequences of our individual choices.

This is why I enslave children.

I strongly believe child slavery is evil and should be illegal. However, there are people out there enslaving children. If I "take myself out of the race" to child slavery, children will be enslaved by other people I have no sway over and so the average experience of child slaves will be far worse. Thus, I enslave children in order to ensure that they get better food and medical attention than other slavers, and also it allows me to join the Child Slavers Union and influence their policies to be kinder to their child slaves.

Your entire comment is well-stated and sticks to chains of propositions that follow each other logically even if the reader doesn't agree with all of them. But this paragraph I would quibble with somewhat, especially the two bolded sentences.

For the first sentence:
From what basis do you say that silicon-based intelligence will have advantages, and that those advantages are obvious? What do we even know unequivocally about how the human mind works, and without other conscious species to examine we have no way to compare/contrast and identify "Features of the underlying infrastructure with are advantageous" vs "Features which are disadvantageous". We do not in fact know, nor yet have any scientific way to know, if the deterministic binary precision of etched silicon logic-gate chips is better for producing conscious thought. For all we know, the messy imprecise illogical kludgy bag of biochemicals in our skulls may be the very thing that makes abstract conscious thought easier. Silicon-based intelligence may turn out to be incapable of abstract thought specifically because of the precise logic constraints baked into its infrastructure - regardless of whether we eventually get 150 trillion GPUs networked together.

For the second:
From what basis can you confidently presume that Moore's law (ie improvements in miniaturization) + signal speed, produces higher abstract thought and reasoning? It definitely produces more powerful machine function for our current non-conscious machines. And yes, even in humans we already know chemical stimulants can amplify the speed of thoughts. But even if they do, the question of whether caffeine and cocaine and meth make for better mental function and output more robust and intelligent thoughts, is arguable, and highly subjective to all sorts of biological and sociological cofactors. We do not have the science of Intellect we would need in order to be confident in axioms such as "faster signal speed gives rise to higher order thinking". See my comment in the subthread above this one

There are plenty of ways to see if someone read the job requirements without a cover letter. Besides, silly "gotcha" prompts can end up screening good candidates while letting bad ones get through. Job applications for many applicants/job types have become a numbers game. It is not profitable to spend too long on any specific application. Some already employed candidates won't put much energy into their search because they don't need a job. But those may be the most desirable candidates.

I've personally never had issues screening applicants to a manageable number for degree-required job. If you are looking in the right places, it's rare to get more than a few hundred applications. Of those, it's rare for more than 10% to meet the basic qualifications. I can quickly skim the remaining few dozen pretty quickly and make a short list in under an hour.

Except for Redfin.com, Realtor.com, Homes.com, Opendoor.com, MLS.com, etc.

According to Google, Zillow has a 44% market share for real estate searches. That's no where near a monopoly.

Do you actually interact with Harvard students/graduates on a regular basis, or are you saying this because TV man told you?

It has been almost 20 years since I was in the entry-level hiring pipeline, but even then cover letters were on their way out. They seem to mostly be a relic from the time that people applied to jobs via snail mail. You needed a cover letter to explain what job you were applying for. Once employers switched to online portals, the need went away.

When I was on the other side of the interview a few years later, HR would rarely even send the cover letter to the hiring manager (if one ever existed). It doesn't take Chat GPT to write a droll form letter that says nothing (and there really is nothing interesting you can say in a cover letter that your resume won't). Career services used to have cover letter templates, and you'd see the same variations over and over. I've changed jobs twice in the last year (unusual circumstance due to a corporate buyout). In neither application did I send a cover letter.

What is the Self?
What is a mind?
What is thought?
What is understanding?

To my admittedly incomplete knowledge, all the world's scientists put together do not have even a basic working-model for the explaining these phenomena, nor even an answer to the question of how we ought to go about answering the questions.

The best we've got right now are descriptions, but descriptions are not explanations, and the currently extant descriptions border on tautology:

The Self is some kind of emergent phenomenon of the persistence/continuity/narrative function of the mind.
The mind is some kind of emergent phenomenon which attempts to understand both external and internal phenomena.
Thoughts are some kind of emergent phenomena arising from the brain as it does electrochemical snap-crackle-pop stuff.
Understanding is a persistence function where the mind becomes aware of connections between thoughts, recognizes abstract supra-categories for its persistent thoughts, and can accurately make predictions about other potential thoughts which might fit those same categories.

From these vague, circular descriptions, our coven of would-be chatbot/superintelligence summoners propose the following:
1) There are ~150 trillion synapses in your brain.
2) We just need to link together 150 trillion Nvidia chips and make them do electrical snap-crackle-pop stuff.
3) ???
4) Superintelligent Profit!!!

I'm not convinced Tesla is even committed to cars at this point... seems like all they care about is AI and robots.

Thanks for the thoughtful follow-up. Yes, your description is exactly what I meant by "spontaneous combustion" and is precisely why I followed that statement with the conditions which - deterministically, via known scientific processes - combustion occurs.

I'll add that my message about listening to others isn't aimed at the politicians and the multi-billion dollar election-marketing industry. I am speaking to regular people on slashdot (insofar as anyone still here can be described as 'regular') about how they perceive the regular people on other sides of issues. Starting from the belief that everyone who believes differently from you is the downstream victim of an astroturf campaign, and therefore their fears/concerns/hopes/positions are beneath listening to, is how we end up with the surreal tragicomedy of the current and previous U.S. presidents. The irony is, the more you ignore other voters and focus on the political machines, the more you dig in to your own political machines, as do other voters, and then we get locked into this insanity of spending 3.5 years talking about principles and policies and nuances, and then everyone dumps all that thought and logic into the trash and spends the final 0.5 years saying, "We have to vote for My Guy no matter why! Because otherwise the other side's machine will win!"