Why even start with a single sentence? They're asking you to come up with excuses ("growth areas") to fire twelve of your colleagues. It's a waste of your time, and you should figure out with your colleagues and manager exactly what text you need to generate to deal with this silliness.
Because Amazon notoriously does "stack ranking".
Also, I personally have been in a company going through mass layoffs and they totally use the EoY peer review as the metric to choose whose heads cut.
Interesting. This is such an extremely toxic post.
Peer feedback is valuable, it is important, and it is expected of senior team members. I guess it is a fun game if you have a poor manager, but the whole argument around the strategy isn't even internally logical, and if you play it out it is a poor outcome:
1. Company expects Senior Engineers to provide input on their teammates.
2. Senior Engineer has a Bad Manager, and decides to intentionally withhold feedback because "that is their manager's job, and up the chain"
3. Senior Manager (skip-level of Senior Engineer) determines that their Manager is a Bad Manager, and replaces them.
4. Good Manager joins, determines who is performing, and asks "Why did none of the Senior Engineers identify this earlier?"
5. The supposedly competent, but intentionally malicious Senior Engineer in this hypothetical is (correctly) deemed either incompetent or not believable by the New Good Manager.
6. Good Manager finds a component Senior Engineer with any sense of character to replace them.
This post is such hogwash, it is so fully of toxicity, and it is a dumb strategy. When things "hit the fan" this person is being tossed out in the regime change as well.
I would truly hate my life if I worked with people even a fraction as toxic as this.
Indeed. When I'm in the office and keep my eyes and ears open, it is rather simple to pick out the ones who are slacking. Even moreso in meetings.
Slackers tend to repeat the same thing over and over in progress meetings... 'I am blocked because... <insert external cause>' or 'I helped that guy figuring out... they did not have a clue'
Vs the more curious, get it done attitude: 'I tried this and that and it still doesn't work, but I learned that... hence I will aproach it from following angle... '
Well, I guess it depends upon what you're trying to prove. Are you as tough as Reinhold Messner? Do it without O2. Are you rich enough to get your body to 29,032'? Do this.
> For those still maintaining personal blogs: How do you find readers? Where do you share your content? And most importantly - why do you keep writing?
(1) Random search traffic.
(2) An RSS feed.
(3) Because I enjoy writing.
If you're looking for a way to turn text into money (a.k.a. "build your developer brand"), there are probably programs to do that, human beings talking about how to write such programs, other humans talking about how to write programs to simulate those humans, ... you get the picture.
Don't stop at robots.txt blocking. Look through your access logs, and you'll likely find a few IPs generating a huge amount of traffic. Look them up via "whois," then block the entire IP range if it seems like a bot host. There's no reason for cloud providers to browse my personal site, so if they host crawlers, they get blocked.
So you can only legally watch Youtube videos when and where you have a fast and unlimited internet connection? That sucks...
Let's say you only have a cellular data plan, but it has a data cap, or your cell coverage is slow. So when a friend sends you a link to a video, you go to a library or coffee shop to download it to watch later. Is that "acting in bad faith?" I guess it gets in the way of Youtube's "right" to shove ads at your face, but avoiding the ads was not the point.
As was pointed out elsewhere in this thread, they failed to outlaw VCRs back in the day, so hopefully this nonsense will also get slapped down.
The YouTube app lets you download videos and watch them online, but only with YouTube Premium.
Similarly, Google removed any unofficial YouTube apps from the Play Store that supported playing with the screen off, because they want you to pay for it.
Tangential (but infuriating): there was a several year gap between them banning apps with background playback, and actually launching that feature (via Premium) in my country...
Funny I've had a list of business sectors (used to it direct marketing efforts) that would really benefit from "semantic technology" (e.g. what we called A.I. in the early 2010s) and CRM (Salesforce) was one of them.
Bit of a missed opportunity to only focus on Marc Benniof and Elon Musk. I'm no fan of either and I fully agree that Salesforce and Tesla are mostly hot air.
But the missed opportunity IMO is food and grocery delivery services (Deliveroo, Gorillas, Uber, Getir, Amazon). Riding the Corona + cheap money landscape, they managed to convince the world there would be a market. The hype they gathered was fully leveraged to disrupt. Indeed they successfully killed many a local business as well as each other.
And where is the innovation now? Maybe it's somewhere, not my town...
Same. More generally, I'd like a model that infers the most likely prompt(s) from transformer-generated words or images. I would much rather know what the prompter was trying to do than what his model generated as a result, and treat whatever was generated as a lossy wire encoding.
I tried it with some of the Perl source code in, and... it actually impressed me by explaining what a few of the variables mean, e.g. that "PL_lex_inpat" means "currently parsing inside a pattern (i.e., regex)."
On the other hand, it finished up with: "In summary, this code checks whether certain tokens are present in the input stream, and takes some actions or returns a boolean value accordingly." That's pretty much the grammatically correct but vacuous word-paste I expect from High Schoolers on a deadline and large language models.
I wouldn't call it "malicious," but way more than 50% of what you download is stuff you don't want. For example, a random NY Times op-ed has 6730 characters of text, bur just the initial request is 454kb, so 98.5% of what you downloaded is overhead. Some of that is formatting markup, but probably 95% of it is junk. And that's just the initial request, which in turn pulls in the images, tracking scripts, and ads. In the end, probably 99% of what you downloaded to read those 6730 characters is stuff you didn't want.
"stuff you didn't want" would be accidentally recorded background noise, or code that makes the payload compatible with a device other than the one you're using.
This is data specifically crafted to get your computer to do something in addition to what you asked it to do, without your consent, and not in a way that benefits you
reply