Does this matter? Corporations are on notice that this pendulum may swing the other way in four years (and remains permanently stuck the other way in certain states). They might just decide to steer clear of this minefield.
Ignoring all the other details, if someone waves the magic wand and makes it legal you can use it, when someone waves the magic wand and it's not legal, then the agreement is just void at that point. There's no retroactive consequences.
TFA notes that it may not have been declared legal. Rescinding a memo doesn't reverse existing case law; the meaning of said case law is subject to some disagreements (that the memo sought to clarify/remove).
Yeah I didn't want to go too far down the rabbit hole on the memo, just the most extreme case to demonstrate that if the law changes again, it's not a risk to the employer.
Nah, without the government to help defend against "frivilous" lawsuits by big corps, big corps won't be afraid to just sue the employees and make they pay the costs to defend or sue those hiring them to scare them from from employing them.
What minefield? They can have enforceable non-competes for at least the next 4 years. After that, maybe not, but it's so easy to include a non-compete clause into a new employee's paperwork that there's no reason not to do it, for companies that suck (that is, more or less all of them).
Even if they don't intend to go through the trouble to enforce them, they have a chilling effect.
Big companies already just ignore labor law and either hope litigation is too difficult for their employees or that the fines will be skimpy enough that it's worthwhile anyway.
Then let's take those things into account when calculating what tests to do. Surely, though, we can do better as a society than solving this with "no preemptive testing except for extreme risks".
There's a ton of research and regulatory oversight in this area, and the choices made generally make sense. You can safely assume that the testing recommendations are 3-5 years behind the research, though.
The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is the body doing that meta-analysis and writing recommendations. The recommendations are for general patients (high-risk patients should be identified and guided by their doctors), and are based on how much the screening/prevention will extend or improve patients' lives. The USPSTF explicitly does not consider monetary cost.
We haven't even solved the most basic shit like shelter, food, education, &c for millions of people in the west, as a society we're faaaaaaaaar from universal yearly full health checkups. As an individual feel free to get private checks, they'll gladly take your money
The fact that there are huge costs in the USA to even periodic medical checkups has severely impacted longevity in the USA to the point it ranks close to Cuba in longevity. Those with a health plan are close to the highest ranked nations. The poor without a plan at all are around ~4-5 less long lived. There is a nice rabbit hole in this data.
https://www.google.com/search?q=longevity+charts&rlz=1C1CHZN...
This has a huge GDP cost in the USA, that needs to be addressed.
The causes are big pharma/hospo/AMA/insuro/lobbyo....
One wonders why the AMA is there? - they limit the numbers of doctors trained in Universities/training hospitals to forestall price competition among doctors by various means. Dentists do the same.
There is no proven health benefit to periodic medical checkups for healthy adults. At the population level it's a waste of resources. But certain preventive screening services are covered at no cost to the patient because they've been shown to be effective through high quality research studies.
Cost of a yearly checkup should be "taken care of", because Obamacare mandated free annual checkups, as long as you don't accidentally trigger any other billing codes while you're there. But, regardless of cost, there's a shortage of providers, so it's hard to schedule the checkup. And there's still a lot of uninsured people out there.
The "evidence" seems pretty weak. A second autopsy that even the family's attorney admits is inconclusive... okay. Alleged "conflicts of interest" with the medical examiner... okay.
Seems very likely this guy was just depressed and his depression ended in tragedy. The motivated reasoning here from Musk, his family, and many others revolves around wanting to prove OpenAI is bad because they want OpenAI to be a bad guy they can pin this onto.
Not sure what OpenAI would possibly gain from this. It's not like LLMs being trained on pirated datasets is some sort of closely guarded secret.
The kind of weird, backwards consensus-making where betting market odds get used as proof for whatever fact or outcome they're betting on is... interesting.
Maybe the hard time limit is making people apprehensive. Not that I’m on the yes side, but maybe the odds would be different if the timeline was longer.
The systematic, public aspect of the killings and the fetishization of maximal pain and suffering is the fucked up part. Few societies ever where public delight in unthinkable cruelty was so off-the-charts.
Medieval European punishments and torture included (these had big crowds, when not done in a dungeon, and were often for "ceremonial" (religious) reasons):
- put the person in an immobile metal suit and hang them and leave them for days so crowds can throw stuff at them and taunt them. if they didn't die from exposure they'd certainly be emotionally damaged
- put someone's feet in a metal boot, and then drive wedges into the boot to slowly break all the bones in their feet
- clamp blocks with spikes around the knee, and tighten them down until the knee is totally destroyed
- clamp a person's fingers in a vice and screw until broken. this can be done for days, weeks, as they won't die, and more torture methods still await
- waterboarding. doesn't sound bad, but being repeatedly drowned for hours is, well, not fun
- putting somebody in a sack, with a dog, a snake, and a rat, and throwing them in the water to watch what happened
- tying a person to a giant wheel, smashing their limbs until they were dead, and then hoisting the wheel up for the public to gawk at
- clamp a sort of clawed device onto a woman's breast, and tighten it down until it rips her breast off
- cutting off heads, putting them on spikes, adorning the town or a castle with them (seems quaint in comparison)
- tie a person to a rack, and literally cut all the skin off their body while they are alive. they would die from either shock or blood loss, this is a quicker death than many others
- tying someone to a rack, slowly stretching them until their bones and skin broke, and then dragging them over to the scaffold where they'd be burned alive
- make a sharp metal narrow pyramid and lower a person down on it until it penetrates their anus
- tie the person to a table, attach a cage to their chest, put a rat in the cage, and apply fire to the other end of the cage. the rat claws and gnaws its way through the body of this live person
- tie somebody to a chair made of spikes, and slowly push them towards a fire
- tie somebody upside down, legs spread, and literally saw them in half, from the anus to the head
Soooooooooooo..... yeah..... fetishization of maximal pain and suffering..... honestly, I'm gonna call it, the Aztecs were amateurs compared to us.
The Copilot team probably thinks of Cursor's efforts as cute. They can be a neat little product in their tiny corner of the market.
It's far more valuable to be a platform. Maybe Cursor can become a platform, but the race is on and they're up against giants that are moving rather surprisingly nimbly.
Github does way more, you can build on top of it, and they already have a metric ton of business relationships and enterprise customers.
A developer will spend far more time in the IDE than the version control system so I wouldn't discount it that easily. That being said, there are no network effects for an IDE and Cursor is basically just a VSCode plugin. Maybe Cursor gets a nice acquihire deal
I've been through a change is grade range, others have too. Some countries moved from letters to numbers or to percentages to break with the previous system. It's not a difficult transition really - not compared to almost everything else happening at college level school.
And if the employers actually care about the grades, they'll learn about the change too. (But that's a minority)
> Would be a very difficult transition for the first generation to live under the new normal where an A is now a C.
In 2019 Germany, tens of thousands of pupils protested against what they thought were hard math tests on the "Abitur" – the last exam in school before university. Bad grades there would worsen their chances to secure a spot on a prestigious university or a desireable subject of study against pupils who got good grades from the old regime. (Or, if the next exam was easier, even against the next age cohort!)
This is the core fallacy though, imho: css ITSELF is already the tool for "mapping individual styles" to DOM elements.
Oldschool "CSS Frameworks" are libraries intended to bootstrap UI creation by providing abstractions of those mappings for a set of universally required UI patterns.
Tailwind pioneered the idea of "functional css" as a means to fix the "one-off classes" style bloat for anything that is NOT a specific component pattern (think "this specific archive view should be presented as a 3 column grid")
But when you end up aliasing all of CSS with such utilities, and then writing your styles to markup atts directly ... you aren't using a "framework" anymore, you simply "wrapped" most of CSS itself in a bunch of rainbow tables and littered it all over your markup, resulting in a highly illegible and unstructured style system
