I'm fairly sure in 3-6 months 90% of CEO pronouncements are prepared with AI.
Readit NewsThis is one of those ideas that might sound good when you don't think about secondary effects, but is actually commonly accepted to be a bad idea in the medical community. Similar to white coat hypertension [0], measuring your stress can induce stress, whether that's worrying about whether you're in a good range, getting more stressed when you find out you're already stressed, or etc. This is why continuous monitoring is usually applied as little as reasonably possible, unless absolutely necessary like diabetes, ER, etc.
> as little …
This is exactly the opposite of what which is written in the quoted wikipedia article:
> Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and patient self-measurement using a home blood pressure monitoring device is being increasingly used to differentiate those with white coat hypertension or experiencing the white coat effect from those with chronic hypertension
Continuous monitoring is a viable workaround wrt. white coat symptoms. It is just a lot more effort and expensive.
heisenbit commented on The Chrome VRP Panel has decided to award $250k for this report issues.chromium.org/issue... · Posted by u/alexcos
And do those companies facilitate black market transactions that would be tax-free?
I would consider it a deferred tax. You pay iff you are caught by the tax man with interest (and a potential bonus of a tax free holiday in a state sponsored facility). Better arrangements may be available if you are rich enough so you can get experts to arrange your taxes being legally deferred effectively after you died.
I would frame this slightly differently: managers care about delivery above all else, not necessarily productivity or efficiency.
Their goal is to attach their name to as many features/initatives as possible, owning the successes and orphaning failures, to impress their bosses. Another related goal is to have as many reports as possible. Delivery is relative to the average velocity: often, it's preferable to have a slow, inefficient operation so you can sandbag your bosses AND increase your headcount.
When it comes to improving processes and tools, managers prefer low-risk, iterative improvements which they can (somewhat) grasp. They also enjoy one-off prototypes and half-baked hacker projects which use new and shiny technology. Both categories make great fodder for PowerPoint presentations in front of shirts.
When it comes to larger, fundamental shifts which they cannot grok nor plausibly attach their name to, many managers will actively impede such efforts, as this risks upsetting the status quo which is (probably) working for them. The exceptions are usually the smart middle-managers looking to create a rising tide.
I've worked at a company that had dozens upon dozens of teams working on precisely the same problems (standard build->deploy->test->release fare), using many of the same tools, each with their own half-baked and poorly maintained configuration, plugins, dependencies, and custom libraries (sometimes, they even wrote a few tests!).
You can probably guess the majority of the proposal I put together, it's foundational stuff. It was presented and discussed among our senior+ engineers, and with managers.
>"You know... maybe there's value in letting teams be innovative..."
> managers care about delivery above all else
More precisely about benefit derived from the delivery. Best case scenario is the team is part of the benefit thinking but that is not a given. Also the layer above may engineer a situation where team and manager benefits from delivery are in conflict.
There is no doubt in my mind that AI makes me more productive and gets me back at least to the level Google did when it still worked.
How could they possibly lie? Don’t people just report the facts and then the facts show a bad jobs report and the labor economists who used to write the jobs report gets fired and replaced by a lying stooge and. Wait.
Nobody lies about the number st the end but also almost nobody understands the math behind it. The input are fuzzy numbers which later may be known more accurately (e.g. state data coming in later). They are weighted by historical importance that may drift. They may be computed indirectly from other statistics. and last but not least there seems also some tendency whether cultural or political to be optimistic.
The size of the negative surprise this time is worrying raising the distinct possibility that the part of the model which is extrapolating from the past is insufficient and reality shifted a lot more.
It's interesting that in the early 2010s, both halves of the ecosystem were talking about "convergence:" Ubuntu wanted to make its Linux render a single column on a handset and with floating windows on a larger screen. Motorola had a similar project based on Android.
A dozen years later, nobody has done that well. Ubuntu gave up. Mobile-targeted Linux distributions aren't good (missing functionality, mobile UX, or both). The linked distribution is running Debian in a container for desktop on top of Android. The rumors about the future of ChromeOS are imagining something similar.
Recent iterations of iOS are getting closer to being able to replace a Mac for a class of tablet-owning users who don't need desktop software, but the ecosystems are pretty well separated for most.
Adapting desktop Linux to mobile seems to be impossibly hard with the amount of resources those distributions have.
What is the point of convergence when you can sell two devices to one customer?
Based on https://blog.osum.com/steam-market-share/ (no idea how accurate) Steam holds 75% market share. One could make an argument that it may be a gatekeeper to the market and should be more closely regulated for commercial and free speech reasons.
I don't feel less intelligent, maybe more experience compensates for it. I probably make less wrong turns. But I have to be more rigid to prevent interruptions.