I had a partner that was being charged about 8k$ to solve a ruby problem that copilot answered with a couple of prompts (took a couple of hours but still..) I'm pretty certain that unless you are in machine learning, your job will be replaced soon enough
The hard part of programming was always gathering requirements accurately and architecting a solution to meet those requirements. All this does is automate out the easier parts.
(Almost) nobody is hand-crafting screws and nails anymore. It doesn't mean that those people don't have something to do, we just produce many more screws and nails at a much higher quality than before. The people do other things at a higher level of abstraction.
Now, eventually, general purpose strong AI will emerge that is capable of filling those roles that occupy the higher level abstraction niches. Once that happens we're entering a phase change in how cognition works in our little corner of the universe, and all bets are off.
Exactly, nail making used to be a profession in itself so much that there is a German surname Nagelmacher which is literally Nail Maker. Don't see many of them around nowadays unless they own a factory that produces nails.
People still pay biglaw lawyers hundreds if not thousands an hr to check for correct comma placement in documents. Can easily be replaced by why hasn't it been?
There’s always politics. Many people have jobs out of nepotism. Or they are clients of political elites. We may see a return to medieval conditions in which the neofeudal lords grant welfare to those who swear loyalty to them. I would like to be a serf under Jeff Bezos, the most ethical billionaire.
the son of 2 tax experts that have helped draft tax legislation, is insinuating that he doesn't know the basics of what makes his actions fraud, and how he wants to distance himself from Alameda, even though he is a 90% owner, just sounds fishy
I'm no SBF apologist, but this is about the silliest argument you could make. What does what his parents did have anything to do with anything? I don't know anything about my parents' field of expertise.
His father, Joe Bankman, was heavily involved in FTX from very early on, being the firm's first lawyer. Here he is saying as much in his own words: https://youtu.be/MmmXUtRt6xo?t=2140
how easy it is to sim swap, you can go to any phone store and unless the manager at the location is competent, you can get a new line in a persons name or a new phone with an old number. Its incredibly easy and you can read a lot of them happening in krebs website
"In especially uncertain times, such as when an emperor died, or when volcanoes erupted or severe earthquakes or famine struck, priests sacrificed captured warriors or specially raised, perfectly formed children to the gods."
What was the other third party? I assume the argument will be the airline paid for redundant data centers and IBM didn’t live up to that portion of the contract.
I haven't been able to find the name of who exactly, most articles only mention "unrelated construction work", which is why I made the previous comment, but as the other commenter answered, i guess that would be a separate lawsuit.
Depending on the size of the construction company, any claim made against them will just result in them shutting down and going out of business if their insurance won’t cover it. This is a pretty common occurrence in construction.
i fly exclusively delta, and i always get asked to turn airplane mode on and any services that transmit audio are explicitly banned while on board (Discord, teams, etc.)
This hasn't been the case for over 20 years on most planes and the onboard phones were so expensive that only business or 1st class passengers would even consider using then. As usual, their convenience was valued more than everyone else's. I'm sure nowadays if a 1st class passenger got on a call over the in-flight wifi, the staff wouldn't bother them either.
With the ubiquity and generally reasonable pricing of in-flight WiFi, I'm actually a bit surprised that you don't see more people jabbering away. I've never bought WiFi myself and I suspect there are quality issues and I assume some ports may be blocked, but I haven't seen many people obviously on active calls at all.
If you have to ask this question, it is a sure sign you are not sufficiently socially calibrated to interact with other people on an air-plane. I advise you to invest time into better understanding your fellow humans by learning about psychology.
Yelling would be an overreaction, likely leading to further escalation and diminishing the chance of achieving the goal of stopping the maladaptive behaviour. GP acted correctly to suppress the impulse, I guess in the end he did nothing, which is the next best course of action. Adults are supposed to treat the problem situation in a calm manner and implicitly point out the established social boundaries (this works better if your personality is more masculine than feminine): interrupt the talking person and get his attention, kneel down to the same eye level, state clearly what can be observed what he's doing (having a conversation, perhaps talking loudly), what the effect is (annoying the other passengers), and remind him that calls are not allowed by the relevant authority (flight crew). Firmly direct him to end the call right now. Throughout the conversation keep stern demeanour, keep eye contact and the same level of volume when you speak.
If he complies right away, then mission fucking accomplished, requite by showing approval (nodding, making a slightly more friendly face), or perhaps even something expressing gratitude if that's appropriate in your culture.
The argument "not on a call, this is FaceTime" in an attempt to shift away from the central point of the conversation. Do not let him pull you into his frame. Simply ignore this sentence, keep referring to the call as a call. If he's stubborn, or ignores you, or wants to have a quarrel, then it is okay to metaphorically lose the fight. Walk away and inform the flight crew instead, it's out of your hands now. In the end, it is a certainty that you will win, even if the talking person turns out to be highly neurotic or narcissistic and throws a tantrum.
Pointing out disrespect is not likely to work, the talking person has already shown he does not care. However, shaming is more likely to work, it is a powerful social tool and it is very much appropriate to use here. You could say that all the people around are affected (insert hand gesture here) and they do not approve of what the talking person is doing.
What should not be done is body contact other than touching the shoulder to get attention; trying to take the headphones or mobile device; talking down (literally and figuratively). Do not ask, beg or demand, instead use the appropriate word that comes closest do instructing or directing, use the imperative verb form in your language.
> Firmly direct him to end the call right now. Throughout the conversation keep stern demeanour, keep eye contact and the same level of volume when you speak.
I'm not quite sure the other person is the one whose social calibration is off. This would be incredibly patronizing behavior unless you're speaking to a literal child. Besides, "Why don't you?" was obviously a throwaway half-joke.
