gh0std3v

> Pay attention to your team. Build closeness. Get to know about everyone’s family and private life. Take mental health seriously and talk openly about it. It may seem like prying, but you might catch a wobbler with a team member that you can address early.

While I think it's important for workplaces to take care of their employees, I feel like Pete's issue was that he was too close to work. And on top of that, he wasn't even an employee, just a contractor with no benefits, PTO, etc.

The real problem here is that Pete was not integrated as an employee. If he were, he could have taken PTO, accessed health benefits, and gotten help. I don't know the complete story, so I won't extrapolate further, but I feel sad thinking that this team almost feels "responsible" for his suicide. It wasn't the remote team's fault for not catching on, it was the company's fault for not acknowledging the health and security of their contractors (who, I reiterate, should have been employees).

Don't mean to offend anyone, I just felt the way contractors are treated is sometimes unjust.

It's late at night so apologies if this seems incoherent. I recently applied to college and I got into a university that is pretty good. I'm pretty happy with where I am and I consider myself fortunate in every regard to be going to college.

That being said, I have some reservations about the college admissions process and I think this Twitter thread addresses it well. In particular, I think there is an ongoing trend to eliminate standardized tests in favor of more "subjective" and "holistic" measurements like your essays and extracurriculars. While I think it's perfectly fine to have students write about themselves and their achievements, I think it's still way too integral to the admissions process and there needs to be more balance. Personally, when I wrote my essays, even though I was trying to be authentic and I did write about experiences that were meaningful to me, I always felt as if it wasn't enough. I just kept wondering, "what are they looking for?" And I couldn't really get a good grasp of whether what I was writing was "good" or not. To me, the essays completely obscure the nature of the admissions process because no college can clearly tell you what they want. Hell, even some admissions officers seem to dodge the question when you ask them what they look for in an essay (or they provide really vague answers). I think it's silly to make the essays so critical to the process when they clearly don't allow anyone to extrapolate concrete things about a person's abilities or skills. Many smart people I know were rejected from universities that I think they should have gotten into even though they easily would fit in and thrive in those places.

By the end of the college admissions process, even though I was happy with the college I got into, I honestly felt a little jaded. Sure, I'm happy that I got in, but I feel as if I couldn't properly communicate my skills to the admissions officers. It just makes me feel as if your skills matter less than your ability to impress people. Maybe it was naïve of me to think that it would be different in an academic institution compared to the corporate world, but it is a little disheartening in the end.

I know a lot of people will disagree with this, but this post resonated with me and I felt that I needed to share my thoughts.

I don't care about whether there's more sunshine in the morning or not (that's why I have blinds!). What I do care about is the fact that DST introduces needless complexity into the task of keeping time.

I know it's stupid, but I just think DST is really unnecessary because of the fact that we have to adjust the clock on our microwaves, ovens, and cars. Not to mention, because not everyone observes DST, it leads to a lot of additional complexity when scheduling international meetings.

Overall, regardless of your preferences, the world would be better if we didn't have to adjust the clock for no reason.

While I want to believe this is true, I think the above response was more a lack of Gopher's ability to analyze mathematical equations properly than an attempt to display a sense of humour. Many NLP approaches work by creating word embeddings, which don't always help the model to understand "first-order logic" language mixed with spoken language.

Though who knows, maybe it does have a sense of humour.

Yeah, math (or any subject really) takes a lot of time to learn, and Knuth’s books do a good job of providing plenty of exercises and explanations. I was just saying that it can initially be overwhelming for some, which is why they might want to try attacking something smaller and more broad (though this has more to do with someone’s mentality than the book itself).

I said my example was contrived because I didn’t test the prompt (admittedly I should have tried to).

I still think there’s a lack of explainability to the whole model though, and I struggle to understand how we could continue improving these models without understanding how they fundamentally make their decisions.

That being said, after reading some more output from GPT-3, it is more coherent than I remembered.