aethros

> As long as LLMs are tools wielded by humans

They're really not though. We're in the age of agents--unsupervised LLM's are commonplace, and new laws need to exist to handle these frameworks. It's like handing a toddler a handgun, and saying we're being "responsible" or we are "supervising them". We're not--it's negligence.

I'd bet if you deduct C-suite salaries that profit becomes a heck of a lot larger. C-suite execs and wall street raid companies for profit all while screwing the average American. This is not news--look at stock buybacks.

If these companies paid less grossly-imbalanced compensation packages to their C-suite vs. the average employee salary, and they operated like an actual company vs. a rich person's piggy bank, I'd be sure willing to bet that profit margin would be a heck of a lot higher. They'd probably be more efficient and provide better service, too.

I think this becomes a balance of peers. The psychological safety of one, may not necessarily be the psychological safety of another. Does the individual who wishes to speak up berate the underperforming co-worker for underperforming?

How can we get the new co-worker to start performing adequately? They are a member of the team, and unless there's some business motivation to fire or reassign them, they will remain a member of the team. I think the solution is to invest velocity to bring the co-worker up to the teams overall performance level.

That being said I do not condone being tolerant of intolerable performance, but I think that teams that consistently show grace and respect to each other will often yield the best results.

> why tricks like this aren't used more

Some languages don't support this.

The languages that do would require extensive systems to implement this feature. It may simply not be a priority over other requirements like thread safety, atomicity, etc.

> similar tricks for shell execution

Shell only supports strings, integers and lists. The type system is too limited for this level of type-checking.

This works in typescript due to the advanced type operations built into the language.

How is "developing an algorithm" which selects content any different than editorial free speech? It selects content to show, and transmits that content to its users. Newspapers do this all the time, they pick the stories which get run.

Honestly curious of your take. The only difference that I see is that it can be done at scale, which doesn't necessarily mean it isn't free speech. They just have a bigger megaphone.

For a while I used FB Messenger Lite, which was basically designed for low-bandwidth markets (read: not US) but came without any sort of bloat. Sadly they recently deprecated it, which forced me to switch. It seems like these companies feel the need to put ads everywhere--at some point I'd imagine some users will just stop using tools that are too bloated.

What was the process like disclosing the bug to them? One part of your post that you left out and I was curious on. Was it friendly/straightforward? Were they surprised at all that this was possible?

I wonder how valuable this is as a metric, since much of what gets viewed is a function of art as much as it is marketing, production, or other elements. Some years studios make movies that are just bad--I wouldn't necessarily expect the income distribution to remain balanced across years.

Furthermore, these graphs don't appear to take into account the production cost of movies. If a low-budget film garners critical acclaim, it means more than a studio movie that just broke even, although their gross incomes could be pretty similar.

Frequency hopping is actually not considered a secure communication method in military circles, nor is it designed to be. Frequency hopping is designed to provide robust communication during electronic warfare scenarios (jamming).

> the majority of military is not in the upper echelons of the power hierarchy. And the majority of leaders in the military do not fall in this category of exceptionalism.

You're making a correlation that the best leaders are at the top, but that's not the case. Furthermore, you don't need to be an exceptional leader to know that you need to care for your subordinates.

Yes, there are terrible leaders in the military. There are leaders who go through courses specifically geared for command positions, learn tools on good leadership, and then actively use techniques counter to the learned approach. However, there are terrible leaders everywhere, at all levels of command.

Very rarely are civilian leaders given dedicated time and instruction within their profession on how to manage their subordinates effectively, outside of say academia (e.g.: business school). The military has professional military education (PME) built into all levels of leadership from first line supervisors up to executive leadership (general officers)---The differences between military and civilian leadership is very apparent. Military veterans are often the most preferred candidates, all things being equal, in recruiting pools because of their leadership and performance.

Military infrastructure isn't always as well-engineered as it should be all the time. It can be very costly and time consuming to deploy new encryption keys, especially for technologies like radios. It's not as simple as deploying a configuration file or running `ssh-keygen` and publishing a few artifacts. Many devices need to be rekeyed by hand, which can be labor intensive depending on the size of the inventory. Additionally, sometimes new hardware needs to be hand-delivered to the appropriate organizations for keys to function.

There's an argument to be made that the military employs socialization tactics often found in cults, such as group mentality--I'll be the first to concede that. But the notion that the military's 'objective' is the "continuous exploitation of lower level persons" is utter nonsense.

The objective of the U.S. Military is to fight and win wars. There's been a lot of social science put into the military on how best to accomplish that. Much of that science is on leadership and how to organize groups into effective teams.

A brief skimming of many of these texts clearly highlight how tactics like overworking subordinates, threatening troops, and other intimidation tactics have terrible consequences in the long term. The most effective leaders care for and inspire their subordinates, which yields more cohesive teams and higher productivity. The military teaches this constantly.

> In addition, the 'educational assistance' is barely enough for a two-year vocational training program, certainly nowhere near enough for a full four-year college degree. It's better than nothing, certainly, but the advertising and the reality have a big disconnect.

This is entirely false. I served my commitment on active duty and then went to college using the Post-911 GI Bill. I got 9 semesters (4.5 yrs) paid for with housing allowance as well.

I dropped out of school before I joined the military, and had $10k in student loan debt with nothing to show for it. After serving, I graduated with a CS degree, and a job lined up as a software engineer. I am truly grateful the opportunities I was afforded through my service.