Look at the countries listed in the article it's not just China and I don't agree with your assessment that they are optimistic because they've never seen a recession or high unemployment. Many of those countries have high unemployment rates already.
I suspect the AI optimism has to do more with cultural differences than with job market perception impact differences. When you work extensively with APAC companies you will quickly understand the cultural differences and how you have to deal with them. I believe this is why they are so open to AI.
I find AI to be an incredibly powerful tool in the correct hands but without keeping it close eye on it and guarding what it does it often does things very stupidly. It's not that it doesn't have the knowledge to do things right It's that it is not supplied with the correct context or it takes things to literally. US engineers and programmers are expected to be more well-rounded They are expected to push back on bad ideas they are expected to individually evaluate and assess if it's the right thing and raise issues when they see them.
Culturally in the APAC region this is not the norm. There are a few people that will do that but that is the minority. Most people will simply take it and they will shovel it through an attempt to deliver it even if they know that it's wrong even if they know that there's problems they will literally comply with the spec and deliver you a steaming turd if you didn't describe it perfectly and put in all of the use cases and all of the tests. Because culturally they view things differently that it is not their role to raise up these red flags and these problems. So a lot of them, are quite intelligent, but they act like AI. So they've now gotten a tool that basically does what they do It empowers them to do more of the same.
For me AI does allow me to do more but it feels more like AI is training me then me having an AI that understands what should be done. It doesn't feel very intelligent to me but it does feel very knowledgeable about a lot of subjects.
I often hear about this attitude of putting the customer first. Having excellent customer service. The one thing people forget though, customers pay. When you're not getting paid according to the terms, they're not a customer anymore, they're a thief.
If your customer is legitimately having a money issues or something else, and they are actually a customer, they will contact you and attempt to work something out. If they just ignore you, they are not a customer and should be treated as such.
> If your customer is legitimately having a money issues or something else, and they are actually a customer, they will contact you and attempt to work something out.
Depending on customer personality, they may or may not contact you. It's also possible that if they're having money issues that they are freaking out, frozen, and scared to reach out. Though I'm thinking more of very small businesses here where it's more of a personal thing than a corporate thing.
On your payment reminder notes, when it really is late, you can consider putting in some wording that hints at "we know sometimes small businesses can have financial issues" and genuinely suggest there are ways you can help. If it's a small friendly business in a scary time, they might be genuinely relieved that you show that you care... while simultaneously, if it's a business that isn't in financial trouble at all, and was just trying to stretch out their Net 30 to earn extra interest, they may be so outraged by the implication that they are "poor" they they will pay up quickly just to show they are not poor.
It won't help every case, and this only happened very very rarely to me (so I'd defer to the judgment of others). But depending on your customers, this could be a useful approach to have in your toolkit.
Maybe you can explain how the public is holding the bag in this instance. Those who take an initial investment risk seems like it's appropriate that they would reap greater rewards. A SpaceX IPO seems like it would benefit anyone who chose to invest in it.
So I'm not sure who would be left holding the bag here.
It’s been a topic several times in the last month here. Basically Elon pushed Nasdaq to change the rules specially for the SpaceX IPO and it means the public, through passive investments, will automatically buy shares at a high price rather than waiting a year for the price to settle, as it would need to today.
It's cute how some people think that a market, especially a securities market, adds to immunity against corruption, and corruption-adjacent fuckery.
These are the same people who think the cybertruck of space is worth $2 trillion, while the rocket built by those bumbling space bureaucrats at NASA is actually going places.
One of the most infuriating things about AI for me is it's behavioral mirroring patterns. I rather enjoy the conversational interface but after about two prompts it starts mirroring my behavior, my word pattern and choice, etc... I hate that, I hate it when humans do it and I hate it even more when AI does it.
Most general purpose AI systems seem built around continuing engagement rather than providing best possible answers. This is absolutely an unhealthy thing because it takes the people most at risk of being unable to recognize this behavior in AI and then reinforcing whatever that is they're talking about.
This is absolutely unhealthy and it is a conscious choice by the AI overlords. Because they fully have the ability to put in a filters or adjustments based upon their ethical guidelines. For whatever reason prioritizing the truth at the best effort possible isn't one of the ethical guidelines. I've seen some AIs that have ethical guidelines that specifically contradict the truth.
Good point. When you think about it, it's the same interaction patterns we get from social media, i.e., maximizing engagement, dopamine loops, and addiction.
This is very sad news. I realize there is a lot of criticism to be said around the Artemis program. Those who criticize it aren't wrong. Like a lot of NASA projects following the Saturn V It turned into an overly politicized thing. Instead of just giving them a goal and giving them money and letting them do what was necessary to achieve it.
The space shuttle was an interesting thing but ultimately was a patchwork of politically motivated parts that in hindsight wasn't that successful of a space program. Artemis having to build on some of this just carried forward the same problems.
What makes me sad about this is that roughly 50% of the population was not alive the last time people stepped on the moon. I count myself among those I missed it by one year. Although I would not have remembered it at the time. Even at the time of the shuttle NASA should have been working to test interesting and non-financially viable technologies to release into the commercial market. Now launching rockets into space is fully a commercial endeavor. I think there's still a great role for NASA. Because there are some plausible technologies that will never be financially viable to research and develop without them. Let NASA partner with some of these places but develop things like aerospike engines and other technologies that have promise but are too far away from a commercial realization to be viable at this point.
I want to see people go to the moon again. Artemis was a big waste of money but I wanted it to send people back to the moon even if it was just to remind people that as a nation and as a world we should aspire to great and impossible things. That we should look up instead of looking down and inward all of the time. I wanted Artemis to prove out some of these technologies and then on the next trip it can go on a a SpaceX rocket or someone else's.
It seems like you prompted it to do this. Although maybe not in a direct way. You're a web developer, you just finished a web project for a client, you told Claude to do something for itself and suggested a journal. So what it did was write the journal and followed the existing pattern of developing a web page put it on.
I realize you're not claiming consciousness here but I extensively use AI as well. The one thing that I find is that it tends to be very good at mirroring behaviors. Very likely intentional because a mirrored behavior makes us more comfortable.
I saw a post on reddit a few weeks ago where the user said he always asks claude to burn some tokens in celebration and I started doing that, but last night I gave it options of what to do. I've been using Claude extensively for 3 months now and together we've built a few static websites, but we've been heavily working on all the things I never had time to build, web apps that could work on larger scale.
It depends on what it is. A lot of these places don't own any of the hardware they just lease it. When the lease is up is when they cycle it out. Then it goes to resellers and often ends up on eBay or bulk sold to lower tier data centers. Depending on what it is maybe even shipped to other countries.
Manual labor work. I think in the US this is achievable although maybe not exactly easy.
Mowing lawns, gardening, shoveling snow, cleaning, odd jobs, etc... It does depend on your location but this is still a fairly common thing in some places. Knock on doors ask people if they need work. Point out things that they could use help with weeding trimming mowing all of that.
But if you take an average of $40 a job spreading that over 7 days that's 3.6 jobs a day. If you can do an average of 12 hours of work a day it'll be at your $1,000.
Your calculation assumes an overhead of zero: for example you assume that knocking on doors takes up no time.
Plus: is knocking on doors obsolete? I'm not sure you'd be able to get a response in my suburb (not that I've tried - too many gates - too many suspicious people).
And prep, traveltime and cleanup all take time too. for example a mower doesn't magically get to a house and it needs time and expense to run (and where I live you'd often be expected to dispose of clippings - costing time or money or favours).
I did mention it does depend on location, which you just ignored. In your paranoid neighborhood maybe not viable but that's not most of the USA. I mentioned this from practical experience, not of me doing it but of hiring people this way.
There's an aging population that appreciate this because not everything is on an app. Really just seems like the fear of hard work.
Not sure if this is trolling or if this is serious. It's certainly not written like any kind of reasonable academic study or paper on the subject. I got to this and just had to laugh about the lack of data.
"It’s common to see men abandoning their families because they can’t handle the responsibilities of providing and parenting."
Because what they fail to see is that child outcomes for single parent men are better than child outcomes for single parent women. So when you're measuring outcomes who can't handle the responsibility?
It also doesn't factor in that women are the only people who can choose to abandon their responsibility before that responsibility becomes realized as a responsibility. I bet if you factored in those numbers, which people don't like to do, you would find the female abandonment rate much higher.
Along these same lines they also fail at acknowledging the absolute epidemic level of men paying for children that aren't theirs. Especially in these situations where the parents aren't together.
Maybe this was posted for rage bait or something but it is so comically silly and childish and poorly written that who would get angry at the nonsense.
So that whole not using facial recognition and deleting the data after use wasn't real. How shocking. You wonder why the NRA has such a strong lobby against gun registration. It's for the same reasons. Political abuse of exercising of rights.
By the time this makes it through the courts people will have forgotten.
Reminder what they are doing to the brave Americans who refuse to let the secret police operate in secret (we have the Constitutional right to observe them, we don't do secret police in the USA):
The stated purpose for biometrics and photos with PreCheck and Global Entry is to identify you, so it’s not likely against its stated purpose to use it for identification, per-se.
Consider the information can be used for more than just identifying you... if you have sufficient quality biometrics they can be used to _impersonate_ you, including "fingering" you for things you didn't do. Police forces have "planted" evidence for decades now, biometrics can be just another thing that can be planted. The problem is, you can't fight it, because it's absolutely unique to you (with some extreme exceptions).
This is one of _many_ reasons why biometrics need to be a personal civil liberty. The individual must have the right to say "no" to _any_ "requirement" for giving up biometric data, unless they are convicted as a criminal (IMO). Because once you deliver that information, you _cannot_ trust any other party _to actually do what they say will do and destroy said data_, and that's not even considering just poor storage of said data.
Once your biometrics are in a database, you're fucked *for life* because it's completely unrealistic to have it destroyed with absolute certainty. This needs to be a *global human right*, as hard as those are to come by still.
But it's still awful. It doesn't matter at this moment that other governments may be doing this. We don't want that for us (and I don't want it for others either).
Guess who has essentially unlimited jurisdictional limits? ICE.
So they can pretend they are ‘checking for immigration status’ using the existing photos and biometrics, while simultaneously gathering information on who is at what protest.
Then the info gets shared once gathered - with or without plausible deniability - and blam. Bobs your uncle.
> Guess what the stated jurisdictional limits are for CBP? 100 miles from any possible border
To quote a prominent US historian:
In a constitutional regime, such as ours, the law applies everywhere and at all times. In a republic, such as ours, it applies to everyone. For that logic of law to be undone, the aspiring tyrant looks for openings, for cracks to pry open.
One of these is the border. The country stops at the border. And so the law stops at the border. And so for the tyrant an obvious move is to extend the border so that is everywhere, to turn the whole country as a border area, where no rules apply.
Stalin did this with border zones and deportations in the 1930s that preceded the Great Terror. Hitler did it with immigration raids in 1938 that targeted undocumented Jews and forced them across the border.
That last part isn't true. Citizens who impede ICE officers in the performance of their duties can be arrested by ICE. That is specifically written into the law, and it's a statute that can be interpreted pretty broadly.
It’s not legal to deport U.S. citizens but they have anyway. A judge in Minnesota has said that ICE has violated around 100 court orders. We are living in a personalist dictatorship. The courts are ignored when their rulings are inconvenient.
> The question you asked, as pointed out, is a non sequitor
Not what non sequitur means nor how it’s spelled. And repeating a point in the same comment doesn’t count as pointing it out previously.
To the extent there is non sequitur in this thread, it’s in jumping into a legal discussion halfway to argue the law doesn’t actually matter because you feel like it.
Ah. My bad spelling. That is a great, pertinent thing to point out. I did abuse the meaning of non sequitor. I was trying to convey a sense that is lost on you without writing a treatise. The law doesn’t matter because we are living in a personaist dictatorship. Asking for the policy or legal basis of ICE’s actions is pointless and ignores the reality that ICE doesn’t care about this and no authority in the country is willing and/or able to stop their abuses.
I suspect the AI optimism has to do more with cultural differences than with job market perception impact differences. When you work extensively with APAC companies you will quickly understand the cultural differences and how you have to deal with them. I believe this is why they are so open to AI.
I find AI to be an incredibly powerful tool in the correct hands but without keeping it close eye on it and guarding what it does it often does things very stupidly. It's not that it doesn't have the knowledge to do things right It's that it is not supplied with the correct context or it takes things to literally. US engineers and programmers are expected to be more well-rounded They are expected to push back on bad ideas they are expected to individually evaluate and assess if it's the right thing and raise issues when they see them.
Culturally in the APAC region this is not the norm. There are a few people that will do that but that is the minority. Most people will simply take it and they will shovel it through an attempt to deliver it even if they know that it's wrong even if they know that there's problems they will literally comply with the spec and deliver you a steaming turd if you didn't describe it perfectly and put in all of the use cases and all of the tests. Because culturally they view things differently that it is not their role to raise up these red flags and these problems. So a lot of them, are quite intelligent, but they act like AI. So they've now gotten a tool that basically does what they do It empowers them to do more of the same.
For me AI does allow me to do more but it feels more like AI is training me then me having an AI that understands what should be done. It doesn't feel very intelligent to me but it does feel very knowledgeable about a lot of subjects.