Make this thing that would be impossible without AI. The test is to see if you actually architect it properly and understand principles of how things connect together.
Make this thing that would be impossible without AI. Now make these modifications without any AI.
Make this thing. You may use low quality AI like Composer 3 or none at all, but if you use none, we'll probably think of you as some kind of boomer.
Here's a bunch of technical problems that we don't know the answer to. If you give answers or insights we haven't considered, then you're bringing value to the team (e.g. git/PR policy, microservices, feature flagging, localization, security)
Both should be flagged and violate the guidelines.
"Don't post generated comments or AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans.
If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did."
This jumped out at me right away too. What happened to the days when a dedicated manager would manage 8 reports? What now? AI is going to double the communication bandwidth with these reports and further double the free time they have?
I do think the most efficient form of team is a "cell" of three people. One is a little unstable.
> What happened to the days when a dedicated manager would manage 8 reports?
Cheap money went away which caused companies to start asking hard questions about productivity and how much those dedicated managers were contributing.
Then there's the convenient answer of "AI made me do it", to which investors are somehow really empathetic... feels like every company CEO is operating on the mindset of "its gonna hit the fan any moment now", except they're the ones holding the fan.
Capitalism and the free market wasn't built for our economy. It was built for scarcity, not abundance. The idea was that competition would lower prices to the level of cost. This works for the price of iron or textiles, but since software, we've seen prices set to even lower than costs (pirated DVDs, open source).
It broke a long time ago, back in the modern industrial-agricultural revolution. People say communism is worse, but the problem is that communism was a response to capitalism. When communist revolutions trigger, then the higher ups decide that maybe all we need is a patch instead of a rewrite, and start tightening laws. But these are just patches. Things like ad-driven models and consulting on open source are patches as well.
Capitalism will continue to break every time there is an industrial revolution. Robots took jobs but added a few, computers added plenty of jobs, but with AI we might not be so lucky.
>> People say communism is worse, but the problem is that communism was a response to capitalism.
Capitalism of a sort, but not how we understand it today. If we're talking about the Russian revolution of 1917 that wasn't really "capitalism" as we would describe it today. It was closer to feudalism with a very small aristocracy controlling all the resources, while treating the "workers" with extreme brutality.
Even then it's arguable that the 1st world war was the spark that made the revolution possible. Partly because the extensive mobilization allowed for "worker leaders" to become visible (ie at NCO levels) while at the same time swelling the army numbers (and it was those conscripted army folk that provided the back-bone to the revolution itself.)
While it's fair to say "the workers had no access to capital" - and that was certainly a part of the problem - the underlying factor was the aristocratic system.
Bear in mind that Russia at the time was still very much in the "monarchy" stage, unlike France (French Revolution) or the UK (English Civil War) which are much clearer as being "against the monarchy". The Russian revolution lead to Communism (more accurately described as Authoritarianism) than some form of elected parliament. (The English and French systems had elections, but voting was limited in lots of ways.)
The problem with Communism was less about the political ideals, and more about implementation. China is communist today, and doing really well. But the system is unlike Leninism or Stalinism. (Or indeed different to Mao's China.) "Communism" works best when there is a lot of local control and less central control. Central control (Lenin, Stalin et al) failed for much the same reason the Tsars failed - too few people benefiting from the system as a whole.
Ironically what we're seeing now (in the US) is the consolidation of wealth to the few. The tendency to authoritarianism in govt. I'm not sure that the US form of Capitalism (as we see it today) is "worker friendly".
I would suggest that Europe is on a better path - a broad mix of democracy (ie multi-party voting), socialism (an understanding that a society does better when looking after the bottom) and capitalism (the ability to start your own business, make profits and so on.) Allowing, but then tempering, the rampant greed for ever larger piles of money, and social control, seems like a win.
For impact most likely. Dynamic pricing is core to the budget airline industry and such a law would hurt them more, especially with the thin margins. It happens with games too, but the price of games doesn't affect how someone eats.
My and my partner made an app where you stare at yourself in the mirror for 5-30 minutes. You'd record how you feel after.
It's not "scientifically proven" to work but it's quantifiable that there's a clear improvement. We tried to scientifically prove it - the scientists were incredibly offended, lol.
So it can't be proven, but there's data. We started quantifying it because corporations asked for data. Nobody wants to buy an app where you record yourself staring at a mirror, so we don't charge for that. We end up charging for the data reporting, anonymization, data handling, etc.
There's some interesting data, like we find people who are highly stressed will get all kinds of diarrhea, vomiting, and angry if they crank it up to 30 minutes. So we designed it to start at 5 min/day for a week, then 10, then 15, slowly up to 30.
Staring at a mirror is a little different to staring at a wall, but I'd imagine the results are similar.
Make this thing that would be impossible without AI. The test is to see if you actually architect it properly and understand principles of how things connect together.
Make this thing that would be impossible without AI. Now make these modifications without any AI.
Make this thing. You may use low quality AI like Composer 3 or none at all, but if you use none, we'll probably think of you as some kind of boomer.
Here's a bunch of technical problems that we don't know the answer to. If you give answers or insights we haven't considered, then you're bringing value to the team (e.g. git/PR policy, microservices, feature flagging, localization, security)
reply