zer8k
What you find through digging through studies on education programs and hiring efforts targeted by race is a series of uncomfortable truths. Many which would be considered racist by the “enlightened” minds of HN.
The only solution is equal opportunity. We cannot constantly self flagellate and punish generation after generation with the same tired excuse of “80 years ago it was bad so we still need to make up for it”. This breeds resentment, hostility, and unsurprisingly more racism.
Perhaps in your corner of the industry. On the consumer side people have been very vocally tired of purchasing products piecemeal on a subscription basis for a long time now. I, personally, am so sick of everything being a subscription I refuse to participate except in one or two services I use almost every single day. SaaS vendors to me are without a doubt vultures. A good exception that makes me happy is jetbrains. They are one of the few I am happy to pay for. Most of the other consumer grade SaaS is churn and burn crap.
I personally welcome the death of SaaS. I hope it brings forth a new era where I actually own things and can pay a company every couple years some nominal percentage of retail for a “service pack” upgrade.
Europe has its own opioid crisis, and we absolutely can blame other countries who play host to the primary runners of heroin and synthesizers of fent. The pain industry is just the first baby step to hard drugs. We already handled our side after OxyContin - it’s impossible to get more than ibuprofen from a doctor without doing backflips through flaming hoops.
Every accredited online course program requires proctoring. To think in person stops cheating is naive. We need to rethink how education works if people feel the need to cheat so much. I’ll give you a hint: when people pay 5,000 dollars a class they’re going to cheat because they’re financially incentivized to do so. Administrative bloat in university needs to be done away with immediately and costs of education fixed by the government to some number that is reasonable for most people. Education should not be for-profit. Right now it is, even at public universities.
I have a degree I got in person and now one I am working on remote. Do you know what the difference is? NOTHING! When I went in person I was making up for the shortcomings of professors too. I was still having to teach myself a lot. The only true difference was I wasn’t able to do more than terrible part time work and I drove 45 minutes one way.
Malware vendors like honorlock have made remote schooling much more difficult. Not in terms of learning but in terms of overall stress level. Remote schooling itself is an incredible way to break from the aristocratic ideal still pedaled by universities today.
I’m envious of students whose parents prepared appropriately for their kids to go to school and focus full time. I was not one of them. My situation made worse by my parents making just enough to disqualify me from any aid despite their contribution of 0. The existence of remote schooling has allowed me to pursue my educational dreams.
Its a tragedy someone with a horrible disease was taken by fake medicine (DMSO). I do find it weird that the explanation would be dimethyl sulfate production due to a defibrillator but stranger things have happened. If she really did use an incredible quantity of the stuff I suppose it's not entirely unrealistic to believe small quantities of gas local to the body could've been produced but not enough to spread even to the other end of the room.
The only thing the hospital is liable for a mistreatment of her body by not immediately getting it to a place where it could be examined before decay set in. But, on the other hand, who can blame them. All they knew is they had a biohazard of unknown capacity. Anyone with any number of unknown, horrific, highly contagious diseases would be treated the same.
Would you make the same argument for reference implementations of algorithms? For example, small details leading to bugs that can be compromised?
At some point people have to be responsible for themselves...
* Cared deeply about my personal progress. Not just at work but in life. Am I feeling okay? How are things going? What are your interests? Are you doing what is interesting to you? Both of them became actual friends outside of work once I left one of the companies, and the other manager left the company I was at during that time.
* Treated me as an equal and used their power in my favor. Bad project? Moved me off it. Salary problems? Fought for a raise. Needed to skill up? Got me what I needed whether it was books, or classes, or whatever.
* Didn't bother much about using 1:1s for "business". It was my time, and they made sure I used it how I wanted. If I wanted to wax poetic about my hobby project for 30 minutes I could.
Importantly both of them understood that what I was doing for the company was a JOB and there were no qualms about that. "Careers" do not exist anymore. This refreshing reality and human feel is something pinhead middle managers I've had since seem to miss.
This is generous. I have worked with these consultants. These aren't mom-and-pop startup consultancies. These guys charge extortionate rates and provide bottom-barrel talent. One agency, who will not be named, sweet talks you with product managers and then exports 90% of the technical labor overseas to the lowest bidder. You pay expert prices for this. Even their MBAs are tacit manipulators. I remember one project before we canned them - the PMs were constantly revising their "go to market strategy" conveniently around the time the contract would be up for negotiation.
> So I'd argue that keep an abundance of "fresh grads" isn't just cynical cost-cutting, but part of the secret sauce of why these big orgs generally operate as effective institutional ecologies
Realistically, new-grads are willing to work 14x7 and shower and sleep in the office. That's why.
These consultancies are a malignant cancer on business and the health of their employees.
Professionally I’ve been in charge of interviewing foreign candidates from those headhunter type programs. I’ve legitimately interviewed people who claimed years and years of experience but had no measurable computer experience.
My high school aged family has next to no idea how to do anything on a computer but use a browser.
It’s debunked. Further he would be an incredible case study given his stature and appearance. For calling MAGA people dummies, it appears you can’t even read.
Meanwhile FOMO has resulted in hypergamy. Long-term relationships have been on the decline because availability has resulted in situationships with the top 10% of men has become the norm. Your statement is inconsistent with a mountain of data coming from dating apps and is an appeal to emotion.
This is consistent with
> and probably have a little less experience here than the average woman does.
Which you use to insult OP's experience and inject your own mind-melting BS as fact.
Everything you state has a counter-argument for men that is equally valid. An alleged man would know this:
1. False accusation of abuse or rape - have an argument a little too loud and the neighbors call the police who is going to jail? It's the man, regardless of fault.
2. You can get baby trapped because our "progressive" society doesn't believe in the right a man should have to "abort".
3. Family courts are slanted 80/20 towards women. It's almost universally the man who loses rights to a child and gains a subsequent extra house payment in child support. Go hang out at bars and homeless shelters and figure out how many of them have been bankrupted.
4. Divorce court, despite income disparity all but disappearing, still leans heavily in favor of women.
5. There are nearly no programs for abused men, men who are going through divorce, men who got their children taken away, men who are suffering under the boot of child support/alimony, etc. In fact, you can go to jail for not paying these! Most homeless shelters will remove a man from a bed to provide one for a woman, especially if she has a child. How is this fair?
The man takes the highest possible risk entering a relationship all other things being equal.
This problem is due to manufactured monopolies and regulatory capture. Open up cross state healthcare, allow larger risk pools, and use this to hedge off the risk of the 1/10% of customers who represent the highest risk pool. Costs go down for everyone and quality of care goes up. It’s not quite single payer but it’s simple probabilities. I find it hard to believe they wouldn’t lobby for this unless it’s vastly more profitable to stay state locked and deny care.
Of course though you are correct, in that a treatment still should have utility. But the average person being denied something as simple as a PET scan does not represent a maximization of utility. That is greed.
So then it should be easy to see why a large portion of Americans vocally approved of this. So much so, that the media couldn’t even run enough cover to deaden even half the sound of the cheering.
I don’t know a single person who has gone through, or watched a love one going through horrific health insurance “process” in order to gain life saving care, that wouldn’t want someone to be “paid in kind” for their suffering.
Is “murder someone” just? No. Do I agree that this was how we should’ve approached fixing healthcare? Absolutely not. But there is an interesting moral and ethical dilemma that, much like everything else in life, paints a picture that is not exactly black or white. Many people view healthcare as an inalienable right. You can see how this creates a potentially dangerous high stakes conflict. The proper solution is, of course, to use our legal system to provide safeguards for the most vulnerable health insurance customers. If we focused hard on this, as we should, this entire situation could’ve been completely avoided.
Most of our job is fixing slop. Previously this was slop produced by low quality cut rate developers in countries known for outsourcing. Now it’s just fixing AI slop and foreign outsourced slop.
The code quality isn’t great but it’s a lot easier to have it write tests, and other code, and then go back and audit and clean.
Feels absolutely awful but whatever.
This is wrong. There are several ABET accredited online engineering degrees. Each fulfill the rigorous standards including labs. Some schools have you buy a kit, some schools make you show up occasionally, none of the ABET accredited schools are “theory only”.
Moreover all ABET accredited schools award you a full degree. Literally no one will put “completed online” on their resume and you would never know the difference. Nor should you care - an accredited degree is equivalent to an on-campus degree in every way including rigor.
Your lack of knowledge in this area is apparent and you shouldn’t scare OP off something you clearly do not understand.
There's legitimately no evidence of any of this. What we do know is a large amount of gangs have taken advantage of the relatively lax apprehension policies. Tren De Aragua being the most prolific. [0]
We also know 85% of apprehensions result in release INTO the country [1]
Now, if we apply some logic here we can see why one would cross. First, being gang affiliation. Opening new business in the US. Tren De Aragua has done a fantastic job of this and the result is horrific. Second, if you have an 85% chance of being released into the country with a court date you will take it. Those are great odds and the chance of you being scooped up by a marshall with nearly no way to be found is about 0%.
So during Biden's administration as stated above deportations were high but there were far, far, FAR more attempts than at any other point in US history because of lax apprehension laws.
This fantasy world where these people aren't taking complete advantage of a giant gaping hole in national security and are instead fleeing for "climate crisis" and "destabilized governments" is just that - fantasy. Feel free to downvote me. There should be immediate turn around for anyone who hasn't fleed to the first available country nearest to them, applied, and been denied (e.g. Mexico).
[0] https://nehls.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/nehls.house.gov/f...
[1] https://budget.house.gov/resources/sounding-the-alarm/04/16/...
Thankfully we have archives and youtube, entirely searchable, where from 2008-2012 the democrats were strongly for sending people back home.
All the AI bust means is that for engineers working at companies that invested too far into AI they're going to be looking for jobs. ML departments will be culled too. Just like the dot-com bust.
https://epic.org/dhs-disregards-internal-policies-and-avoids...
https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/breaking-dhs-will-begin-...
https://www.theverge.com/c/23311333/tsa-history-airport-secu...
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us/tsa-screeners-win-i...
The list goes on. There's 24 years of history you can comb through. The DHS' security theater exists solely to compromise the constitutional rights of American citizens. To this day there's no evidence they're even that successful at their job. The fact the impeachment of Mayorkas failed was quite mind-boggling but characteristic of a government that doesn't truly believe anyone, even citizens, have certain inalienable rights.
The DHS was and still is bipartisan. It's America's Staatspolizei.
It will be years before these people realize how much the media was controlled from 2020-2024 specifically in favor of one political party. For a lot of people this was the first time it was extremely obvious and going back to Bush and Obama social media and the internet in general weren't considered "serious" political campaign locations. I certainly dont remember either Bush's or Obama's election being so insanely partisan to the point of calling one party Nazis. Of course there was vitriol but it was so tame compared to today.
Like most of the insane (oops thats a bad word too now) language policing its mostly done by yuppies who feel some sort of non-existent transitive oppression for people they have no connection with, had no connection with, and read some history blurb and decided to create a masterpiece of verbal diarrhea on the internet. Of which this blogpost is no exception.
It's yet another example of the virtue olympics and a great sign we have been without war, famine, economic collapse, or food crisis for far too long. We have no real struggles so instead we focus on policing language.
I'll keep using master/slave/male/female/blacklist/cargo cult/insane, thanks. There's a reason progressivism is no longer cool.
Do you know what also wasn't funny? The invasion of people wanting to make everything about them. No one gave a fuck about who you were until you made it about who you were. That was the point. If you're willing to reduce yourself to being X you will be mocked for being X. It was a great way to insure people stayed behind their usernames and it worked well until the "normies" showed up. I seriously doubt your actual claimed history on the internet.
> It's also not narcissistic to talk about things that are important to you or your characteristics.
It is when you weren't asked, were never going to be asked, and attempted to use your characteristics to gain undeserved attention. "Tits or gtfo" was simply one iteration of several that mocked people for using any number of other characteristics to get undeserved respect. I remember several memes especially around gymbros and veterans that also were used to mock people into staying anonymous. Trolling these people was the immune system of forums, IRC, and games and it worked wonderfully.
> It can provide context and it can help people understand and make connections
This statement alone makes me doubt you ever actually spent time on the old internet. In 1998 I never had problems making solid connections, some still existing today, without knowing what particular physical characteristics my friend had. In some sense it's the purest form of connection - one that was never swayed by what normally might turn you away or towards someone.
The implication of your statement is you eventually reach some global optima. The reality is you become over-aware of some things and under-aware of others. This is the local optima and you've been caught in a bowl. Therapy "works" when your local optima is "good enough" for your own definition of done. However, it can often take several "bumps" out of those local optima to find it and once again you haven't really "optimized" like you are implying.
I would think the focus on optimization of emotional and awareness skills would simply lead to more, not less, anxiety. It sounds like the same problem people have with always being online and being a good "global citizen". In this example, like your example, when you feed your learning algorithm data about some war in a far off land you necessarily reduce the weight on your immediate surroundings.
Therefore, I believe it's impossible to "optimize" such things without making significant learning losses. Better to succumb to the brownian motion of life - imo.
Here's one place I found. But searching "COVID wet market" and "Pangolin COVID" will yield a treasure trove of articles talking about it.
Fact checkers fall into three possibly overlapping categories:
1. Government censorship units designed explicitly to convey what the government says as ultimate truth
2. Activist organizations using fact checking to control a narrative
3. Useful idiots who cite news or highly contentious sources (Wikipedia) as a source of truth
All 3 of these represent a version of “truth” conditioned on what sounds good or controls a narrative. “Common knowledge” is not always fact, too. In many cases fact checkers would be nice to have the truth is unknowable (think classified data). In no case are fact checkers unambiguously correct as they are often portrayed. Unfortunately, however, they are often given the unassailable position as truth-bearers. The “facts” (read “narrative”) changes so quickly on topics where a true oracle of truth would be indispensable the purpose of a fact checker is, factually, worthless.