nebulousthree

It's the flip flopping of liberal investment in government and public services, followed by conservative slashing of those services, followed by a condemnation of government's ability to provide after having been slashed, followed by an open bidding war for private consultancies to take over the role of the slashed service at a supposedly lower cost (that overruns in the end anyway, just like the aforementioned government service did in the first place). Rinse and repeat as every generation of politician proposes the new thing (repackaged old thing) and can then pat themselves on the back about what a good job they did. The kickbacks must be nice too I suppose ;)

When you get on a plane do you think they fuel it to run out exactly at the moment the plane stops at its final destination, and not a drop more? Don't you think that they reserve fuel for emergencies?

Why shouldn't a business consider itself at 0 operating dollars but still have a full account for healthcare or equivalent severance?

It doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to be convincing. That takes a lot less data and is much more tolerant to simplifications. Just look at the claims that were thrown around GPT's abilities at first.

Hear me out here: what if the realization that the conscious effort was in the way of optimization was part of the optimization all along??

This is some of the most disingenuous crap I've read in a while. Flip it on its head:

"If c-suite really only cares about $ spent on labor, they would accept the productivity outcome of their salary proposals to employees. But they don't. They want to get more productivity, just like the workers of [insert competing corp], while not changing or even reducing comp."

The reason your comment is disingenuous is that it assumes that the best place for this money to go is into c-suite/board pockets, and for some reason assumes that workers wouldn't take the couple extra grand the CEO pay split would give them. I challenge any CEO to put it up to a (non-binding, don't shit yourself) company-wide vote.

But let's disregard the salary split. It is an incredibly simple-minded way of approaching what to do with millions/year. Are all of you, who justify these ridiculous ratios, truly unable to think of ways to spend dozens of millions of dollars to improve all employees' qualities of life? Those who spend all this money on consultants to figure out how to squeeze an extra penny of profits can't figure out how to further optimize the health of the workforce instead?

Cue the comments about "no choice, fiduciary duty". Makes me sick.

Do you see ads to play solitaire on a regular basis but "control yourself" to not play it? I also don't see ads for magazines like I see ads for cars, food, gambling, etc. The magazines themselves contain ads, sure, but I have to have the desire to read a magazine first in order for my attention to be hijacked by an ad within.

Mustard would be way better

Allow me to spell it out: if IBM could guarantee themselves a maintenance or growth of market share in the short-term while simultaneously clamping down on licenses that are anything but closed-source, they would. iBM didn't buy redhat because they think it's doing things the "right way". They bought redhat because they thought they could make money with it.

It's more like saying that Germans like shitty meat because the best selling kind was the cheap, low-quality sausages at the corner store. Your attestation is the cherry on top.

Stop complaining and bring back apprenticeships. A university's objective is to create more professors and researchers, not industry workers.

It appears the honesty experts were more skillful than the dishonesty expert.

In a way, students trust the aggregate of "authority checking" that the school and the professors go through in order to develop the curriculum. The school acts as the jeweller friend that vouches for the stories you're told. What happens when a school is known to tell tall tales? One might assume that the reputation of the school would take a hit. If you simply don't trust the school, then there's no reason to attend it.

You shouldn't trust any old certificate more than it looking shiny. But if a third party that you recognise and trust happens to recognise the jewelry or the jeweler themselves, and goes so far as to issue a certificate attesting to that, that becomes another piece of evidence to consider in your decision to purchase.

You go to a jewelry store to buy gold. The salesperson tells you that the piece you want is 18karat gold, and charges you accordingly.

How can you confirm the legitimacy of the 18k claim? Both 18k and 9k look just as shiny and golden to your untrained eye. You need a tool and the expertise to be able to tell, so you bring your jeweler friend along to vouch for it. No jeweler friend? Maybe the salesperson can convince you by showing you a certificate of authenticity from a source you recognize.

Now replace the gold with a LLM.

It's only in recent history that it became free to play. What you pay for now is a "verified" badge, so you can play with others who have bought the verified token, reducing the amount of low effort hackers you play competitively against.