> I wouldn't want them to get a notification if I suddenly revised my profile because maybe I'm shopping around for a new job, for example.
If I'm not mistaken, LinkedIn has options for all of this. You can edit your profile with or without a notification post. You can select "show open to being hired only to people outside your company".
Not that I have great (or any) love for the platform, but if I understood you right, these things aren't really issues.
Fully agree. I wonder in the long term how this will show up. Will every business/CEO do more of what he/they anyway want to do, but now supported by AI/LLMs?
The possibilities in "dangerous" fields are a bit more frightening. A general is much more likely to ask ChatGPT "Do you think this war is a good idea/should I drop a bomb", rather than an actually helpful tool - where you might ask "What are 5 hidden points on favor of/against bombing that one likely has missed".
The more you use AI as a strict tool that can be wrong, the safer. Unfortunately I'm not sure if that helps if the guy bombing your city (or even your president) is using AI poorly, and their decisions affect you.
> Will every business/CEO do more of what he/they anyway want to do, but now supported by AI/LLMs?
Arguably, it already worked that way. The best way to climb the ranks of a 'dictatorial' organization (a repressive government or an average large business) is to always say yes. Adopt what the people from up above want you to use, say and think. Don't question anything. Find silver linings in their most deranged ideas to show your loyalty. The rich and powerful that occupy the top ranks of these structures often hate being challenged, even if it's irrational for their well-being. Whenever you see a country or a company making a massive mistake, you can often trace it to a consequence of this. Humans hate being challenged and the rich can insulate themselves even further from the real world.
What's worrying me is the opposite - that this power is more available now. Instead of requiring a team of people and an asset cushion that lets you act irrationally, now you just need to have a phone in your pocket. People get addicted to LLMs because they can provide endless, varied validation for just about anything. Even if someone is aware of their own biases, it's not a given that they'll always counteract the validation.
> That's only a problem with some sans-serif fonts. This very site is using a sans-serif and the capital 'I' has bars in either end so it's not confused with 'l'.
I'm not sure if my browser is broken or what but they literally look identical to me in your comment.
One place where the big i and small L look almost identical, and a pretty funny/annoying place for them to do so, is when you're typing a WiFi password in OSX (if you toggle "Show password"), at least as of MacOS Monterey 12.1. I also see them as almost identical in my browser's URL bar (Firefox 148.0.2 on aforesaid version of OSX) which isn't just an annoyance but might even be a security concern!
And that's the argument for serif. If you set sans serif the OS may pick one or another font, and that choice may change over time.
By publishing with serif you are guaranteed there will be a clearer distinction.
But txet is contxtual you can evn miss letres entrly yet be lgibl.
The over a hundred page long research paper makes conclusion off a practical study, not encumbered by intuitive clues that typically make us think serif lead to more legibility.
> Tehran "spent" 2T USD on the nuclear weapons program, which they could have spent on water desalination for example.
(Side note: That... seems like a very high figure to me?) For comparison the US spent close to $1 trillion in 2024 on the military. It could have saved lives and spent that money on healthcare. But that's not how govts work. Iran didn't get a drawstring bag with 2T in it and chose to throw it all on nukes.
Additionally, you're trying to bring a (totally valid tbf) logical argument ("Desalination is critical and an excellent place to spend money that's not going into saving lives") to a government that behaves like a cornered wild animal. It will act to save itself first, even if attacking the aggressor hurts itself too in the process.
> It will act to save itself first, even if attacking the aggressor hurts itself too in the process.
Of course, but as we see simply focusing on ground forces, drones, and anti-air defenses would be strictly better. (Because they wouldn't be this sanctioned, and they could even have a civilian nuclear energy program too.)
> 2T USD
It's a number coming from an Iranian trade official.
I heard it in this video: https://youtu.be/OJAcvqmWuv4?t=1084 and unfortunately there's no source cited, but I think it's this one: "As former Iranian diplomat Qasem Mohebali admitted on May 20, 2025, “uranium enrichment has cost the country close to two trillion dollars” and imposed massive sanctions yet continues largely as a matter of national pride rather than economic logic."
Iran claims 1T USD damages as a result of US leaving JCPOA alone - in 2021. Now add in 5 more years, wars, sanctions before JCPOA was signed, direct expenditures on enrichment...
That's their claim for how much less economic activity Iran (not just the government) had in total due to sanctions, not how much the government "spent on the nuclear weapons program" that could have instead been spent on desalination plants.
But without a nuclear weapons program, the entire sanctions regime wouldn't have started (yea, I know today half of those are anti-terrorist sanctions, but that's not how it started, it was morphed later on). It should be considered as part of the losses.
(I know this isn't exactly your intention, but it's a similar situation.)
Do you think that we should give funding to study the mating habits of endangered iguanas in the Sonoran desert, or should we be funding cures for alzheimer's and diabetes?
They aren't the same thing though. They wield different expected results:
- Studying the mating habits of endangered iguanas (or other apparently random research) is about describing real-life phenomenon;
- Finding cures for Alzheimer's and diabetes are focused studies that funnel resources towards solving the diseases directly.
The first is a breadth-first search that can provide inspiration and unique ideas for further research, and the second is a deep-dive, trying to solve a particular issue. They both have their times and places, but it is important to not paint them as "the same".
No and I have no problem with others being fascinated by history's dead-ends. I was just expressing my own leanings (in case it resonated with others—perhaps not, ha ha).
> Before reading this book I always thought Germany (where I grew up) was the exception for being more decentralized. But it looks like actually France is way more centralized even compared to other pretty centralized countries.
This is closely related to the concept of primate cities (you can read its wikipedia page for more details if interested). Essentially, places like France, UK, Russia (countries with primate cities) have an unusually/disproportionately high concentration of population in the largest city. There are some pros but unsurprisingly cons as well.
It's definitely a thing. I've been an aviation nerd for years and in the past you'd just have one bizzare event here and there. The last "big" ones were MH370 and MH17, but we've had fatal commerical aviation accidents very frequent of late.
Air Traffic Control staffing shortages. This has led to long shifts and intensive workloads for controllers, increasing the risk of errors.
Government shutdowns have exacerbated these shortages, causing delays and heightening safety risks as critical personnel, including TSA and safety technicians, were furloughed or worked without pay.
Then there’s the outdated infrastructure. The U.S. National Airspace System relies on aging radar and communication technology.
IMO is a combination of events. I think Covid stopping all flights for so long caused some permanent loss of institutional system knowledge, and we've never recovered from it since.
On top of that, the US has been having more and more shutdowns - and regardless of whether you like him or not, Trump's been responsible for some of the longest ones.
The impact of extra mental stress on people who're already in one of the most stressful jobs in the world cannot be good in any way I can think of.
I think the fact that we're not seeing so many issues in Germany or Singapore or Dubai makes me suspect that this is a bit more US specific than global. Some issues (eg Covid) are common, but an alert pilots can overcome eg a mistaken ATC. But the more things/conditions that go wrong, the likelier it is that the Swiss cheesehole misses and causes an error.
Richard Cook's How Complex Systems Fail is an interesting read if you're curious for more.
True, but it was an "Aviation Incident". I'm not sure how much the exact phrasing matters, fortunately even such intentional events are relatively very rare nowadays.
To clarify - I'm not minimising the fucked up nature of the event. I'm just saying it's still thankfully a rare occurrence.
> it shows the general view on AI from where most scammers work from and live.
Got any citation on that? From what I've seen, the vaat majority of scams are targeted at other Indians. The government runs a significant number of cyber awareness programs nowadays; don't think they appreciate scammers.
If I'm not mistaken, LinkedIn has options for all of this. You can edit your profile with or without a notification post. You can select "show open to being hired only to people outside your company".
Not that I have great (or any) love for the platform, but if I understood you right, these things aren't really issues.
reply