This is an absolutely unhinged personal attack on the op that has nothing to do with their comment. Why do you assume they are intentionally slowing things down? Because their analysis of the situation is that some people will be fired?
They're challenging someone to "test it" by burning down a backlog, because the other person thinks they will just do more work, with the implication that this person believes they'll just be laid off - and so they are better off not burning down the backlog of work.
I take an issue with that mindset because I know it is not true. And I'm not sure why you think I am attacking this person - if someone were to actually sandbag their own career, that is probably one of the most damaging mistakes they could make. Maybe I misunderstand something, if so I apologize for that
You implied that they are engaged in sabotage because they believe that if AI increases efficiency to the point where backlogs are easily cleared out by a small number of people there will be workforce reductions. I’m not sure why you’re so confident the opposite is true, or why you assume they are taking this view and concluding that sabotage is appropriate. But it is almost certainly damaging yourself and others around you greatly to assume so much malice in the people around you. Maybe I’m not reading enough into the “test it” phrasing but I don’t think it implies all that you seem to think it does.
At the moment some people are in the bargaining phase trying to figure out how to stay employed and what their value is with AI and some people are in denialism phase which is becoming increasingly delusional. Others have already left software development for other corporate roles because they already accepted what is coming but I feel this is the minority voice online because they don't want to shake the beehive or want to get ahead of the curve themselves because it won't be nice when everyone tries to transition together.
Absolutely. And keep in mind that many managers seem to be bean counters that would rather fire people to lower costs than keep those people and be able to do actual stuff with them. Doing stuff takes imagination/brains and sometimes b*ls, and in my current experience that's not something to expect from management.
OTOH managers also like to retain people because headcount in one's org is a power/status thing, capacity headroom is good for absorbing unexpected work, and most important they don't actually benefit from cutting costs. At most, managers like it when other managers' employees exit
Yes, I can actually do many other things and I know a bit about other fields than software development. And I don't think my job is significantly easier than what people deal with in those other fields. If we're saying that AI can take over my job, I don't see how it can't take over basically any white-collar job in existence.
I find that writing with ai is far superior both in terms of results and for my memory. Writers like Neal won’t be competitive for much longer. It’s time to put the pencils down.
Bit late, but since I don’t see any correct answers here - no a jury is not required here. The judge chose to convene an *advisory* jury here — likely to strengthen the factual findings of the court and maybe to save the court itself some time/effort.
Not a lawyer but generally it is as you say: "because the trials suck after a while cuz no one remembers anything". It's not fair to have a trial when the evidence is unreliable because of the flow of time.
Encouraging timely action is another factor. Generally people with real harms will file sooner than later, otherwise why wait?
It's also to grant peace of mind -- so people can stop worrying about potential litigation after some amount of time.
Are you a lawyer? IANAL but my understanding is it would be difficult for an appeal to succeed. Appeals courts only evaluate review matters of law, not of fact. Whether is has been more than the 3 year limit the statute of limitations places is a matter of fact I think. And the advisory jury makes this much harder to appeal. What do you think the grounds for appeal will be?
I'm not saying it will succeed, but what counts as having passed the statue of limitations and various workarounds and modifications of the time period particularly in cases like this where the acts in question weren't necessarily a single event but progressive activity is the kind of question which is the bread and butter of an appeals court.
> particularly in cases like this where the acts in question weren't necessarily a single event but progressive activity is the kind of question which is the bread and butter of an appeals court.
No, findings of disputed fact - like when Musk had reason to know of his injury, are determined by a jury (or a bench judge). Appeals courts examine whether the law was applied correctly, not what the jury's fact finding was. There may be an avenue of appeal that the jury was improperly instructed, but determining questions of fact are exactly -not- the bread and butter of an appeals court.
I wonder if this could be used for doping in aerobic sports? Could this elevate overall oxygen intake in a healthy person?
My vague understanding is that oxygen intake is a big limiting factor in aerobic activities hence measurement of things like vo2max in sports science. ‘Blood doping’ has similar benefits though it’s also about having more blood period.
It seems unlikely that one could take a big enough suppository to help in a meaningful way in a marathon, but in a middle distance race lasting only a few minutes…
It seems unlikely, athletes are consuming liters of oxygen per minute. Plus, the impact is at least partially offset by needing to carry the extra weight with you.
Different story for apnea sports like freediving where a little bit of extra oxygen goes a long way.
Isn't liquid oxygen cryogenic (boils at -183C)? The engineering of keeping that ...there... gets interesting fast, especially when dealing with all the cold (absorbed heat from expanding gas) and containing the pressure while also releasing oxygen slowly.
The oxygen gas is dissolved into a different liquid, some kind of perfluorate in this case. You can put more oxygen molecules in a given volume when dissolved in a liquid than if you just compress the gas.
But oxygen dissolved or otherwise absorbed in a material is fair game. Even without anything fancy, water can contain about 1% free oxygen, which is 8x what you could do with gaseous oxygen (which is in turn 5x what atmospheric mixture has).
And there are a lot of chemical reactions that can produce oxygen much better than 1%. The trick is going to be avoiding heat changes.
In a trained person, the limiting factor as I understand it is the capacity of one’s blood cells to carry oxygen to the muscles. This method does not make more blood cells unlike the common doping methods used for aerobic sports like blood doping, artificial EPO.
Cyclists have been doping by taking transfusions of their own, previously donated blood. The extra blood cells can then carry more oxygen than a non-treated human.
The surface area of your lungs is like a tennis court, there is a significant difference.
This is being talked about in the ballpark of partial assistance during severe respiratory failure so more like delaying organ damage during a crisis than boosting peak athletic performance.
Hyperloglog analyses generally assume access to the full data stream, and so are O(n) at a minimum. Perhaps by running hyperloglog on a sublinear sample of the dataset you'd get an algorithm in this class.
