Anyone who would fund or build this is, in my mind, taxonomically evil. Maybe not irretrievably so, but YC would need to do a lot of work in my mind to not be "that form that believes the panopticon and dehumanization is good."
This isn't just run of the mill capitalism bad, this is truly exceptionally vile and staining.
Probably depends what the pitch was. "Monitor assembly lines using AI so you can tell when a machine breaks" is radically different from "constantly snitch on all your factory workers".
Which is different from chattel slavery, of course. But it's still an extant theory that gets discussed widely. It would seem an AI company to be a labor panopticon would align with the critiques raised by the concept of wage slavery.
Its important to raise awareness of the forms of modern slavery [1] and while comparing employee-surveillance software to slavery may seem hyperbolic, we who build these tools are culpable to their impact on the world and what they might lead to next.
Another example of terms being appropriated like that would be how "piracy" now refers to copying information your aren't legally permitted to copy, as well as the older meaning of using violence to steal things at sea.
Another one is nemesis, which now refers to a long standing enemy, as well as the older meaning of a Greek goddess of vengeance.
Don't imply or wink and nudge. Say what you mean to say. Your example is either a non sequiter like mine, or it's implying something while avoiding saying the actual thing you are trying to convey.
Sure you do. The poster was polite, got an extremely rude response, and has no obligation to be polite afterwards.
Airing their shit out is a disclosure of a vulnerability, and it's important to do. Typically you reach out to say, "how would you prefer I do this?" And work through a common understanding. The company flipped the bird, so it got aired very publicly.
I can call myself a bicycle but I don't have any wheels.
Their behavior when things don't go their way belies their initial "politeness". When the transaction didn't go how they wanted, they pulled the trigger on being a dick, publicly. That is a much worse offense that an impolite email. If this were a coworker or a contractor, it would color all of my interactions with them going forward.
> they pulled the trigger on being a dick, publicly. That is a much worse offense that an impolite email.
brain dead take; the article was impolite, the email was an overt threat by an impotent exec *in response to someone trying to help*!
Dang it bobby, it's not worse to respond to respond to asshattery (the email) with irreverent sunlight (the article).
I also wouldn't call you a bicycle because you're not going anywhere with this attitude. The CEO got a gift, and the author got a middle finger. No matter what happens after, the CEO without a doubt shot first. And shot someone just trying to help. He can get fucked, and anyone defending him can join in too.
I'm not defending him so much as advocating for understanding, grace, transparency, and de-escalation. You of course are welcome to conduct yourself in the ways that you see fit.
Nah, it's clear to me that you're defending the CEO, and blaming the researcher. In a manner that's as you state is just my opinion, is inverse from what justice would be.
Wild how I can state my intentions and then someone would just not believe me.
But seriously, it's not possible for me to frame how the researcher could improve future probability of success without framing it from the CEOs perspective. To do that I must recognize he is a human person with his own internal motivations for his behaviors, which likely are not so much monstrous as childish.
Your other comments across the larger topic refute your claimed good intentions. It's not that wild that no one would believe you, when you contradict yourself.
My thoughts on the matter may have evolved over time while interacting with other people in the thread. While I do still believe it could have been an attempt at blackmail, I think it most likely was not, even though the researcher clearly must have downloaded the entire database ahead of time based on the chronology presented. In that case, I can see how I have apparently contradicted myself. But I can assure you, I am not acting in bad faith.
I never thought you were acting in bad faith. My assumption was that you were gaslit like every other non-security person has been, where you were willing to shoot the messenger (the researcher) instead of the person creating the problem (the CEO). My problem wasn't that you were lied to, my only problem was that you were repeating a common lie that I think needs to die.
People operating in bad faith give up or hide when they notice their position is weakening, people working in good faith respond, and acknowledge the weaknesses in their ideas. Like you are doing.
This assumes the genocide has ended, which it very much has not. In what year did Native American parents receive the right to choose not to send their kids to a boarding school?
1978.
Until 1978, Native American families were being separated against their will.
To say that no one currently alive screwed then over is absurd. This month, the President made motions to try and remove birthright citizenship for indigenous people.
No, there are absolutely people still alive who screwed them over.
That’s certainly what it looks like. When I first tried the game, before getting a refund shortly after, my first thought was “wtf, did they accidentally ship an old build?”. The UI feels so u finished, lacking feedback and visual clarity.
I mean, put some live shrimp on a plate and I'm sure people will not feel great about it either.
People have eaten bugs around the world forever, from prehistory to modern times.
Scorpions, snails, ants, silkworms, grasshoppers, bees, and yes, mealworms, all have long long long histories of being a part of human diets. See also Carmine and shellac.
You live a sheltered life that hasn't been exposed to this extremely normal phenomena.
Good luck to the people being held prisoner in these hubs. Hopefully they can escape the abuse and violence, and not just be trafficked to another hub.
it's a grim situation... i hope there are resources available to help those who manage to escape, and that more is done to prevent these hubs from operating in the first place.
Where your kid goes to school is a status symbol. And like most status symbols, it is a foolish and conspicuous waste.
Americans love to root for teams and build their identities around what teams they are on. In sports, in politics, in college selection, even which state or city they are from. College selection is just an easy way to buy yourself into a team.
Bragging about where your kid goes to school is extremely common. It signals not only what can you afford (like a car), but also lets you buy and display a bunch of gear. (University name) Dad is like a super common apparel and bumper sticker item. And having, e.g., Stanford Dad is more prestigious than eg New Mexico State Dad apparel.
while having paper from Stanford may open some doors for you if you network well while you are there the degree from New Mexico State can get you a lucrative career if you know wtf you are doing. business work on the bottom line and in my three decades in the industry I have found more gems from non-Ivy league schools than otherwise by a wide margin
Your second statement is accurate and contradicts your first statement. Going into the right school puts you on the right team which will make your future career easier, as your school affiliation will send the right signals to hiring managers/business partners/investors/customers/whoever you will need to work with.
Not in my industry (software engineering). Hiring managers barely care about what school you went to. It might afford you more career fair opportunities, but that's about it.
Now, some schools will give you more educational opportunities and better education, but honestly? The margins aren't that huge.
I do not think the very selective schools provide better education. I'm not an educator, but I've done my research and it's a general agreement.
They do give you a better start in your career. You have ability to participate in research/development activities alongside with your professors who are leading experts in the industry, you create connections in the real world through the projects you participate in, and therefore you will have much more opportunities for a better start.
Many good companies (FAANG or whatever did/will replace them) recruit out of these schools. The likes of Deloitte, Google, all the 3-letter agencies do not recruit out of Iowa state, they only do top 20.
As you progress in your career it starts to matter less where you went (you can still tap your college connections many years later though), but if you managed to have a good start, your ceiling will be higher, too.
Even if you managed to graduate without much career prospects despite all the opportunities the school provided, you will still have the brand name on the resume which will make the recruiters and hiring managers to give you extra consideration.
Is this worth extra $100K debt you got to put yourself through Harvard? Not necessarily. But it might be.
Test 1: If a resume showed up from Stanford CS, how likely would it be that you or your coworkers would completely ignore it without giving them a call?
Test 2: if you had an employee with Stanford CS how likely would it be that your coworkers would ever mention that individual having that degree?
#1 reasonably high? We turn down plenty of Stanford grads. What's their GitHub like?
#2 degree basically never comes up, except if someone is saying they had an atypical degree path. And institution? Never, unless it's a part of someone's identity and they are a big "I am a college team guy"
Better batteries require less frequent charging, reducing pressure on networks. But also, better batteries enable electrification of other modes of transport much more easily. Cars are bad, electric cars are at best "less bad".
All our cars are EV’s now. I cannot express how much more convenient this is for us.
We only have level one charging at home. It’s fine.
The biggest remaining problem is having to go to multiple charging stations during long trips every
once in a while, usually because Electrify America says they have open stalls when they do not.
That seems fixable.
EV charge times improved a lot in the last 9 years. Even better batteries would be better, of course.
However, my bigger concern is energy efficiency.
Tesla’s mile/kwh is much higher than comparable cars from the other manufacturers. It’s not clear if the other companies will catch up, since they’re hard-wired to build gas guzzlers.
This isn't just run of the mill capitalism bad, this is truly exceptionally vile and staining.