Thanks, but I was answering your question by anecdote, not asking for clarification. To be clear: I'm implying an opinion that Nintendo has more name recognition than V.O.S. Selections, not that their suit is otherwise more significant.
Why are you writing in this defensive manner? The post isn't an anti-AI screed, it's a "I screwed up, here's what I did and how to avoid it."
You say "Not really sure what the lesson would be here", but the entire contents of the blogpost is a lesson. He's writing about what he changed to not make the same mistake.
There is a total mismatch between what's written and how you're responding. We don't normally call people idiots for trying to help others avoid their mistakes.
The culture war around AI is obliterating discourse. Absolutely everything is forced through the lens of pro-AI or anti-AI, even when it's a completely neutral, "I deleted my data, here's what I changed to avoid doing it again", where the tool in question just happens to be AI.
I didn't take it to be defensive. A bit tongue in cheek, but not defensive. I think the person you're responding to has a good point though. AI or not, you probably shouldn't futz around with prod before doing so in a lower env. Guardrails for both AI and humans are important.
Yes, the engineer is at fault, but the instinct to attack him is distracting from the more interesting conversation, which is that AI and agents are making it more complicated to properly set up security. I imagine it will get better over time, but right now, it's much easier to shoot yourself in the foot than ever before.
They only make it "more complicated" if you have absolutely no clue and thought typing "make it so" in a chat window is all you need.
Every single failure here is precipitated by user stupidity. No management of terraforms tate. No verification of backup/restore procedure. No impact-gating for prod changes. No IAM roles. Reconfiguring prod while restoring a backup.
None of that rests on AI. All of that rests on clueless people thinking AI makes them smart.
I agree that a second issue doesn't erase the first, but also I've got enough work experience to know that a system which can be brought down by 1 person no matter the tooling they use is a system not destined to last for long.
You haven't addressed the breakdown I provided showing why those initial assumptions don't match the data. Can we acknowledge that the original premise was based on a misinterpretation of the figures rather than just delete the history of your statement?
I haven't had a chance to dig into study carefully. But I just noticed that you misinterpreted the quote you rely on above. You said:
> Your source (below) says that Hispanic and black student enrollment didn't change, just white enrollment. Maybe there are other factors?
> "First off, no statistical relationship existed during those years between Asian American student enrollment and that of students from other groups, such as African Americans or Hispanics"
But you omitted the portion after the semicolon:
"First off, no statistical relationship existed during those years between Asian American student enrollment and that of students from other groups, such as African Americans or Hispanics; therefore, white movement was a reaction not to the broader emergence of non-white neighbors, but to Asians specifically."
To be totally fair to you, the first clause in isolation clearly means what you interpreted it to mean, it seems like the author of the article doesn't understand what "correlation" means. But it looks like the co-author of the underlying study draw the same conclusion as I did:
"'If we just look at the basic correlations, we don’t see this kind of white flight from low-income suburbs,' said Boustan. 'To me, this very clearly rules out basic racial animus.'"
The rest of the article explains that the white flight is caused by dislike of the increased competition Asian students bring, not racial animus like you suggested.
The portion after the semi-colon wasn't relevant to your initial claim. Which was this:
> There is a reason American families move away when Asian immigrants move into school districts
The study shows that "American" families didn't move away, "white American" families moved away.
> not racial animus like you suggested.
Can you share what it is you think I suggested? I don't see where I provided a view on this topic. I simply pointed out your incorrect assumptions of the data.
But in the rich-poor left-right quad, only one square is strongly against importing workers, and it's on the right side. Even just looking at the right side though - it really feels like the non-rich right's opinion on this is louder than the rich right's opinion (though, of course, it is money, not volume, that directs both parties in most cases).
You're observing the gradient between idealism and realism. It can look like hypocrisy, but people simply have multiple opinions. It says a lot that we are surprised when a person doesn't fall almost 100% on one side of the party line, because that crazy state is what we're used to.
It's just plain human to support outcomes that benefit one's self, family, friends, or community (especially if they are suffering, or losing what they were once afforded by their country or ancestors); even if you might have voted the other way if you were observing from outside, where you have the luxury to make more neutral decisions based on the big picture and long timeline.
As long as the delta isn't too gross, of course - there's where the subjectivity really comes in (How much benefit? How much harm? What does it mean to "deserve" something? Where is the line between simply deciding how your own country operates and harming others unnecessarily?)
Not at all - I can't see how you're coming to that assumption. And even if that were the case, it still doesn't follow that somebody who has coworkers with (I'll charitably add a word for you: Strong) strong accents can't have an opinion that strong accents are a problem in critical communication.
reply