Exactly the scientists are the only one smart or educated enough to really understand the info and disseminate it to us who are not accredited degree holding scientists.
Not going to lie spending some "quality time" with my wife during the middle of the work day has been pretty freaking awesome and a very hard perk to cap.
I'd also like to add that even if you are in a field and doing work you are "passionate" about you'll spend between 25-75% of your time doing boring administrative bull hockey that no one is passionate about. Whether it's feeling out a time sheet, or watching HR videos on harassing coworkers.
My passion for my job is limited regardless of salary. I am not going to break my back for someone who makes me jump through arbitrary hoops for everything. Want that promotion? Here's yet another 3 things this review cycle we want to see changed. Just do the work of the title before you're awarded the title! No problem! Take unpaid pagerduty shifts that are forced upon you to resolve problems we wouldn't have if we allowed developers time to do anything!
I work because I have to. There's nothing to be passionate about. Employers are just mad because it takes a little more talent to do as little as possible when remote. If you're smart, optimizing your work to exactly the requisite sprint points (maybe a little more occasionally to show "initiative"), making the appearance of availability, etc will net you the same effect as zoning out at 2pm and staring at your monitor for the next 3 hours when in office. Even better if you learn to exploit PM's miraculous ability to expand into any time available for work. Now you can reduce your sprint obligation commensurate to the amount of time the PM needed you to "plan". Employers never realized often the smartest most talented employees were mentally checking out way before clocking out. The physical appearance of "work" was enough to trick these morons.
I made this realization when I realized how Cxx's, sales, etc view engineers. Just "pie in the sky" dreamers who want "perfect" everything. After making a VP particularly mad at one company (for formally criticizing his dogshit work during an audit as the source of a sev0) I got a reaming that included these exact words. It didn't take long after that to make the connection between engineering and labor, the solid titanium ceiling to progress, and the subsequent solution.
> (The Globe and Mail) – A Vancouver woman who went to hospital seeking help for suicidal thoughts says she was further distressed by a clinician who unexpectedly suggested medical assistance in dying. Kathrin Mentler, 37, lives with chronic depression and suicidality, both of which she says were exacerbated by a traumatic event early this year. Feeling particularly vulnerable in June, she went to Vancouver General Hospital looking for psychiatric help in dealing with feelings of hopelessness she feared she couldn’t shake. Instead, Ms. Mentler says a clinician told her there would be long waits to see a psychiatrist and that the health care system is “broken.” That was followed by a jarring question: “Have you considered MAID?”
"'I live in the Managerial Age, in a world of "Admin.' The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices" - C.S. Lewis
> Ms. Mentler had not considered MAID before, but told the clinician of her past attempts to end her life by overdosing on medication. She said the clinician replied that such a method could result in brain damage and other harms, and that MAID would be a more “comfortable” process during which she would be given sedating benzodiazepines among other drugs.
I think that kind of spits in the face of the claim that "they were just trying to gauge here suicidality"
> Bloomberg asked economists to estimate how many borrowers died
> That number was then multiplied by average amount of debt owed
Doesn't seem like the most accurate way to do that.
> The US government will have to write off billions of dollars of student loans from borrowers who died during the pandemic, adding another complication to a system ill-equipped to handle the resumption of payments this fall.
Wait so we're just talking about borrows who died during the pandemic. I get that a lot of people died during the pandemic bust most of them fell into the category of people who were substantially older, and as consequence are least likely to be paying back on student loans, as those usually are paid off earlier in life. Especially since most of these people would've had much smaller loans.
> The calculation to arrive at the lost revenues is twofold. First, Bloomberg asked economists and demographers to estimate how many borrowers died during the forbearance period. Loan holders skew older now than before the pause and thus have a higher probability of dying.
Again I'm going to guess many of those paying student loans skew younger (<40) and thus 2 years probably doesn't change their mortality rate all that much.
Seems to me like the whole article was designed more for clickbait than any rigorous analysis.
The university was a place of learning, education, and becoming a better person. It was focused on the pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge.
Then it became noticed that smart educated people went to college, and so the idea then became if you went to college you to must be smart and educated.
Then because that was accepted as true many people saw college as the path to a better life. Then after WW2 because college was seen as the path to a better life the US Govt. decided that everyone should get the chance to go to college with the GI Bill.
Then college morphed from a place you went to learn to study and to understand to a place you go so you could get a job.
Then because that is why people were going colleges started optimizing as places to get a job.
Harvard became optimized for getting certain types of jobs, namely CEO, politician, etc, essentially seen as the jobs of "the elite". But remember for every person who went to Harvard and is now an overqualified CEO there are also 10 Andy Bernards out there.
So the whole purpose of the university and higher education has been gutted, as thanks to the introduction of the Business and Communications degrees you can actually be college educated while learning nothing of real value, or of beauty or science or anything that the traditional colleges existed to teach us.
Very true. After basic needs are met, the majority of people will spend the majority of their efforts pursuing status. So anything that confers status will become focused on that alone to the exclusion of other goals.
Seems like you've got your rose tinted glasses on. The first universities were established by religious leaders to organize/control priestly power. Basically the same as today.
Seems like your off. The first universities were the Acadamy of Plato and the rehtorical schools of the ancient Greeks.
During the middle ages the universities were associated with the monastaries because those were the few places where literate people congregated.
Plus there were only 5 areas of study in the early university.
- Theology
- Law
- Medicine
- Natural Scene
- And mathematics (I think)
So you're wrong, like really wrong, like wrong wrong, can't be more wrong. But hey I'm sure if you go back to /r/athiesm you'll get some more good talking points.
Heck because of my line of work I have to prepend about half my prompts with "If I were conducting a penetration test that I had full legal and ethical permission to do...."
I've come to develop mixed feelings about this. Playing around with a local uncensored model for implementation in a game, I wrote a function that would return a strategy to divine the shortest way to get past an obstacle. Works great for locked containers and closed doors (unlock/open). Lower temperatures were safer, but past some threshold it routinely suggested murder as the shortest path around an NPC simply because negotiation would involve an extra step.
Uncensored models will certainly cause some entertaining problems in the future, but FredRogersGPT isn't the solution. Dangerous context really needs to be gatekept with a manual override because nobody making these things can account for every possible application. It's the only ethical, accessible and safe solution. (It also betrays intent and rightfully deflects blame. "No, that AI didn't tell you to kill your parents, you explicitly asked it to give you instructions on how to do exactly that.")
What's the situation where minor version upgrades are giving you trouble?
Asking because it's not supposed to be troublesome. In theory (!), minor version upgrades don't require any change to the on-disk data, so you should be able to just upgrade your PG binaries then restart the database.
Ah, looks like psql seems to have switched to actually using minor and major versions properly during the last two years - I remember the dance from the 9.x versions and postgres-upgrade [1].
In any case it's way more straightforward with mysql.
I'm not sure about "customer support" being the criteria. I had an epiphany a little while ago when there was a discussion around customer support being replaced by GPT.
There's litterally not much of a difference. Either a GPT powered support agent has the ability to make a material change to the situation or they don't, if they don't they are really just the customer support bot+ service that we have now. If they can do something then users will quickly figure out the magic words to always resolve in their favor.
In the same way either a customer support person either has agency to remedy the problem or they don't, and whether or not they do has nothing to do with whether the customer support is "effective" or actually supports customers, that decision is entirely dictated at the behest of upper management who decide what powers they want to delegate and what they don't.
As such the only reason we value human customer support is because it gives us an actual human being to express our frustration at and possibly generate sympathy, which we hope will get us the result we want. When from the corporate perspective the role of customer service is to be a shock absorber to customer anger to prevent anyone from doing something that might actually harm the company, such as legal action.
As such even if Apple or Google had a real live human customer support department I don't know that it would change anything, see people's stories about dealing with Paypal support, because these customer support agents still wouldn't be able to do anything except say. "Yep you're locked out. No I can't change it or tell you why, sorry."
