asdffdsa

Don't trust any numbers here blindly sir.

Without verification you don't know if any of them are marking $2k+

The only indication we need to know about the ethics of OpenAI is the fact that it's a private for-profit company that claims the name "OpenAI", where "open" has very clear meaning in its sphere of relevance (technology, computing, and software).

It's a private company founded by Elon Musk; what did people expect?

I am willing to pay a decent markup (2x the cost)

This is nothing new under the sun; Apple's been doing this for the better part of the last decade.

I think this is mistaken; there was a lot of pressure in the 10s for AP classes

ChatGPT is what SWEs came up with to understand literature lol

Blood pressure, for one: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190307081024.h...

Exactly, more code isn't better

Also vitamin D and testosterone production

I used Flask a long time ago, and never had any complaints. It was, and still is apparently, a great framework

I always figured that the reason why I make as much money as possible is so that I can pay for medical expenses when things go wrong.

The one idea I don't like surrounding 10x engineers is the rhetoric by startups or companies around hiring is "we're only looking for rockstars and 10x engineers", which naturally denigrates the majority of (1x) engineers. This launches a broader discussion of whether success in business manifests by scaling up or scaling out, and I tend to be a proponent of Locke than Hobbes.

So the controversial nature comes from the implication that most of the workforce (1x engineers like myself) are worthless and not worth hiring, and also the hubris of thinking a 1x company can hire and retain a/only 10x engineers (these same startups/companies usually offer a 1x or less compensation package). If you think I'm wrong, then fire 90% of your engineers and see where that gets you; that would be an interesting result if productivity increased!

I think this is separate from mere jealousy or denial; 10x engineers definitely do exist and I look up to them for inspiration and example.

This is a stock grant that vests over 10 years, so averaged out it's 21 million a years. Saying that his salary is 212 million is straight misinformation

The logical construction of this piece is poorly formulated.

The title is “why does x happen”.

The content is:

I believe foo. Evidence behind why author believes foo.

Here is an arbitrary list of 6 behavioral responses to foo: [a b c d e x]. X happens which is a bad thing.

There is no critical analysis or evidence substantiating the 6 responses, nor how/why response x happens. In other words, there’s no intellectual rigor behind the title’s claim, nor do I have any inclination to believe the author’s claim as true after reading it.

Your body has too much plastic; off to the landfill you go!

This is a bit off topic, but does the "professional sports" analogy really work for tech (e.g. software/hardware) organizations? In sports the game is always the same, and while there may be different play styles or systems the fundamentals are pretty much the same.

In tech orgs, a system (potentially composed of dozens of service) can often outgrow their team, especially when there's high attrition and turnover (perhaps because you view each individual software engineer as a highly expendable/fungible "pro sports player").

Seems like a breeding ground for entropy, and compositions of systems built on lost history, chaos, and confusion.

If there was sufficient profit for it, I'd quit my job and take an iq test and score awfully low on it because I always do poorly on something the first time I try it (SAT test, tech interviews, etc.). Then, I'd study for iq tests, take ~1,000 practice ones, and score in the top 10%. The iq advocates would be flabbergasted! I managed to increase my iq by several standard deviations: what a revolutionary, miraculous result!

Then, I would probably create a startup that would offer the same service to the children of wealthy families who wanted their child to be intellectually gifted. With an annual tuition of $10,000 over 10 years, their child could be catapulted for life into the top levels of life outcomes and live as part of the elite class in America. Enrolling a mere 1,000 students (200 in East bay, 200 south bay, 200 SF, 400 in Northeast) would net a revenue of 100 million dollars.

Wait a second, maybe I'm onto something here...

Musical training helps to delineate and connect different contexts together in real time. It also requires precise hand-eye coordination and fine motor skills executed perfectly (or as my instructor would say "as closely to perfect as you can: perfect does not exist").

There's probably many domains it overlaps and assists with (not to mention the general philosophies that translate to other domains like creativity, continuity of motion, practice/discipline/feedback/improvement -- e.g. "music is the tool to express life" Herbie Hancock). Though naturally, excellence in one domain does not grant the knowledge necessary to be a master in another

nit: jazz is the melodic minor (raised 6th as well). Such a beautiful sound; and the modes allow you to get the altered scale (7th mode of melodic minor) which sounds good(?) over the dominant

That and the natural minor scale

The whole point of crypto is that it was a form of currency that's unregulated, so a more accurate comparison would be "open source advocates complain when other people use their code without their knowledge. Can't make this up!"

I'm open to discussion; what kind of journalism do you think it is, and why is it "good" or "bad"?

It reads more like tabloid journalism rather than investigative/business/political, and her post history seems to confirm that.

The author seems to be writing this in bad faith with a particular predefined narrative in mind. Perhaps it's good for entertainment, but comically bad journalism.

I think heuristics are much more important than knowing semantics. Someone who can memorize all the notes on a piano faster than their peer isn't necessarily going to be better at piano in the long run.

Similarly, there was an idea expressed in chess where some people rely on memory to reproduce thousands of similar scenarios, while others rely on the "feel" of the chessboard and the various heuristics related to it (e.g. is the king "safe" -- e.g. castled and not exposed etc., are the bishops "powerful and free to roam" -- e.g. not blocked by pawns or heavily contested etc.).

My argument partially comes from self-defense; my memory is comparatively poor. But I'm able to use heuristics developed over years of experience to make generally good decisions.

So in this case:

"Who would you rather hire: the person who knows exactly what features are available in PHP 7 and which are only available in PHP 8, or the one who will figure it out by trial-and-error of while writing each application and seeing what fails?"

I would hire the person who is able to write the best application, and understand when to use what features or not: similar to the Bond quote "Sometimes a trigger needs to be pulled -- Or not pulled, it's tough to know which in your pajamas". If memory was the most important part of cognitive ability computers would serve a much larger role in society than the (already large) part they do today.

Eh, they lost credibility once the became a big-time profit-seeking movie-making (apologies for my lack of vocabulary) studio

The lack of emphasis, in both this and the article's comments section, about the cultural messaging we send boys is very alarming. As a kid, we were told to sit down and be quiet when all our psyche was limitless energy and activity. Now it seems like just slap on a medical addiction and drug young boys into inactivity. Girls on the other hand are told "you can do anything", "break the glass ceiling", and flourish in a social environment (which is good!).

It's time we focus more on how do we appeal to boys, and how do we get the most potential out of them. The cultural messaging is "girl power" while the counterpart is "toxic masculinity". The great heroes of the past (even the present, see how Arnold Schwarzenegger was cut down for the affair with his maid) have been merely reduced to "misogynists" or "terrible fathers" rather than reflecting on both their merits and weaknesses.

Liberal philosophy does not even try to understand what motivates and drives young men to success: it's building, exploring, and accomplishing. Instead it blindly assigns any flaw as a result of "toxic masculinity" while also ironically applying the same "toxic masculinity" it preaches against: "you need to grow up and get over yourself, things are so easy for men because we are in a patriarchy". And then when studies like the above are cited, we go around in the same circle: "men are so pathetic, they need to stop embracing toxic masculinity" while being blissfully unaware that we are the least "toxically masculine" that we've ever been in society, and yet men are suffering emotionally far more than they ever have in the past. Hint: it's the culture. We are driving innocent young men into depression, purposelessness, and masochism -- and it's shameful to see such a lack of care or empathy for it. Seriously, shame on everyone in this and the orginal article's comments that are pointing fingers and blaming this on men, rather than trying to root-cause why this is happening and working towards helping innocent young boys.

What kind of foolish arrogance is this?

Though I've never been diagnosed and live a normal life, I've had mood swings and extended family history of schizophrenia. Because of this, and the knowledge that there are certain triggers that can cause lifelong neurological issues, I'll never try acid or other hallucinogens.

The value of knowing that "underlying craziness" can exist is in inherently reminding us of the actual risk. Let's say someone predisposed toward neurological issues is on the fence, but ultimately decides to follow the reasoning in the comment. What liability are you going to bear for it?

At least Google gets you a search page, rather than a sign-up prompt.

For technical subjects (the "most important subjects" with respect to the future career I was planning), I never came out of lectures feeling like I understood the material. Only after reading the textbook, doing exercises, and re-reading the textbook (or looking up a concept online for an alternate explanation if the textbook's writing was ambiguous) did I feel any sort of confidence or perform well on exams.

Watching the lecture helped cement the material after already having a degree of knowledge, but they served best as optional, supplementary material. Since it served mainly to connect concepts together, I can see how watching it at 2x speed would serve the same purpose, but faster.

Most people in university would spend the bare minimum amount of time on both reading, exercises, and lecture in order to get a good grade, where good was defined as "the grade required in order to land a high-paying job". Since I was a non-conformist, I specifically made a point to read all the material assigned (and probably achieved ~80 - 90%), and one of my favorite activities when I was (rarely) ahead of schedule was to spend an hour reading a couple pages or a chapter of literature from an elective course. Every word, phrase, and sentence I would ponder about the meaning the author conveyed through multiple lenses (e.g. how did it affect the characters, the theme, the scenery, the world of the author, the culture he/she wrote them in, as well as the relation/history of the words used throughout the novel -- was this a motif? Did the phrase relate to any motifs?).

My professor mentioned "these books were meant to be enjoyed over many afternoons, to be read at leisure and to relate it to life with all its silly impossible circumstances and happenings". What was the end result of all this slow reading? In one narrow sense, it led to me getting worse grades than perhaps I would have if I allocated all my time towards getting the best career possible. It also led to depression -- self-inflicted -- and existentialist contemplation as my outcomes were incredibly poor relatively speaking.

What were some of the positives? Sometimes I can look at the brick walkway beneath me and make some quirky, half-sensical remark like "ah, the herringbone structure. The same one Brunelleschi used in the Duomo in Florence", to which any unfortunate souls try their best to follow socially as if that remark makes any sense in our conversation. Who knows, maybe Sartre would approve.