I think their point is that "late-capitalist hellscape" is a bit breathless considering we're just talking about football tickets and not, say, insulin. (I acknowledge it's not "just" football tickets for everyone).
Exactly that's the point. I never saw the guardian blaming capitalism for genocide or war or food poisoning or major issues that cause misery to humanity.
So the criticism is empty and imo it only serves to catch the eye of the people who politically sympathise with the general opinion of "oh no capitalists have gone off the rails with some stuff, let's keep them in check"
And this is what my original comment is about. Let's keep them in check when they fiddle with our football tickets, but we don't have to name names when the worst on earth is happening.
It doesn't even need to be a tradeoff. Call immediately, but require a double or triple press to hang up (to account for accidental dialing; a user will naturally tap multiple times until it hangs up).
That was the feel-good non-starter that I got taught in school (in the US, in the 1980s). We learned it, class-by-class, from then-old film reels projected on a relatively big screen in a relatively small classroom.
So sure, why not?
[1]: https://footagefarm.com/reel-details/nuclear/atomic-bomb/duc... is an example of a tired old film, and I distinctly recall it being shown to my class in a public school sometime in the 1980s. Even though big parts of it were already rather outdated by that time.
Even though neither I nor my classmates were never alive and aware at a time when Civil Defense was a thing.
I've been at several companies that have a CTO and a Director of Engineering. The CTO sets the strategy, and the Director of Engineering handles the execution. In theory the Director "reports" to the CTO (I.e. is under in the org chart), but not necessarily. Sometimes the Director reports to the CEO, and/or takes a more collaborative role with the CTO.
This does not apply at my current company, where the CTO has their title as an artifact of how the founding team was structured, but if I was founder/early at a company, progressed to a senior role, and then was told that I should take a role where I "set engineering strategy", I would immediately conclude that I was being managed out. "Strategy", in particular, is the kiss of death.
If someone's seems obviously a sociopath from a single innocuous interaction, they're probably not a real sociopath. I'm not sure what the litmus test is for a "made-up" question vs. a genuine question based on the course material; the only difference is whether the student already knows the answer.
I think we're a bit too eager to throw around "sociopath." When I nod along to my boss' vacation story and ask him follow-up questions, I guess that also makes me a sociopath, because he's not a good storyteller and I'm not interested in Machu Picchu (this is a made up anecdote for illustrative purposes).
Were you a professor you might also be a bit more sympathetic to the pressure academia puts on students to make them suck up like this.
> Half of the students are already drugged to the gills.
He did advocate ample sleep and not pulling all-nighters, near the top of the article.
Not sociopaths, but sociopathic careers, as a term of condemnation.
And a lot of people light up the BS detector like they wouldn't believe.
Loosely put, the majority of them fit the stereotype who think that everyone is ruthlessly self-interested, but they don't think of it as ruthless, and they think of themselves and the others as (in Bay Area stereotype, for example) nice and cheerful and progressive. Their vague awareness not to be crass about it, according to the social conventions they've gotten in their peer groups thus far, is insufficient to hide it.
But others of them think they are "the alpha", and believe themselves to be more aggressive than others, and more meritorious. Yet, of the ones I've noticed (and this might be why I noticed them), they're not as smart as they think they are, when they try to manipulate, and don't know how to fake being someone they aren't. They instead lean on family money and connections, alliances with power structures, gaming, underhandedness, aggressiveness, etc.
Though I knew one very smart and very charismatic ruthless person, who was smart enough to avoid the tells, so I know they exist. One way of describing it is that they could play parts of different personalities, thinking of things the personality would think of, as needed for different audiences. Once they started tipping their hand, it was too late to stop them, and society is significantly worse for it. I speculate that these people are a very small minority, because I think otherwise they would have taken over more positions of power. Yet we can see that many powerful tech companies are headed by people who obviously do not have these qualities of brains, charisma, and empathy. Maybe the non-ruthless ones become great writers, actors, and teachers instead.
It was. You can compare to the author's first blog post, which doesn't have any of the classic LLM giveaways.
I suppose "coauthored" is a more charitable word though. This article wasn't as bad as most slop. I imagine the author passed it through Grammarly or something.
I think this is a LMGTFY question, but: If Paypal started doing this maliciously, or otherwise failed in custodianship, would the community have any recourse? Specifically, can they fork the coin? The ledger is public, so I imagine yes?
Had a coworker paste an error log from a repo I maintain in Slack with an LLM summary of the log, three dot points which were written quite clearly in the log if he’d bothered to read it.
reply