Men get judged plenty: height, hairline, weight, income. The 'we don't judge men' line only holds up if you've never been a short or bald guy on a dating app. Plus-size male models already exist (look up IMG's Brawn division); the industry just hasn't bothered to scale it.
Bald women wear wigs and there's no comparison between short women and short men. I've never heard a man complain about a woman's height being too short and being bald seemed to have a positive effect on a woman I knew as she attracted attention with her differing wigs.
it absolutely doesn’t. most software is shitty and buggy. I know, have seen 30 years worth of it. just now we can write the shitty and buggy a lot faster.
ask anyone that has been in the industry for awhile and they will tell you the same thing. a lot of crowd on HN write as if human-written code is any good and while there are always exception, on average, most software is shitty. if I had a dollar for every time I met someone writing software for “X” saying “dude, if you knew what I know you’d never use/do/… X” I’d be a very rich man
But, lets start with the C compiler written by an AI, guided by the comp[any that sells the AI. Do you really think that the average user is eady yet to accept that sort of degradation in quality?
That's just a baseless assumption. To use AI well you should do the things that allow you to use stuff well. You shouldn't just use it any way you can because you assume that 'not using it at all' is not the best option.
This is literally the same with every single technological development.
Ironically, companies overusing it will probably die at a similar speed. Maybe faster, even, depending whether cash burn or technical debt catches up to them first.
That's like saying farmers that don't use pesticides will die out. There's whole industries around doing things not the way big companies say you have to. Human-centric firms will pop up and proposer.
We're losing a lot of workers. Some might consider that a good thing if they hate the idea of a large exploited underclass (or just people of a certain skin color), but it could be a problem for farms if there aren't enough hands to harvest in time.
Let us hope this results in farms offering Americans better wages for working on farms. Only 1% of the retail cost of produce is due to labour. Farms could double wages to workers and it would barely move the needle on inflation.
I agree, but the farmers aren't pulling in massive amounts of cash either. There are record profits being siphoned from the wages of the workers, and from the profits of the farmers, and from the pockets of the consumer at the register. We'd all be better off if we tracked the money down and took it back.
Put Wall Street out of work and have the bankers work the farms out there in rural Conneticut and NJ and NY. It'll be good for them, put some hair on their chest and give them Real World Experience (tm)
if they are large corporation owned farms as many small family owned farms are going to go bankrupt in the next 2 years because of the price of fertilizer and diesel and higher interest rate.
He destroys trade relations so the farmers can’t sell their produce, then bails them out by taking on more government debt so farmers can dump soybeans in a ditch.
never buy index funds. this is what wealthy will tell you but none of them own index funds. how many of sp500 companies are doing great these days, growing, profitable…? 5% maybe. my financial well-being has dramatically changed since I stopped buying index funds 9 years ago. bunch of “smart” people will tell you “oh this is risky, bla bla” and it sure might be but while you might end up “rich” with index funds you won’t get wealthy. I will never again spend a penny in index funds (I am self-employed and manage my own i401k)
the cool thing, google is much like meta, the kids see it as something boomers are using. my daughter is 12, whenever I say “google it” she says “that’s very, very funny Dad, you are fun guy.” it’ll take some time until boomers are off google as well (my usage of google is probably at 30% of where it used to be) but their days of “this is where you go to ‘search’” are numbered
you pitch this and next election cycle you will out as soft on crime which is why this can only ever go (significantly) into the opposite direction unfortunately
reply