HN user
Community driven RLHF, probably
By leaving this comment you've let the model know it's not sly. Down votes and flags / removals will do the same. Eventually it'll be sold as an auto-astroturf model ("50% fewer spam removals than the competition").
Or maybe it's just someone who gets a kick out of seeing how their prompt performs.
This is a nice sentiment and all, but the police & prosecutors are already on the losing side of a technological and societal arms race.
The reasons police use these tactics is because in many jurisdictions, getting a guilty verdict is borderline impossible, even in the face of an overwhelming amount of direct evidence. Defense counsels have become experts in shit-slinging to ensure that juries are as confused as possible going into deliberations. "Jury of peers" means it's somewhere between possible and probable to get one or many jurors sympathetic to the defendant, especially in cities. Jurors attempting to appear "unbiased" frequently just choose the middle ground option between the prosecution and defense, without actually taking a look at the evidence.
The current system is extraordinarily flawed and leads to these outcomes where all sides are forced to use immoral tactics to get their desired outcome, because that's the only realistic shot they've got to accomplish their goals. The correct response is not to further kneecap one side of the conflict.
Honestly it's a bit of a shame because there's so many little things that SharePoint does right that I immediately miss when going to another product. Lists alone, much less the combined portfolio of Lists + Pages + Power automate is such an amazing power user combination that I can't find a viable replacement for in GSuite/Atlassian/virtually anywhere else. It really is too bad that the core Document Libraries module is so lacking in performance.
It’s the same with ...
This is the problem with your argument and all others like it.
Like the parent comment states in this thread, there is a truly mind boggling level of nuance and complexity that goes on in almost every single discrete field. The nuances that make you succeed in one field may not (are probably not!) the same as another field.
We can even see this within a field: Being a good engineering manager does not make you a good engineer, or vice versa. So why should we think either of these disciplines can be extended into geopolitics, finance, or anything else?
This is revisionism. There was quite a lot of noise around Google's terrible historical image generation.
One key difference though? Google backed off, apologized, and if I'm not mistaken, explicitly said "We messed up." Versus... this.
What is your model? That is, how did you measure this? Productivity and the impacts to it are highly multivariate and most analysis thus far has failed to do show convincing effects in either direction from remote work.
Genuinely, there is too much appeal to emotion from both sides of the argument and not enough substance, so if you have something here I'd be interested to read about it.
Alternately, from another context: Musk is now the most powerful man on the planet. Only a fool would throw that away (or make themselves a target of that power).
It's an unresolvable problem. If you think he's that horrible, you can't get rid of him because you're signing your own death warrant (figuratively or literally, depending on how extreme your view is). If he isn't, you've got an incredible asset in your court.
Yes.
This change has user facing implications in that it is removing application data and/or functionality.
Your example is that people changed the name of some internal constants and private methods. Nobody notices except the developers.
I have been very happy with Deezer
This is like saying "nobody is disrupting AWS" and then pointing out that competitors don't have a version of AWS Glue.
Plenty of startups have disrupted banks. AMEX purchased one to jumpstart its small business checking accounts just a few years ago. You're just not looking hard enough.
If you move the goal posts to core checking/savings accounts by consumers, then yeah there's not much of an upside there. Consumers go decades to lifetimes on average without changing banks. Capital One was the last one to do anything "disruptive" here re: providing accounts and credit to the lower class, and I'm not sure there's enough juice to squeeze left for a smaller, more focused product to make any money given the stickiness of checking accounts generally.
Unfortunately, this is happening at a lot of agencies. Stop work orders have been issued from the state department for pretty much anything relating to international aid at my partner's large USAID-focused contractor. It's so severe the contractor is sending out emails that, to me, look like they're strongly considering shuttering the company ("prioritizing meeting payroll" was one of the things mentioned, and I can't imagine they're going to find new revenue streams in time).
A lot of people are reliant on this aid. A lot of people are going to die within weeks.
That's a bit misleading. agilemanifesto.org also hosts a (still short, but way more concrete) Twelve Principles of Agile Software: https://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html
(Also worth noting that scrum and most of the best known agile methodologies predate the manifesto; the manifesto was formed from guiding principles of those methodologies, not the other way around: https://agilemanifesto.org/history.html)
I understand this take, but let me present the flip side:
There are two ways of working, remote or in person. Hybrid is a swan song of bullshit where you get the worst of both worlds and few of the advantages. So organizations need to make sweeping changes one way or another: either restructure towards remote-first or return to pre-covid paradigms by not only getting people back to the office, but also teams back in the same office. Both require some pretty sweeping changes to get there, and it's understandable (if maybe not defensible) that a majority of established organizations don't want to reinvent themselves.
At the end of the day, if in-person is the final vision, yes you should be fired if you don't comply with it. Almost everyone is replaceable, including even the top levels of management. Keeping employees who are actively hostile to (remember, not just disagreeing, but actively disregarding) a core organizational standard doesn't help anything --- regardless of their performance.
All that being said, I find it amazing that companies were presented the opportunity to use a new remote paradigm on a silver platter and decided to scoff at it rather than embracing all of its advantages, but maybe that's why I'm not making those decisions.
Not sure if it was lined up but they started a new role roughly a month after they were fired.
Not me, but I've had a direct peer fired because they did not comply. They received recurring monthly notices for about 6 months and were then terminated (no severance or other allowances were given that are typically given to performance-based termination).
This peer was typically evaluated as a high performer during performance reviews, but was denied for their request to remain remote, and they decided to ignore the order and accept the consequences.
The organization is also actively monitoring and blocking bonuses and promos for those who are not fully ignoring the mandate but are not meeting the full expectation.
USA based financial institution.