bart_spoon

No statistical methods do, Bayesian or frequentist. That’s the definition of a black swan, it’s something completely out of the data set and therefore can’t be forecasted.

What might that look like in this situation? A user goes to play Spotify and it responds with “No” and shuts itself down? I generally agree with you that endless content consumption is a bad thing, but I also can’t envision a system where this is possible. It requires enough friction for the user to decide against continuing, which either comes in the form of a service providing less appealing content, making content more costly to consume, such as literally paying per song played, or services simply refusing to serve more content after a certain point. All of which are complete non-starters.

Their job is to manage their teams and initiatives. If they are unable to determine why an initiative fails or how their teams are performing, it means they are incapable of doing their job.

That doesn’t seem like a sustainable alternative. In the case you are describing, the productivity boost is highly dependent on actually having the right people within ear reach. You are relying on the right people happening to hear other conversations. What if your team is large, so that even if you are all in office, the chances of stumbling into the right conversation is lower? What if you are grabbing lunch, or in the bathroom, or meeting with someone else when that conversation is happening?

The most effective solution in my experience has been when working remote, and having a culture where a team has open discussions on their own Slack channel, with threads for particular conversations. That way, everyone can contribute to the conversation, it’s asynchronous so you don’t have to be in exactly the right place and right time to participate, and people can go back and review details very easily if needed.

You are right that that doesn’t apply if the conversations are happening in private DMs, but that’s a matter of team culture. You have to be intentional in a remote setting, just the same as you do in an office setting. But if you are it can work very well in my experience, perhaps even better than in person.

If the AI is being judged as a winner, than by definition isn’t it superior to the typical human produced content, at least in this case? Seems like the opposite of enshittification.

Measure twice, cut once

They aren’t trying to become the best at something, they are trying to maximize the ROI of their time.

The more I’ve looked at DSPy, the less impressed I am. The design of the project is very confusing with non-sensical, convoluted abstractions. And for all the discussion surrounding it, I’ve yet to see someone actually using for something other than a toy example. I’m not sure I’ve even seen someone prove it can do what it claims to in terms of prompt optimization.

It reminds me very much of Langchain in that it feels like a rushed, unnecessary set of abstractions that add more friction than actual benefit, and ultimately boils down to an attempt to stake a claim as a major framework in the still very young stages of LLMs, as opposed to solving an actual problem.

And yet just today I read an article about how more than half of tech CEOs now are allowing workers to work fully remote if the choose, which is up from closer to 35% a year ago. It’s possible some of the RTO push was to get people to leave, or that management, underestimated how unpopular it would be with employees, or perhaps the simplest explanation: management is mostly a cargo cult just throwing spaghetti at the wall, with no real rhyme or reason behind their decision making.

The public sentiment in those cities regarding immigration has completely flipped from the moment the buses started arriving. They were loudly in favor of refusing to enforce immigration laws when El Paso, Texas was dealing with hundreds of thousands of illegal border crossings over decades, but the second a few thousand start showing up in buses in Chicago and New York City, they declare a state of emergency and start demanding the stop of the immigrants being transported to their cities because they have no room. And now it’s probably the single strongest issue the Republicans are going to win on in the election.

I’m not conservative, but sending illegal migrants directly to sanctuary cities might be the single most effective strategic political move in my lifetime. It flipped a decades old stalemate on its head practically overnight.

If they opposed skilled immigration, there wouldn’t be a lottery at all, there would be 0 visas allocated.

It’s shocking to me that the argument that consistently gets trotted out as to why we should accept illegal immigration is that they perform jobs too dangerous and poorly paid for non-illegal immigrants to do. Perhaps if there wasn’t a never ending stream of people so poor and powerless to take advantage of, these industries might be forced to pay livable wages or provide better protections.

It’s insane that the supposedly progressive faction of American politics is arguing in favor of a system that amounts to a modern version of indentured servitude and systemic violation of labor rights, all for the sake of cheaper fruit and meat.

There is an important distinction between anti-immigration policies and anti-illegal immigration policies. I don’t know of many politicians who are against immigration of any kind. But there are plenty who are for doing something about the hundreds of thousands crossing the border illegally and/or abusing the asylum process. This isn’t even a partisan issue. Many of those opposed to fixing this problem did an immediate 180 the moment those illegal immigrants began being bussed to their city.

More than just Nashville, they have hospitals all over the country.

Can you think of a single location on Earth where the land was originally claimed in a free market?