datahack

Wow that is one for be best privacy policies I’ve ever seen. Good callout.

I didn’t vote for a crime free society and I don’t want a surveillance society. Some random ass CEO does not have the right or authority to tell the rest of us how to run our society: that’s sidestepping Democracy and not ok.

Societies have functioned for millennia without Flock, and there is nothing especially dangerous that it solves.

In fact violent crime in the United States has dropped by a record 9.3% just in 2025 (the largest single year decline in U.S. history). It’s not like there is some pressing crisis.

As far as I am concerned, this guy can get bent.

Disruptive technology disrupts.

It sucks for the people caught by the change. Honestly, I’m sorry. But rapid, disruptive change has always been part of working in technology. The industry doesn’t owe any particular job category permanence.

I think the more interesting conversation is what happens to the learning industry now. If AI changes how software is built, then teaching people to become developers has to change too.

We shouldn’t be asking how to preserve the old pipeline of teaching people to write code so they can get an entry level programming job. We should be asking what it means to teach someone to become a developer when AI can increasingly write the code.

The scarce skill may shift from producing code to understanding what should be built, decomposing problems, designing systems, evaluating tradeoffs, debugging complex behavior, verifying AI generated output, and understanding whether the resulting system is actually correct, secure, maintainable, and fit for purpose.

That doesn’t necessarily mean fewer people need to learn software development. It could mean many more people can become capable developers because the mechanical barrier to producing software has fallen dramatically.

The educational model just has to catch up.

The technology changed. The answer shouldn’t be to pretend it didn’t. It should be figuring out how to use it to produce the next generation of developers.

That’s going to be contentious for some people, even a little insensitive. But it’s just how it works in our industry.

Love your mom’s work. Wow.

This is how higher education was done for literal centuries before moving to the written word. So it’s not exactly innovative to return to oral arguments.

But what it does threaten to do is effectively abandon all the efficiencies of the written word.

When higher education evolved into a mass system in the 1800s and into the 1900s, pure oral examination was looked at as super inefficient. A written paper could be handed in and graded without lining everyone up in front of a panel.

The oral system scales poorly. One examiner can only hear so many students in a day. There are damn good reasons Medieval universities were small and modern ones are not.

Requiring every major paper to be defended live reintroduces the bottleneck that written exams were designed to escape.

Accessibility takes a hit too. Students with speech differences, anxiety disorders, hearing impairments, or simply less fluency in the language of instruction face an extra barrier that a written submission does not impose. The written form, for all its flaws, leveled some of that ground. Shall we abandon the differently abled because machines disrupt the academic system and essentially make cheating effective? This does not seem very logical, or sensitive.

So while it’s nice that academics are rediscovering the old ways, I don’t really see this as a scalable answer to raising education levels for the masses, but more of a knee jerk way to try to bypass the obvious technological disruption by returning to non-scalable, inaccessible ways of doing things that our ancestors abandoned for a reason.

It has its place for graduate students and smaller volume education systems. It’s fine for keeping the ivory tower clean. But it’s not the answer to expanding education to everyone and taking advantage of the technological disruption to advance education and learning throughout greater humanity, which is what AI definitely possesses as a possibility.

So, the fact that you went to a medical center just not the specific doctors office?

This seems weak.

Isn’t this just an attempt to build a two pizza team (across the company)? Or the whole “parking lot” philosophy that built Patagonia.

Don’t know if it will work with this weird arbitrary cap, because 15 is fine for some things and way too many for others.

Mandates do be like that.

This should be made illegal as soon as possible.

This is clearly and obviously the shortest possible path to a total surveillance society.

Cool. Hope they enjoy having one less customer.

Can we just get an option to turn it off? This is an insanely dumb workaround.

So, is rasping a subset of hacking now? Goodness.

This is woefully inadequate as a remedy. The dollar amount is minuscule and the remedy time limited. Seems like they just got a license to continue business as usual.

Ok. Someone explain to me why they would f themselves this hard with software engineers when they are absolutely winning. This just seems like a bad move.

Is it infrastructure? Are they unable to control costs?

Everyone else is spending like money is water to try to get adoption. Claude has it and is dialing back utility so that its most passionate users will probably leave.

I don’t understand this move.