Obviously the situations are different. We all know that. The point is that it’s hypocritical of a company to say hey, let’s ask our employees to do more by throwing AI at them, and then getting pissed off when potential employees do the same thing.

Although I think it’s more funny than anything else. The company found out that people are gaming the system, which means they have a really shitty system, and rather than change how they interview people or what types of questions they ask, they’re just acting obstinate.

So you’re saying that other options do exist but some companies don’t want to use them because Microsoft is very popular, which is kind of a circular thing, and I understand, but it’s a sign of laziness, not quality.

Now is the worst time to try to enter the field. We need to see the AI bubble burst much more spectacularly, and only then might it be more reasonable. You certainly don’t want to try to get into a field when you have a lot of other choices when that field is already flooded with all of these people who have been laid off, combined with the increased availability of programmers in other countries, knowing that at the moment many domestic programmers are not smart enough to form strong unions to protect their own jobs.

I have to quibble with you, because you used the term “AI” instead of actually specifying what technology would make sense.

As we have seen in the last 2 years, people who speak in general terms on this topic are almost always selling us snake oil. If they had a specific model or computer program that they thought was going to be useful because it fit a specific need in a certain way, they would have said that, but they didn’t.

Gotta love American exceptionalism … and then when other countries copy the U.S., you kinda gotta facepalm.

One of the problems that the major news outlets have is that they repeat each other. It’s not merely an issue of AI compiling news stories, but that on top of the fact that all of these newspapers are doing hardly any research. For example, if you live in a town that’s not too large, there might only be one local paper, and they might send out reporters to local events. Obviously you would then go to that newspaper if you wanted to learn about local events, because they are adding explicit value.

But if you’re trying to read about national politics, a lot of the information is going to be the same in a lot of the newspapers. Which means nobody cares about the newspaper itself. And this is a creation of the newspaper’s own decision making over the past few decades.

Didn’t Luigi have something to say about that?

How cool! This is one great point of FOSS.

Streets are paid through tax dollars. Often income, property, and sales tax. Not from car or gasoline tax. :-)

That is partly true, but also he’s a strong narcissist. They make up their own stories. They’ll play up the feud to take eyes off of other bad shit.

Don’t think for a second he lost or he’s gone or it’s all over for him. He doesn’t see it that way.

The federal government lawyers have said in court that Elon Musk was not the leader of that organization. Therefore, the fact that he said he has departed from Washington would not affect that organization.

Of course we know that he was leading it, and the president has said as much, and the above claims are all being contested in court by quoting the president. But anyway, if you want the official answer, now you have it.

But the official answer also changes over time. Because if Musk was not the leader of that group, then many of the actions that he claimed to take and many of the actions that people attributed to him would now be actions of a private individual, which would expose him to massive civil liability. Therefore, we can be sure that the government’s lawyers will continue to change their story about when and where and how he worked for the government.

Definitions are important, but you don’t get to unilaterally choose them. Depending on the person you’re talking to, sometimes it’s more effective to ask them to define the terms first, or to ask them which dictionary they prefer.

So depending on the situation, it might be more beneficial to bring in the quotes from various Israeli leaders about how they’re trying to get Palestinians gone, and how they’re happy with Palestinian death, and then bring in those graphs that show the numbers of the dead, and ask whether they think that’s acceptable.

Another way to think about it is that sometimes questions of definition can distract us from questions of morality, and if the person that you’re trying to talk to is running away from the issue. By doing so, you can reasonably adjust your focus back to the facts.

I’m not following you. What you think and what you say or do are entirely different, right? We think all kinds of things very quickly about all kinds of topics, and just as a practical measure we can only say or do do a small fraction of those.

So right now I’m not seeing the Mel Gibson connection, because that was a claim about his actions.

Exactly. Reverse DNS lookup matters in some situations.

That’s true but it doesn’t solve the problem now.

You should have learned in driver’s ed that the speed limit is the maximum possible speed you should ever go under ideal driving conditions. If there are children on the side of the road, anyone with half a brain knows that the speed limit is probably far too fast, and you should slow the hell down.

It’s all good to say that you’re following the law, but if you don’t use basic common sense, then it is your fault when you kill a small child. The driver isn’t going to be charged, but that doesn’t mean what they did is okay, and it’s really sad that you think it is.

I read the article. Did you? Did you notice what it didn’t say? We can quickly infer that the man is local and these were local streets. What kind of crazy mother f***** would drive 25 in a 25 when there’s kids right next to them? I know what kind of crazy mother f*****, the kind who wouldn’t care if they struck those kids and killed them. The rest of us would show common sense, we would see the kids, and we would slow down to 15 miles an hour because we know that little kids might step out into the street accidentally and care about the lives of children.

Let me put it simply. If you see a kid near the road, slow the f*** down, you aggressive m***********.

It’s certainly true that the system is broken, but at the same time you’re suggesting we should forgive HR employees for the bad stuff they do, and I don’t think that’s how morality works.

Not only that, we all understand that sometimes employees don’t have control of a situation and they’re going to follow company policy or go along with their bosses. But we can see through their words and their body language how they feel about it, and we can recognize small actions that they could take to make a bad situation slightly less bad. In my experience it’s very rare that you will encounter such behavior in HR, because the vast majority of HR workers are perfectly happy to f*** us over as much as they can.

Last year I was talking with a veteran coworker who was worried about where the company was going to end up in 10 years, but my contract ends in a year and will not be renewed. I told her openly, they’re not paying me to think about 10 years from now, they’re paying me to make the next year a good year, and I don’t really care about the long-term future cuz I won’t be here. She was furious, but she wasn’t furious enough to go get me a long-term contract. I think she never saw the hypocrisy; even today she still thinks that I’m a bad worker.

I think you’re trying to make a pretty s***** implication. Remember that this is a situation where the parents got charged with a crime for being reckless. Are you insinuating that the parents knew that their 7 year old child was likely to jump out into the street, and that perhaps the child had a history of doing so, and that the parents nevertheless allowed the child to walk home from the store? It sounds like that’s what you’re claiming.