realitysballs

That’s all I needed to hear

In order to find a qualified candidate :

(A) individual must be interested in job/benefits/comp. and decide to apply. This makes them a ‘candidate’ (B) candidate must be qualified per minimum requirements

It’s entirely possible to not have candidates if no one is interested in the position at the stated comp/benefit rate.

True, but wouldn’t it be better long term if website automation didn’t create unintended new meanings to Titles? title’s matter

What about LinkedInlearning tho?

Why no contemporary/modern painters? First looked for Basquiat then Lichtenstein , nothing

Incredible interactivity

I already assumed that. But maybe I’m the minority. Unless someone explicitly says they are privacy focused, I assume the worst and anonymize

For my org. I don’t have budget for a dedicated in-house opsec team, so if I on-prem it triggers additional salary burden for security . How would I overcome this?

Funny, we are working to implement this same logic in our in-house financial categorization agent. When we have a repeat prompt it goes to a json that stores answers and only goes to AI for edge cases.

It’s a good idea

We find it pencils out on jobs with large OH /pan deck slabs or SOGs over 12000SF

You have adjusts due to its detectors and it has a prism on it and is being continuously tracked by a total station.

It can correct course due to deviations in floor surface or obstructions pretty well.

Weirdly it turns out to be cheaper/faster than paying a human being to do the same thing in use cases where you have large concrete slabs with complex walls/casework layout

Ya but then you need to pay for a team to maintain network and continually secure and monitor the server and update/patch. The salaries of those professionals , really only make sense for a certain sized organization.

I still think small-midsized orgs may be better off in cloud for security / operations cost optimization.

Agreed, hot take, but she defrauded a large corporate bank , big whoop if you ask me.

Not I

Solid AI use case. As someone that is trying to tack on AI/automation to legacy accounting software, this might be the better way to do it.

Excellent response

Good link.

My interpretation here is that the location of a missing device can be passed around via Bluetooth mesh but that the last send must be sent via cellular or WiFi back to iCloud. So it’s P2P to relay getting location info back to final device with internet connection back to iCloud but the finder still need to connect to iCloud to view updated location.

“Find My works offline by sending out short range Bluetooth signals from the missing device that can be detected by other Apple devices in use nearby. Those nearby devices then relay the detected location of the missing device to iCloud so users can locate it in the Find My app—all while protecting the privacy and security of all the users involved.”

+1

Huge fan of anyone daring enough to take on Autodesk , also product is top notch design.

Match dev env to prod env?

10 minute standup , woof

RDP into computer that has meeting running and then screenshot from the external computer running RDP .

They do specifically mention this:

“No one owns CSV. It has no real specification (yes, I know about the controversial ex-post RFC 4180), just a set of rules everyone kinda agrees to respect implicitly. It is, and will forever remain, an open and free collective idea.”

Think about difference between Brave and Chrome. Both Chromium browsers but Brave is much less intrusive and exploitative of user data. More Brave and less Chrome would allow average user greater privacy and less reliance on large corporations perhaps

Is this vuln. fixable via firmware or is the vulnerability inherent in the chip architecture?

Username is as insular as your comment

It’s interesting space to build a solution. The need for quantity take offs of a 2D PDF drawing that is most likely built in BIM software is mostly driven by contract structure.

If owners/developers understood this they could create contract structures that incentivize more fluid data collaboration aka the quantity take offs automatically generate as you are designing.

Pragmatically though in the current AEC landscape there is still a need for 2D QTO, nice work

I believe the outcome of this type of article is actually positive. The ‘SWE-Lancer’ benchmark provides visibility into a more pragmatic assessment of LLM capabilities.

Ironically it actually refutes Altman’s claims mentioned in the same article . Hard to replace engineers when you create a benchmark you can’t score decently on.

Yeah low-level language conflated with low-level coders , means the opposite in some sense