Your friend is not trained by Air Canada. The bot is Air Canada property.
If they decide it is reliable enough to be put in front of the customer, they must accept all the consequences: the benefits like having to hire less, and the cons, which is that they have to make it work correctly.
Otherwise, woopsy, we made our AI handle our accounting and it cheated, sorry IRS. That won't fly.
- If you are skilled, the money is much better in the US, even after paying for health care yourself.
- French entities and investors are risk adverse. This means your original projects will get canned more often, funding is going to be super hard, and will bring less money if you succeed.
- The French speaking market is smaller, so whatever you try, if you try in France, you either you target a market outside of France, which is harder than be where you clients are, or your target France and French speaking countries, with a much lower pay off.
- Customer and worker protection is higher, and laws are everywhere. This is usually good for citizens, but of course, it also means Uber or airbnb could never have __started__ in France.
- The network effect means if you go to the US, you will meet more opportunities, more skilled people and more interesting projects. There is also an energy there you won't find elsewhere.
- Administration is heavy, for companies, it's of course a burden, but for universities, it's a nightmare. And they are really under paid. Not to mention academics in France have a hard time promoting an idea, an innovations or anything they came up with. While in the US things have a catchy name before they are even proven to work.
All those things mean the US is professionally highly attractive, and actively trying to get talents with the resource to pay for it and the insistence of their market pressure.
Based on talking to my coworkers from Europe on the West Coast (some have more nuanced position, but some were outright "everyone in tech in their right mind moves away from Europe"), nothing short-term.
If you forget specifics, and consider on the abstract level what the differences are... Let's say there was an equal pile of "resources" per person available in Europe and the US. The way this pile is (abstractly) distributed in Europe is egalitarian and safety-net focused; in the US it is distributed more unequally, closer to some imperfect approximation of merit. Most of the (real) advantages and disadvantages that people bring up for the US stem from that. The more of this approximation of merit you have, the more "resources" you'd have in US. No matter what the specific slopes are, unless one place is much richer (might be the US anyway), at some point these lines cross. The higher the person is above this point the more it makes sense for them to go to the US...
There are also 2nd order effects like other people above that point having already gone (not just from Europe, from everywhere in the world), making the US more attractive, probably. That might matter more for top talent.
And although this probably doesn't matter for the top talent, "regular" Europeans can actually have the cake and eat it too - make the money in the US, then (in old age or if something happens) move back home and avail themselves of the welfare state. A non-German guy who worked in Germany for a few years told me that's what he'd do if he was German - working in Germany sucks, but being lazy in Germany is wonderful, so he'd move to the US then move back ;)
I don't, I just seem to have this moment of "oh, him as well" regularly.
And I get it, I went to the valley as well for some times, the money is better, the taxes are lower, you get more opportunities, meet more talented people and projects are way cooler.
If you want to have a platform that allow to manage Python on all machines, including allowed packages and version, integrated with ldap, with auditing capabilities, they are pretty much the only game in town.
Because Continum had a loss leader with anaconda that, in 2010, was solving a ton of packaging problems.
Today I would say anaconda brings more problems than it solves (https://www.bitecode.dev/p/why-not-tell-people-to-simply-use), but at the time, we didn't have wheels for everything, and it was a life saver for anybody that wanted to use c extensions.
So anaconda became first popular because it solved a real end user problem, then it moved on to be the corporation providers because it already was well known.
The issue is there's c extensions, and there's c extensions. Something like cryptography is self-contained (kinda, we're sweeping a lot under the carpet with rust here), whereas something like pytorch cares much more about what environment it was built in and will run in (and then there's things like mpi4py, which you can't really distribute wheels for on PyPI). conda, by basically distributing a full userland (which has its own issues), can handle all those packages, and even more hairy ones (e.g. how would you manage the R packages you use for r2py), and because it runs on Windows (similar solutions before and after conda were tied to, or at least started with, unix-based systems), it replaced the less general ones on Windows which usually only supported a limited number of packages (e.g. ActivePython, Enthought).
PyPI distributed wheels (you can obviously build wheels however you like, but that doesn't mean they'll run on others' systems) may at some point get close to what conda does (likely by reinventing it in an ad-hoc fashion), but there's enough mindshare (especially around its target of "data science", where all the tutorials are around using conda) that I don't see it disappearing.
They were quite big in the 2000, on my bubble they faded away as .NET and Java with their IDEs came into the picture, alongside Tcl, Perl and Python improving their Windows support story.
Despite the outrage, I think only a minority of users think this.
Most twitter users like it, and didn't even attempt to move to another platform.
I personally tried substack notes, mastodon and bluesky, and none of them bring 0.1% of the activity and interesting things that used to happen on twitter.
Now twitter is less interesting than before, but it still the only candidate that is worth my time. Even reddit is slowly becoming meh.
I'm certain that the new generation, however, is creating their own wonderland in a place I'm not active in. That's how we got twitter started, it's usually the young that stir those things.
In the US, if you are withdrawing ~thousands of $ in cash, and they ask you what it is for, and your answer is "mattress" or "no answer" then you can be 100% certain they will file an SAR.
However, there are probably so many SAR's that they would only be useful as a data point on an investigation triggered by something else, or if you get them frequently.
Also, if over $10k they are automatically required to file a CTR on that, but I bet those are even less likely to trigger anything by themselves.
Better than asking what the money is for, even if the customer gives a reason like "buying a car", warn the customer that if someone on the phone or is unknown at your door asked you to do it urgently it's probably a scam even it they say they are from your bank/company/authorities.
If they decide it is reliable enough to be put in front of the customer, they must accept all the consequences: the benefits like having to hire less, and the cons, which is that they have to make it work correctly.
Otherwise, woopsy, we made our AI handle our accounting and it cheated, sorry IRS. That won't fly.