This sort of thing has been widespread in US fundamentalist Christian circles for a long time. He probably goes (or went) to a church surrounded by people who also believe that.
Normalization of deviance. They've shifted what is considered normal so far out of bounds that they can now pretend this is just fine. So no more fig-leafs. It brought down the Space Shuttle, and it will bring down society if left unchecked.
If this guy was some raving lunatic on a corner I wouldn't care. But he's got a country sized megaphone thanks to money and has also bought the government. So it does unfortunately matter that he's an insane christian cretin that wants to see the current form of government destroyed.
If it's not advocating clear, specific and imminent violence (which this isn't) then it's free speech. You don't have to like it, in fact nobody is asking if you do.
One time when I was in Hawaii I could swear there was a club playing dance music quite loudly somewhere a few blocks over: there was that muffled quality to it where I kept trying to pick out the song from inside my Airbnb.
Walking outside (after asking my wife if she could hear it): silence. Trees rustling, normal noises.
It was background noise. But inside the apartment that combination of different sounds was just right that it sounded like muffled music to me - but hence why I couldn't identify it, whatever was there was just me thinking I was hearing things.
Draw ones own conclusions about the relative technical plausibility of the events described by the OP (how would digital packet based audio experience a glitch which is structured as though you'd tuned into another analog radio station? It wouldn't: that doesn't happen and it isn't even a failure mode).
It’s legit in the sense that they use this originally in forensics to reconstruct faces I think , say a victim or unknown so they can put out a search pamphlet.
They know the relative muscular thickness for each area as to compile a likeness. Is it 100% a look-a-like? Probably not, but the main features and composition should be comparable to the original face.
I really love your post, but I do think (and I come from an artistic background) that some skills have their own beauty, like work of art. Some love for creativity and what we create has a meaning of its own. Certainly worthy of an epitaph.
It’s why overuse of AI is a bad call imo. You skip a part of the journey. Like Guy Kawasaki says “make something meaningful”. If we are all AIs talking to eachother, everything becomes meaningless, we will become a simulation of surrogates.
That said, human compassion, relating to others and everything you mentioned trumps everything else.
Sure thing, but at the same time, there's creativity and then there's work; I could creatively write things in C or assembly for the art of it, but that isn't what my employer pays me to do. I could do my job in notepad or `ed` and type every character myself, but that's inefficient.
Same goes for art (which is often what it's compared to), some part of art is creative, but the vast majority of art that people get paid salaries for is "just work"; designing a website, doing graphics work for a video game or TV production, that kinda thing.
tl;dr, AI won't replace artisans but it's a tool that can help increase productivity / reduce costs. Emphasis on can, because it's a lot more complex than "same output in less time".
This is a usual pattern, a tech savvy hacker creates this great tool, but if you don’t put in the interface work to make it easy, frictionless, it might as well not exist for the general public to consume. Grandma will never use this. Or not even a slightly technical person will. (And it’s fine if that isn’t your audience ofc)
My call to any devs reading this: get an interface designer, put in the usability effort before adding new features.
That was a fun read, and it might even explain why a lot of Gen-z is opting out of any sort of career building, wanting values instead (or next to) a paycheck. They saw their parents do The Office in real life.
Interesting is also that Michael does make a really good arc from season one to when he leaves. He remains clueless, or rather he it dawns on him he does not want to become like Ryan or David (the articles sociopath). Like he says in a later season “Business is about people.”
The smartest thing they did with the US version of The Office after season 1 was to make Michael highly competent in sales and its longterm relationships. S1 and the UK version of the show viewed the boss as incompetent at every level, it was much more cynical. Making Michael marginally competent gives him an empathetic leg to stand on for the audience. Had they kept Michael exactly like David Brent it probably would have still been hilarious but flamed out around season 2 or 3.
I agree, it made his character arc more interesting. Also, the entire show is centered around Michael. The later seasons really suffer without him.
It is also useful because it shows an old adage: people get promoted to their level of incompetence. Michael is actually an excellent salesman. He's a bad manager. He was promoted to branch manager because he was good at a different job.
This is just like when a really good engineer is promoted and becomes a bad manager.
> That was a fun read, and it might even explain why a lot of Gen-z is opting out of any sort of career building, wanting values instead (or next to) a paycheck.
Wouldn't that make them even bigger ~losers~ Clueless?
The ~losers~ Clueless are strictly those who put in more effort than they get in return but who cannot see it!
Putting in +25% extra into their job for a 5% promotion, for example.
Putting in effort for anything other than money is in the companies interest - they want people to be happy with vibes-as-compensation instead of money-as-compensation!
> The losers are strictly those who put in more effort than they get in return but who cannot see it!
I think those would be the losers who get promoted to clueless, at least in this metaphor. The losers who aren't clueless are putting in the bare minimum work that doesn't get them fired. If they overperform, they (according to the theory) get promoted.
I fully agree this nasty "vibes-as-compensation" bullshit, "we're all a family", etc, is in the interest of the top leadership. The sociopaths, if you will.
My mention of Gen-Z wanting values is exactly them seeing the bullshit of the sociopaths at the top (and the crap like “we are a family”. Gen-Z sees through that fluff.
The values I mentioned in the top comment are exactly about having people at the top who actually give a damn, that guide or lead with empathy. That doesn’t mean they don’t have to make shitty decisions, it just means they give a damn.
Gen Y was supposed to be values-driven too, Gen X invented slackers and grunge who were all about authenticity, boomers were children of hippies, beatniks preceded hippies…
The malaise afflicting Gen Z is more- secular- than cultural, I fear. The endpoint of economic trends.
Anyway I recently bought it because of multiplayer. Can’t wait to try it out.
reply