Historically news outlet run as public service (with sufficient guardrails for autonomy) such as the BBC, PBS, France Television, Arte (naming only those I know well) have produce much better news coverage than the privately owned ones.
OTOH the concept of independent public institution and general checks and balances seems to have been entirely forgotten, so maybe that's not a solution for 21st century.
An alternative would be communally owned media (50/50 by readership and journalists), with simple direct tax incentive to fund them (equal amounts of $ per person)
Having first hand experience of all of the named public services, I beg to differ heavily.
These corporations tend to be heavily left-leaning, with no real guardrails preventing this. The consequence is pretty biased coverage, under the guise of a "trust-us, we are here for the greater good".
Look at the handling of Middle-East by BBC, the Zucman tax at France Television, or the current allegations of fraud in some communities in the US.
My current take is that it is really hard to get a fair unbiased coverage, unless you actually state that you will strive to hire and promote both sides. If these corporations had to publish the composition/promotion/pay of their newsroom across the political spectrum (as they do for example by gender), you may start to have fair unbiased coverage. But many journalists working there see it as their job to describe "not the reality as it happens, but rather as it ought to be" (to quote the CEO of France Television). We should acknowledge that people are biased, and measure the balance of biases rather than assert there is no bias because they serve the greater good.
Public interest stories are left-leaning only in that they tend to oppose the wielders of centralized power, and centralized power is generally a right-leaning construct.
That's objectively true. They're center-left or center-right. They're certainly not democratic socialists (who are the barest left of the left). The parent is complaining that there is some objectivity at all in liberal/center-right media, that it isn't calling for pure repression by force of middle eastern people and recognizes they sometimes suffer from aggression in ways that are understandable to human beings.
None of these outlets object to this repression being meted out, they only care that it is done in a way that is respectable. A left wing take would criticize the imperialist nature of these wars of aggression and genocide and examine the economic, class, and other social dimensions that cause these events to occur and call for a social revolution via means that are electoral or otherwise. A left-leaning liberal take would say something like "man it's crazy they don't respect the UN charter or even US laws". This should give some objective sense for how rightward our discourse has been drawn.
There is very little hardware that would actually be ipv6 incompatible.
We're talking network equipment from 15+ years ago, which is also obsolete because it's 1Gbps at 10x the power usage of a 10gbps switch.
It did. I question the issue of "what problem am I trying to solve" with AI, though. Transportation across a huge swath of land had a clear problem space, and trains offered a very clear solution; created dedicated railing and you can transport 100x the resources at 10x the speed of a horseman (and I'm probably underselling these gains). In times where trekking across a continent took months, the efficiencies in communication and supply lines are immediately clear.
AI feels like a solution looking for a problem. Especially with 90% of consumer facing products. Were people asking for better chatbots, or to quickly deepfake some video scene? I think the bubble popping will re-reveal some incredible backend tools in tech, medical, and (eventually) robotics. But I don't think this is otherwise solving the problems they marketed on.
This is a use case that hasn't yet been proven out, though. "Good enough" for an executive may not be "good enough" to keep the company solvent, and there's no shortage of private equity morons who have no understanding of their own assets.
Unless you are a personal assistant, your job probably is not to "make the life of your hiring manager easier".
You have responsibilities, which ideally should be stipulated in some form in a contract, and if you are vaguely senior they hopefully go beyond "do whatever steeve needs to feel good".
I would argue that it is in fact your manager whose job entails making your (and your peers) professional life easier, by identifying the roadblocks, escalating problems if need be, etc...
Did you have to hire people? If so, why did you do that? Was it because you had "too much on your plate"? If so, did not hiring a good employee "make your life easier"? Was there another reason for doing that? (honest question)
Indeed, it was assumed that the manager is intelligent (per Carlo Cipolla). One would not take or stay in the job otherwise.
It is literally the ONE thing that every AI critic has been talking about for years.
Several things can be true at the same time : it's possible for the wild claims of great efficiency gains and transformative (for good) power of AI to be overblown (for the sake of stock prices) AND for AI applied to surveillance to be a terrifying prospect.
Surveillance AI doesn't need to be correct to be terrifying.
I hear far more concerns about putting people out of work, the environmental impact, or even copyright issues than the ways AI will be used to control people. I wish every critic of AI was putting this issue out there anywhere near as often as other concerns.
It solves a problem for Stripe : potentially evading some incoming regulations in payments in the UK/EU (and U.S probably).
Regulations in payments tend to be very technical, and inserting some crypto/distributed plausible deniability in the mix could get them 5 more years of delay (until the next generation of regulations). It will depend on how those regulations take shape in the coming months.
The why becoming stale is a feature, that's when you know there is a VALID reason you thought this looked weird and convoluted, instead of you completely missing the inherent complexity of the problem.
> If it saves my ass even just once, it will probably be worth it overall.
That's a common fallacy of safety by the way :)
It could very well "save your ass" just once (whatever that means) while costing you more in time, opportunity, effort, or even false sense of safety, to generate more harm than it will ultimately save you.
Sure, but so far the cost is very minimal. Like 1 minute per PR on average. A crash in production and the subsequent falloffs is probably a good week of work and quite a bit of stress. That gives me quite a few PRs.
Every year someone figures out that encoding complex logic in type systems leads to complex type systems.
YES. Types will not simplify your logic, they mean to represent it, in all its glorious complexity, in a way that is checkable automatically, and will break and require refectoring when you violate the previous invariants.
This is also why I’m a fan of not-null constraints, check constraints, and foreign keys in my database schemas. They make (at least some) invalid states unrepresentable. And they work regardless of the front end application.
OTOH the concept of independent public institution and general checks and balances seems to have been entirely forgotten, so maybe that's not a solution for 21st century.
An alternative would be communally owned media (50/50 by readership and journalists), with simple direct tax incentive to fund them (equal amounts of $ per person)
reply