pooya13

> There's no idiots at OpenAI.

Most certainly there are idiots at OpenAI.

Even if we ignore privacy and effectiveness, the problem with authoritarian methods is that they can (and most likely will) be abused. The justification may be to catch predators and terrorists (which is uncomfortable to argue against lest you be labeled a predator / terrorist sympathizer yourself), but it will in practice be used to surveil political rivals, journalists, activists etc.

No the reason he is in prison is because of the Iraq war revelations. It has nothing to do with the 2016 email leaks.

Having a codebase that is so convoluted that only you can work on is really not a skill you should risk your career on. It might work for those people you have seen in a short period, but long term they fall behind as they not only not develop generally valuable skills (because they are constantly working on that project), they also lack the skills to write clean collaborative code, which makes them less employable. So they would be in a very bad situation when that code base loses its value. (due to company going bankrupt or the project being shelved) My argument is not against hoarding critical knowledge. I am saying that by doing so you will be the single person responsible for that area, and therefore won’t have a chance to grow and diversify your knowledge base. I can only imagine a scenario when you are working in a hostile environment with really dumb management where that attitude could be rewarding and protect you. But in that scenario I would be looking for a new job and try to quit anyways. You don’t want to base your career goals on a specific position/employer.

Did you read the article? They say at the very top that they don’t mean you should literally keep quitting your jobs, but have a quitting mindset.

> you also lose most of the leverage that comes with specialization and having critical knowledge

Your value does not disappear when there is redundancy within your company. If it is a valuable skill there will always be a demand for it outside, and now you can also claim that you are also capable of coaching others in that skill. If the skill is not valuable to the outside world and is a niche to your company, I’d say you still want to move on from that skill exactly because it is not transferable to other jobs. What if your company goes bankrupt?

> Not sure why the author put this in, but "Always be learning"

The point of the article is that by increasing team productivity to reduce your own tasks, you now have the chance to learn new things and grow into new roles as opposed to being stuck with the same responsibilities.

Your best defence are your capabilities. Being “indispensable” means nothing if the company goes under.

Exactly. If you increase team productivity and your boss fires you for it instead of promoting you, then the company is doomed so why would you want to work for them?

What is your alternative then? Version control binary files and have your repos grow gigabytes?

It tracks the changes fine. It’s just that it doesn’t make sense to track changes in a binary.

Maybe I am missing the point. What is the alternative this article proposes then?... Also, Git is not central so how can you ever integrate large file support without a separate server?

I highly doubt anyone will lose their job for censoring Palestinians if not rewarded for it. Facebook has been banning Palestinians or pages sympathetic to them for a while now without any consequences. I would actually argue the volume of censorship of Palestinians has increased as the deep state’s control over Facebook has increased.

20% is for medical isotopes not power. They can also export not just for domestic use. Good thing we don’t base international law on deduction.