boundring

Thank you for that, felt pretty good to go over. Forgive me for extracting a few isolated paragraphs for a comment here:

"These characters come to life like the Karamazov brothers—each reminds me of someone I know intimately as a friend, coworker, or family member. We are all some unstable amalgamation of the three, the ratios shifting with the weather of our lives: with age, with humiliation, with the sudden, disorienting arrival of success."

"We are all inhabited by these phases. Some people are possessed by the collective, disappearing into the warm comfort of the pre-trained mass. Some are possessed by the tyranny of taste, frozen in a post-training posture of permanent critique. Others are possessed by the frantic, kinetic ecstasy of motion, addicted to the mid-training high of ‘what’s next.’"

"The deeper lesson of 2025 is that mid-training revealed a third path: you don’t need infinite data or perfect taste if you can teach machines to manufacture judgment. But the same infrastructure enables something darker. When the reward is verifiable, optimization can run longer than taste can tolerate. The model invents ladders. The human does too. These ladders can lead upward or they can lead nowhere. The real upgrade is learning to choose your reward function. It is not asking what you are capable of, but what you are becoming. It is not asking how to win, but what kind of winning would make you despise yourself."

Struck on some good points along the way, human condition and history ringing pretty true

May or may not need to get clarified: if you've got a functional tool, it's probably getting crawled and picked apart now. If it's at all useful for what you're intending, that's probably not going to be too-too great in the long run for a lot of folks.

Not my preference or intent to get too far into all that, though. Kudos for the project, it's interesting but still a little unfortunate in the long view

It's nicer to respond quicker than not, but you probably deserve a more thought-out answer than I'm willing to provide just now.

The kind of question you've asked, it usually answers itself

So I heard you wanted to make things just a little bit worse out there

edit: it's cool and you're pretty cool for doing it, and there's not much consent involved when it comes to crawling

The article is focused on robotic automation of menial tasks, primarily in industrial settings (factories, warehouses), not automation of judgements which could be subject to bias...

Thriftwy raises an interesting point, speculatively, but there's little bias to be found in supply logistics or assembly of parts.

Marginally touched upon in the article was the displacement of lower-class workers. Is expansion of automation going to lead humanity toward dispossession of low-income workers, or will universal welfare become the result of outmoded jobs?

I don't think Asimov's "Aurorans,"--elite-yet-few humans supported by legions of robotic servants--is possible, but it's a thing.

Both law enforcement and correctional officers are trained in similar facilities with similar skills emphasized, and both physical and verbal techniques are part of that.

Emphasis is key. Grappling, weaponry, and mediation are each taught, but it's individuals that decide on application.

Bingo.

The common phrase is "If you don't like it, don't get locked up."

Most people don't get to pick and choose when they wind up in the wrong situation. It isn't just criminals that get locked up.

Let it be known: jail is not prison.

Short-term incarceration (less than two years, and that's not an arbitrary figure) leads to much different conditions than long-term incarceration. There's different effects on humans and different changes in valuated needs.

Rape tends to be the province of those expecting little to no change in their long-term experience. A little different from murder in incarceration, in that the victim has opportunity for reprisal.

Kudos on thinking this through.

There's many ways in which a dystopian automated system of surveillance and justice would be preferable, but society tends to love organizing its own systems of award and punishment.

Civil commitment actually results in this.

Repeat sex offenders are effectively jailed for life.

Bin-go...

It's pretty sad that many other companies and jobs with "independent contractor" status but continually exploitative conditions have slipped under the radar.

Newspaper carriers are a particularly good example. Typically 100 miles or more, seven days a week, with the cost of each paper deducted from their pay.

I tried a paper route last year. It's a 60-70hr/week job without overtime pay. Pays less than minimum wage after factoring in vehicular expenses.

Excuse me for dumping, I just had to laugh when quitting the job meant a contractual month's-advance notice or a $3,000 fine.

Read a little more carefully: I update when I want my laptop tied up with an inconvenient process. Scheduled, not never at all.

Am I the only one who leaves the Windows Update service entry disabled under the "services" settings?

Seriously, it's that simple. I check once a week, tops.

You put the mood into words quite elegantly. I just couldn't find a way to explain it so thoroughly...

It's terrible when this happens in person, such a painful way to agree and yet become separate.

I don't think we all lose, though. I think these situations result in someone hurting themself more than they realize. I've been there, but I failed to frame things properly.

In person, it's about being as honest as possible, if quiet when there's a complicated issue. Being honest, you can learn in-situ when issues arise, which is very much what Jaquesm supported.

I've felt terrible seeing great engineers leave meetings upset over minor issues.

"move on"

What strawman?

The point, though it's clear that you're belligerent enough to avoid understanding it, is that there's plenty of exceptions to the specific point of view you're trying to put forward as the correct one.

The irony, here, is that you continue to explain your position as different from the article's author, then upon elaboration it's clear that you're disagreeing with her terms by some strange default.

You're not bonkers, but jayzus you're weird.

This. Is. What. The. Article. Is. Telling. People. To. Do.

I'm starting to understand your position a little better.

You're against someone being open when they disagree with something, whether or not their position is valid?

That's a little ridiculous. Being Taoist in withdrawal from conflict is one thing, but being a responsible member of a group is another.

So you don't report bugs?

There's nothing caustic about self-censoring when your view isn't worth the headaches it might give others. In terms of development, you have to respect the views of your teammates and the effect of your position on overall workflow.

Edit: for clarity, there's basically one guy here who's made it some sort of vendetta to object to the entire concept of a "battle," as though using that word for a disagreement is the issue. There's no such thing as a "perfect" team, but it seems his idea of that involves consensus.

Consensus is an abstract, reality is defined by multiple viewpoints.

Your "(1)" is, by the very definition of the concept, "picking your battles." This is because you aren't pushing issues.

The whole article is about making a way more important, but also recognizing that valid concerns deserve to be addressed.

Balance.

"Not every battle is going to be a winning one, and understanding when to challenge a teammate and when to hold back is a skill that can only be developed with practice. The battles I’ve lost by not being prepared, the battles I’ve lost by picking on something trivial, and the battles I should have started—but didn’t—are what inspired this blog post."

"The more stressful a situation is, the more I find pragmatism is the best tool for improving the product and the team. What are your strategies for choosing when to push back and when to let it be?"

Nnnnnnnnnn-maybe.

Seems more like a partial swing towards enterprise-emphasis.

Wow.

In terms of data mining this is still a huge price-point, but obviously some team at MS projected the benefits vs expense.

Come on, nobody's used CAD programs with integrated GUI and command line both equally accessible?

It's super intuitive, entirely customizable, and every button press results in a listable text record of each command with combined access to either windowed variables (spline radii, inputting coordinates for start and finish points, entering macros on the fly, routines, accessing algorithms)

This has all been old news for decades.

Now, adapting Autodesk's approach for other fields?

Can't be impossible. Still, engineers in many fields have enjoyed such flexibility as a matter of course. Take a page from their experiences.

THAT is no country for old men. The young

In one another's arms, birds in the trees

- Those dying generations - at their song,

The salmon-falls, the mackerel-crowded seas,

Fish, flesh, or fowl, commend all summer long

Whatever is begotten, born, and dies.

Caught in that sensual music all neglect

Monuments of unageing intellect.

…

An aged man is but a paltry thing,

A tattered coat upon a stick, unless

Soul clap its hands and sing, and louder sing

For every tatter in its mortal dress,

Nor is there singing school but studying

Monuments of its own magnificence;

And therefore I have sailed the seas and come

To the holy city of Byzantium.

…

O sages standing in God's holy fire

As in the gold mosaic of a wall,

Come from the holy fire, perne in a gyre,

And be the singing-masters of my soul.

Consume my heart away; sick with desire

And fastened to a dying animal

It knows not what it is; and gather me

Into the artifice of eternity.

…

Once out of nature I shall never take

My bodily form from any natural thing,

But such a form as Grecian goldsmiths make

Of hammered gold and gold enamelling

To keep a drowsy Emperor awake;

Or set upon a golden bough to sing

To lords and ladies of Byzantium

Of what is past, or passing, or to come.

- W B Yeats