The thing is.. chatgpt can be genuinely useful. I did purposefully use it to get some some product comparisons and whatnot. It could be genuinely good if it is handled well and not devolve into constant buy blast ( like with emails and just about any other medium ).
Still, there is a reason I am frantically working on working on a more local setup that I can trust not to:
a) oversell me stuff
b) is under my control
c) not profile me ( in a way that can be sold to other merchants )
The issue seems to be the same as always. I am either a minority or the money pull is way too strong.
I'm not sure how long you've been using Google, but Google also used to be genuinely useful. The more that ads became a priority, the less Google was able to be genuinely useful to me.
<< The point of a coffee shop isn't to provide you with a nice space to work but to sell coffee.
Sure, but a coffee cup is not exactly expensive or difficult to make. The reason why companies tried so hard to make it inviting or 'third space' or whatever corporate types call it these days is that it helps sell severely overpriced sugar drinks of added caffeine.
This is not a shot at Starbucks. I love me some creme brulee, but it is important to recognize it for what it is.
Similarly, if it indeed is user entitlement that caused patrons to visit coffee shop and enjoy their drink in a nice space, then it was very much encouraged by corps for a good while ( for good reasons too -- apart from the historical ).
It is important to note that we are talking about extremes now. Up until now, the rules mostly encouraged self-governance and, in general, well, not being an asshole. That has been slowly eroded and we are in an expected spot, where some will push things to its limit.
While it is easy to be annoyed with those people, I would like to posit that they serve an actual purpose in the society. In a very tangible sense, they tell you where the lines actually are.
I disagree - I think those people are, to put it bluntly “the reason we can’t have nice things”. The only reason those lines need to be clearly defined is so those people know how hard they can push. If it wasn’t for that we could share.
It was, for me, one of the best experiences for linux desktop. In a very practical way, it was popos that got me off of windows at home. There are some issues, but they seem to mostly revolve about me getting opinionated over what something 'should' look like ( so I occasionally try other distros ).
It is less bloated than ubuntu ( but still has heavily embedded stuff that is hard to remove like accessibility -- the amount of times kid pressed key combination to turn on voicing each key was super annoying ). Store is slow af. But all of those are smaller things.
I will admit that the price difference was a big value differentiator for me since speed is not a priority ( playing with big models at a reasonable price is ).
<< First thing I thought when reading it. This story makes no sense. Nothing they mentioned in the article is actually illegal.
A lot of things are not, but US for a while has been on a path that suggests that whether something is legal or not is not the standard. The standard is basically, based partially on personal vibes.
Naturally, this comes years after it was normalized in banking, red flag laws and so on, so I suppose this is not a surprise, but I am surprised that people are making 'this is not illegal argument'.
In this setup, illegal does not matter. If it is suspicious, you are in trouble. For example, I invite you to look at DHS/FBI 'signs'[1][2] to report by private orgs:
- Producing or sharing music, videos, memes, or other media that could reflect justification for violent extremist beliefs or activities
Note the could and despair at the future we are gleefully approaching.
Anyway, I don't disagree with you on principle, but I want you to understand that the system behaves differently these days.
This. Based on what I have seen so far in my company so very anecdotal.
Assuming they know and/or have the capability to do it, between the cost of correcting the issue and push to use AI into everything meaning raising any issue now, politically speaking, is a direct criticism of someone major VP pet projects. I personally simply started to log stuff.
The first thing they need to do first is acknowledge there is a problem to begin with. I am so glad I am not an actual programmer though. It would drive me nuts.
There's definitely a lot of politics involved in such projects. So I've learned that a break is necessary between major engagements to decrease the risk of burnout.
The environment that creates "rescue" projects is usually not one where long term thinking is prevalent. It would be a pet project of someone who's still there or someone who left but where the ultimate decision maker is still there. Either case, you need to walk on egg-shells and be mindful that dealing with the technology problems is the easiest part of such an engagement. I'm not ashamed to admit that I've learned that lesson the hard way.
That's a good question that I sometimes ask myself. But if you want the money, you have to do what it takes. There's a limit of course and lines that I do not cross(illegal, unethical etc). There were plenty of times where I had to say that this is not going to work and chose to end the relationship with a handover. During those times, the technology wasn't the problem.
Is it really? Given the current salaries for AI talent ( or whatever future most desired skill sets are ), 100k seems like a decent enough spot to do the following:
- keep the program limited to what it was intended to do ( bring in the best people in, keep US competitive -- on tech, not on low wages )
- keep populace in a state, where they don't see a reason for a leadership change
Unless, of course, that is not what the program is used for ( and anecdotally, that take does not seem that far fetched ).
So my overall response is: good. Frankly, this made Trump's election worth it.
Having learned more about the details, it's honestly not as heavy-handed as I originally thought. The Reuters article linked said it was "$100,000 fee per year" - but it has now been clarified to be a one-time fee per new H1-B petition. I also thought initially that it would apply to existing H1-B holders, but it does not. And I've learned is that it's structured as a temporary change lasting for 12 months (of course it could be extended in the future).
So - it's less heavy-handed than I thought. Given recent layoffs and the current state of the job market, I could maybe even be convinced that it's a good thing in the short term.
I do still have concerns about US comptetiveness in the longer term though if we incentive companies to hire in other countries vs bringing talent to the US.
<< the most you could say is that they are slightly reducing income of high-income earners
First, I would like you to reconsider 'high income' and putting $120k in that category. It was a good chunk of change. In this year of our lord 2025, it is not. It is, for my region anyway, barely acceptable middle class income.
The median income in San Francisco is $69k. In New York City, it's $41k. Median household incomes are ~2x those numbers.
A $120k job in any region of the country is 'high income'. You are feeling a different effect, which is that we have designed our country such that even high income people often do not feel economically secure.
Stop. Just because that is the median income does not automatically make it high. The value of the income comes from what it is able to purchase. That value has been steadily eroded over the year. If anything, it is indictment of the existing system. If anything, the proper way of looking at it is that the actual value you are able to get for your work has been greatly reduced. The number is meaningless to anyone, who is able to look at basic reality ( or does not depend on status quo for one reason or another ).
The sheer balls on people to suggest that high absolute value automatically means it is high. And that is before we get to how those jobs are are not even in the same category...
I am going to stop here, because I don't want to get mean.
If you barely consider yourself middle-class with an income 50% over the median then you are probably at least living in a "high income" region :P
And your self-classification is questionable, but that is very common. Maybe a good trigger to experience gratefulness and satisfaction for the economical situation you are in?
IMHO The ability to choose to live in a high income region (or more specifically a cosmopolitan city) is one of the core characteristics of what it means to be middle class.
Partially, that's because increased self determination is part of being middle class. Partionally, that's because the ability to participate in culture (art, music, education, multiculturalism, etc.) is part of being middle class; and those opportunities are highly concentrated in the cities.
I think you misunderstand me greatly and, more importantly, greatly misunderstand the zeitgeist. I am unbelievably thankful for being paid for what I am doing the amount I am paid.
But, and this is the most important part, just because I am in better situation than most, does not make the overall state of the population that much less shitty.
I deleted longer response from yesterday. Long story short, I disagree. If anything, it is unrealistic for anyone to expect that current economic ecosystem is sustainable.
I don't expect a lot, but I do expect my standard to improve over that of my parents', not decrease.
