tryingtogetback

It is very odd. to the point where it looks staged (Epstein kind of staged)

I wouldn't wish a job of being an officer upon anyone these days. I can only imagine what law enforcement officers' family members and loved ones are going through on daily basis

Police officers have been a recent target of a nationwide smear campaign ("pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon,") and now they are a target for the terrorist group that attacked capitol, the group that supposedly came out of a social circle that was suppose to support the system and traditional institutions. Cognitive dissonance is big with this one.

why aren't more workers "happy capitalists"

Only idiots are always happy. If we see flaws, no matter how small, we try to proceed to the next level by fixing those, there is a brief moment of perceived happiness, but it passes rather quickly, and so cycle continues. What you described is Work-In-Progress. Capitalism is the system that allows that, it allows itself to self-correct.

Or the people soon displaced by computers and algorithms

Everything that can be automated - should be automated. Humans is a creative reserve that is limited, physical labor needs to become obsolete. Also you don't see any horse carriage operators complaining about being displaced by automotive industry, do you?

let just not forget that we live in a "society" and not in a box, everyone for themselves

That's right, everyone is not against you, they are just for themselves.

"anti-capitalist" - how does one become an "anti-capitalist" when it's abundantly clear that, even though it's not a perfect system, it's the best system there is? It's the system that facilitates competition, social progress, scientific advancements etc etc

I'm thinking "anti-capitalist" attitude is usually a result of the poor decisions in early adulthood (decisions regarding education, reproduction, career, social circles). When these choices don't pay off, failure to recognize that and self-correct early enough builds resentment. Since the system doesn't reward poor decisions (works as designed) it's very common to shift the blame from yourself (your incapability to adjust, adapt, improvise, and overcome) onto the system and characterize it as "exploitative"

Not sure why you are being downvoted. It's at very least plausible. The reasons for much lower birth rates in western (and westernized) cultures are education, security, and stability. Remove these and your primitive instincts like reproduction will start to dominate your life again (baby boomers as an example in US).

Right, India is The Beacon of Light all western civilizations should be looking up to? No, thanks! Your opuscule of a comment doesn't make a damn sense.

You are contradicting yourself and making my point for me.

janitor is an abstraction (you trust a janitor to operate with a professional tool for you) and you are completely right, git GUIs (just like a janitor) are a liability.

Endless opportunity for analogies here. The gist is that you are delegating all sensitive versioning and versioning history management operations to a 3rd party with extremely limited capabilities, 3rd party you know nothing about (effectively a black box).

We thrive on abstractions, but unfortunately in case with versioning and git in particularly, GUI apps is a wrong one.

For me, as a dentist, I used to use the dental drill, but now I trust my janitor to handle it, this way I make less mistakes myself

My job as a dentist isn't to use dental drill, it's to fix teeth in general. If I managed to fix a tooth and customer is happy, it doesn't matter whether I use drill myself or janitor does. Imagine having 100 complex things bouncing around your head and having to make that 101 when you forget the order of drill bits you need for a root canal.

The guy who knows dental drilling backwards is welcome to apply for a job managing dental drills or something if such a thing exists? But I could harp on the same way about his missing medical or braces-training skills.

"given the horrendous nature of typing emojis" - can easily be automated. Author could've been more courteous by leaving those out, making the contents more accessible.

re: Neuralink: https://neuralink.com/approach/ the tech is fascinating and Musk is positively and admirably insane! Seems like every Sci-Fi concept possible already has Musk's involvement in it.

J. Bezos, take a note, we need more of that!

I couldn't read it. With all emojis involved it reads like a long, obnoxious text message from an unstable gen-z.

Checked the author, author's tweeter account, looks legitimate (not GPT3?).

If there was a real message written as a novel-like short story, the audience will definitely be limited.

What if it was done intentionally, on purpose?

Author constructed a targeted message that repels all but the most promising marks, causing those to self-select, tilting the actionable true to false-positive ratio in his favor?

I might be overthinking. Will dump this one in my reading list (along with Lukas_Skywalker's comment), will get to it later.

Apple's supreme UX and mobile hardware aside, no one in their right mind, who's serious about privacy, would ever use android. The amount of hoops you need to jump through to degoogle an android device (with continuous degoogled upgrades) is insane.

Android is perfect for the burner phones though, the ones that you trash after a call or 2 (still, expect that every sensor possible will be reporting it's data back to "a manufacturing party" the moment you activate it)

By consensus I mean an actionable agreement that propagates beyond your household's kitchen.

Globally, climate might be drifting but consensus on what needs to be done will never be reached. Small gang of seemingly nervous Europeans (even if US is forced to join) will never be able to tell China what to do (or how) with their resources.

While were are tearing ourselves up with fearmongering, China can build an underwater supersonic bullet train in like 2 months if they have to for what they care.

Having children is then worst you can do for the environment.

Side note: being able to control basic, primitive instincts like reproduction is what distinguishes us from animals. Career and goal oriented individuals who opted out from having children are the ones driving progress, are the ones who you need to thank for your pleasures and leisures in modernity.

Investing decades of your live into driving society upwards (as opposite to catering to your offspring, which, statistically speaking, has a very high chance of becoming a consuming one, one that habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return) is not for everyone, of course, but those who decided to reproduce should have an awareness of what they are doing a who for.

it is pretty much a common knowledge that we will never reach consensus with this issue. Question: assuming that prognosis is actually true (this time), what could we do to prepare for the worst?

With renewable energy advancements we shouldn't have problems with powering city-wide air-conditioning systems.

Architectural engineering would be one of the booming domains, I imagine (re-engineering shorelines, artificial islands - similar to what UAE is doing, or how Miami beach was engineered)

What else? Countries that can afford it - i imagine it's the perfect time to invest in/strengthen military and, most importantly, border security.

Indoor farming with irrigation complimented by a condescension from cooling systems?

Dangerously ill-informed comment. Have you ever been to a hospital in a country that embraced socialism? In some countries you pay effectively zero for socialized healthcare. What an awesome, marketable for votes delusion.

Guess what. You get exactly what you paid for. Chronic mismanagement, apathy, deteriorating conditions, lack of resources. Need to schedule a procedure? Get into a virtual line 10000 persons long. "Oh you are in pain? I'm sorry. Thermometers are the only medication we can offer". In CIS countries, the only way to get something done is to bribe an official (to move you up the line by a 100 or so) or a private clinic (but socialism is so great! right?) If a country with socialized healthcare manages float it's healthcare services on an "average" (aka meh) level, it's only because of the private donors, private insurances, private donations, and financial aid and subsidies from US (but capitalism is so awful, right??)

Grass is always greener aka you have no idea what you are talking about

NYT reporting at it's best. How come that a paper that is not small at all (I believe they even have a Tech department, from what i understand it's a low-budget one, but still) doesn't have any tech advisors that can do proofreading?

If they are this careless about technology, how can I trust them with reporting that touches other domains?

"Sorry how is that regime any different from the US?" - is that an honest question? Do you really not know how western democracy is different from dictatorial and oppressive regimes in Russia, China, or North Korea?

editorialization of this question on HN is bugging me:

"If I solve integer factorization, will I get killed for breaking cryptography?" reads as "If I solve integer factorization and start actively breaking cryptography (snoop and steal), will I get killed?" - the answer is yes, most likely.

Where the original question in quora is completely different: "If I solve integer factorization, will I get killed because I would have broken cryptography?" - the answer is no (no with "but again, it depends").

Can pay transparency potentially limit/discourage horizontal mobility for workers as a second order effect?

As in "there is no point to explore other domains/companies in my industry since my compensation will not change for my seniority level even though I understand that the value I deliver for society might increase exponentially"

Can pay transparency level up the field by removing the incentive for hyper-productive outliers, pulling wages down, as a second order effect?

As in "I'm sorry Jane, we appreciate that you've been working 80 hour weeks and is solely responsible for the success of this project but 20 other engineers in our team who have the same seniority level as you are making $N and we can not pay you a dollar more (otherwise they would have to give the same raise to other 20 engineers to make it look fair). Promotion is another option, you are on track but it will take a year or two"

Is it possible that push for pay transparency is just pandering to the lowest common denominator where best and brightest are left behind?

I know it's possible that some time in the future I might realize that I have been a fool all this time. However, it is also possible that alternatively, you might realize the same. That moment has yet to come for either of us. So here we stand.

test

Your comment doesn't really object. Do you know how many average workers are getting paid right now for doing basically nothing? A high percentage of average "jobs" in US are a form of UBI. Some are doing great things, some are kicking cans, CEOs are no different, CEOs are not robots (yet?).

"hate" or "hatred" - very strong words that make me say "Yes, exactly right.", - in response to your first question.

I would even point out that only deeply disturbed individuals can hate people they know nothing about (well, nothing other than what was shoved down their throats by propaganda channels)

Most certainly not, Медвежонок, and I doubt it will become one in the near future (although some aspects of it are already here). Nevertheless, it's always good to highlight socialist propaganda.

It is CEO hatred culture which is being actively developed by socialists in hope to promote socialism: a very predictable desire to control the population by eliminating opportunity and thus free-thinkers and overachievers: forced equality where everyone should wear the same uniform, the same haircut, and make the same 15$ per month no matter your skills, abilities, or the situation at hand, with all Olympians in national Olympiads getting the same iron medals regardless of the results.

Fortunately unachievable in US in the near future.

It is also possible that globalization requires new management and coordination skills on a level that was never there before.

To be able to make your company successful is one thing but to make it successful in multiple regions with globally distributed supply chains is a completely different story where complexities increase x299?

This is a very interesting historical phenomenon. Basing my views strictly on objectivism, isn't that a side effect of what residents are being actively manipulated to vote (and blindly/aggressively stand) for?

There is definitely a negative financial impact of being discriminatory and "prosecutory" towards individuals with a high potential (high mental capacity) aka resources we need to use which haven't been "discovered" or "utilized" yet and it makes total sense to pull those out of the system ASAP (in this case prevent them from going through the system in the first place) which seems like a very profitable direction for the industries involved (see the rise of coding bootcamps) but has an extreme and unintended second order effect no-one planned for: uncontrolled crime.

Maybe 1 out of 100.000 could make it to be a Craig Federighi of sorts, but is it really worth it if other 99.999 are looting, shoplifting, and defecating on your porch?

1. "no bias is eliminated at first place, since the algorithm is still man made" -

This is a straw man. if specific criteria are being automatically evaluated bias is most certainly reduced (if not eliminated).

2. "especially if the input relies on computer vision" - evaluation criteria can be infinitely improved upon

3. "neither you or I have read the code" - I highlighted transparency concerns in my original comment

4. Unavoidable, unintentional implementation flaws (bugs) are expected but so are fixes and continuous improvements.

I would certainly trust an algorithm to make a decision about my employment over an unpredictable, flawed, and (often times) incompetent human management

algorithm could not be based on that. what you described is highly personal and doesn't make sense when optimizing for profits. When optimizing for profits all that matters is value created/delivered (or loss reduced, risks averted).

One can speculate about possible (and/or highly personal) correlations while not realizing that the outcome is completely fair.

Fascinating tech. imagine if human element is removed from critical decision making, meaning bias is drastically reduced (if not completely eliminated in this case). All decisions are strictly based on your output which eliminates corruption, nepotism, and unfairness. Isn't this system better that what we have now (flawed and unpredictable humans driving critical decisions)?

Yes, they highlight transparency issues which is the problem. When using a tech like this objectives must be clear, workers should know the system and know the expectations and productivity criteria