…that was the point?

They’re making this argument about Ukraine, and yet are perfectly fine with the US on their doorstep.

Shows that this isn’t about the US, but about getting stuff from Russia.

US military aid to Seoul, on the other hand, is a brilliant strategy….

I grew up in the cold war. I’ve done the drills. I know both what the fear of an all-out nuclear holocaust is, and I know that the reality will be something entirely different.

Did you not see what happened to Russia’s latest Satan II ICBM? Thankfully that one wasn’t armed.

That’s a good line to use on Putin.

Realistically, if Putin uses the nuclear codes, this is what happens:

A few warheads in Russia explode in their silos and the government blames the West. A bunch of other warheads are harmlessly shot down. A few actually find their targets and a few million people are wiped out. The west retaliates and suddenly the war is over.

BICS then becomes ascendant in global power, China claims Taiwan and the Philippines and possibly Japan, and Israel is wiped off the face of the earth as all sides turn it into a nuclear slag pile, killing Israelis, Palestinians and a large number of Lebanese and Syrians in the bargain.

Then things adjust to the new normal and economies rebuild, with the noted absence of Russia and Belarus.

Balanced for inflation?

Spot-on.

I spend a lot of time training people how to properly review code, and the only real way to get good at it is by writing and reviewing a lot of code.

With an LLM, it trains on a lot of code, but it does no review per-se… unlike other ML systems, there’s no negative and positive feedback systems in place to improve quality.

Unfortunately, AI is now equated with LLM and diffusion models instead of machine learning in general.

So… the winning strategy is to overestimate them?

You can be legally deaf and still able to hear sound that’s really loud. Just like you can be legally blind but able to make out really vivid and bright images.

It’s a well documented issue tied directly to gambling…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgfaSLO_T4A

Personally, I’d just limit it to feeding them data that a large undecided segment believes a few provably false outlandish things, so that they publicly endorse said things when they could be spending time doing something socially destructive.

There’s actually multiple questions here.

The hiring process has an application “filter” layer, a candidate selection layer, and THEN the interview with the person/people who actually want to hire you. Sometimes there’s an extra technical interview after that.

These days, the filter layer is mostly automated. Asking the filter why it didn’t select you is like asking a Machine Learning model why it chose to do something a certain way — you aren’t going to get a useful response.

So the only way to figure it out is trial and error: vary your application in terms of structure and content until you find the combination that makes it last the current batch of filters.

OR

Find a way to skip the filters altogether by finding someone on the inside of the company to flag up your CV to the people looking to fill the position.

Once past the filter, you get to HR, and if you get this far, asking questions about why you didn’t get selected to continue will actually be met with a useful response (unless it’s a company you don’t want to work for). HR will tell you the basic things they’re looking for in an application, and possibly how you compared in certain criteria to the stronger candidates.

Next you get to the manager. If you get this far, you can usually have this discussion at the end of your interview. They’re looking for fit for the role, and you can ask questions about fit as part of the interview process.

And finally you get to the technical interview. If you get this far and don’t get the job, the reason why is usually fairly obvious: either they had someone who was both a better fit AND understood the problem domain / demonstrated an ability to learn and reflect the team culture better, or you failed to prove technical ability in a key area.

Doctors go to school for seven years racking up debt, and then usually have to shoulder the burden of liability and operational costs. It’s expensive to become a medical doctor, and expensive to be a medical doctor.

These costs are part of what keeps both doctors and patients safe. Doctors end up with both the power and the risk.

Nurses by comparison have only basic training before on the job training kicks in; it’s relatively easy to become a nurse, and if you mess up, the worst that’s going to happen is that you get fired and have to go work somewhere else.

But even as a nurse, if you’re quick to pick things up, you can move up the ranks and find a specialty that has more power and pays better than a standard RN. Without the seven years of debt.

And life’s not just about pay; quality of life is generally more important, and that sucks for most doctors, who have relatively short life expectancies and limited time to spend their money.

The phone isn’t going to end up in China from people passing them hand to hand; they’re going to be collected somewhere and bundled for shipping in an EM-protected covering of some sort. The record of the route they took right up until they go silent will be available for every phone. Looking at an aggregate map of this data should give the police a pretty good idea of what’s going on.

I suspect the difficulty is that the police need to get a data release from each individual involved and then get Google/Apple and/or the owners to voluntarily share the historical location data with the police… which most people aren’t willing to do out of an abundance of caution.

Also, relying on relatives is a way of circumventing freedom of movement. It keeps everyone in the same place, at the same low paying jobs, with no hope of improving their or their children’s situation in life. Which is also perfectly in line with the Republican playbook.

“Please beware,” he went on, “that this legal exposure extends to Lawyers, Political Operatives, Donors, Illegal Voters, & Corrupt Election Officials. Those involved in unscrupulous behavior will be sought out, caught, and prosecuted at levels, unfortunately, never seen before in our Country.”

What people don’t quite grasp is that he means exactly what he says.

He considers, for example, being a lawyer to be “unscrupulous behavior”. As is donating to anyone but himself. Or voting for anyone but him.

To me it sounds more like they have a dying business and want to hide this fact from the employees for as long as possible.

I worked for one of these once. And one of my skills is in retaining co-workers. Eventually we ended up with a bad credit rating, nobody would invest in the company, and the company couldn’t afford to keep the lights on AND pay its debts. It made/sold a great product that the market wanted, but some bad years racked up bad debt that the owners couldn’t get out from under.

So, eventually those of us who were left just wrote our own pink slips, got the owner to sign them, and nobody went back to work the next day. Owner sold off everything of value to cover as much debt as possible and declared bankruptcy.

Then they partnered with someone else and started a new debt-free company and hired back a lot of the same employees (it WAS a fun place to work when we weren’t having to worry about if we were going to be paid that month).

I went somewhere else instead, where my starting wage was 3x what I’d been getting at the other place, with options for bonuses and raises.

I’ll bite.

Don’t make it related to pay. Make them WANT to work there, and then put a bunch of employment requirements into the contract that sound reasonable but can’t all be done AND accomplish the job.

At that point, all your employees are in breach of contract and you can just investigate and fire anyone who doesn’t seem to be providing value.

You’ll get a few people who position themselves as unfireable anyway, and some people who it will be difficult to prove they broke the contract. And if you fire people too often, you’ll again have retention issues.

Maybe the value of your business isn’t as much as you think it is, or you’re not charging enough for what you sell….

Depends on how many ants and lions were present.

It must be so easy at this point… Russia can start a rumour and then get American pundits to authoritatively go along with it because it reinforces what they want to believe.

Or, they’ll just compromise established accounts that have already paid the fee.