Isn't the digital display of artwork, it's keeping advertisements out of the display.

... when Windows tried to prevent ransomware from running on your computer, rather than installing the ransomware as part of the default OS.

A better solution is to do the same thing that should be done with stock trading: Require government officials (and their family members) who might have access to insider information to publish their trades in advance. The advance notice wouldn't even have to be large if the information was published electronically in a feed that could easily be monitored by other investors and the press. A couple of business days, maybe less. This should apply to all securities, real-estate purchases, predictions, etc., anything people speculate on. Not only would this highlight possible insider trading, it would erase most of the potential benefit of trading on inside information. It wouldn't harm government officials' legitimate investment opportunities.

It would still be possible for officials to pass tips to friends who are outside the group required to disclose their trades in advance, of course. It's ultimately very hard to stop that sort of thing, assuming the friends stay loyal, but that's a risky bet. Especially since the sort of friend who would engage in such illicit trading is probably the sort who might end up in some other sort of trouble with the law, and might find it convenient to flip on their buddy.

So what you're saying is your average American is a fucking moron.

I can get behind that.

This was an inevitability, and not just because of the tightening job market. The real gasoline dumped on the tire-fire of employment (especially tech employment) in the United States is AI. It used to be that, when I posed a job opening, I got maybe 100 applications over the course of a few weeks from people who moderately embellished their resumes. And that's because the conventional wisdom was to spend the time to put together a really class-A application to the jobs that were the best fit for you.

But AI has changed the math.

Now the hours-long process of fine-tuning your resume to fit a job description and crafting a nice cover letter to go with it are the work of a click or two. Candidates have every reason in the world to apply to as many jobs as they can. It's a classic prisoners dilemma; sure, everyone else is worse off if the HR departments are flooded but if everyone else does it and you don't, you're never going to land a job.

And so the firehose opens and the job ad that used to get me 100 resumes over the course of a month gets me 1,000 resumes over the course of an hour.

And, just for funsies, most of them are wildly unqualified. AI is happy to lie on your resume for you and getting it not to do that is hard. So now not only do I have a ton of resumes to go through, I have a crisis of trust on my hands. Who, out of all of these applicants, are telling the truth and who's basically echoing the job-ad back to me?

In that situation, it makes a ton of sense to lean back on trust relationships. Harvard, MIT, Stanford, etc have reputations to uphold. I can count on them to police their candidates. My local university wants to maintain a good relationship with area businesses; if their graduates are BSing me in their resumes I can meet the head of their career center for coffee and get them to deal with it.

There is no solution here. The employment market is a feedback loop. The bigger the applicant:job ratio grows the harder it is for employers to adequately consider and respond to applications, turning the application process into something more akin to a lottery ticket than a proper application. The more converting an application to a job feels like random chance the more incentivized applicants are to prioritize quantity over quality, driving the ratio ever higher.

Nothing short of a sudden and profound cratering of the unemployment rate is going to slow this arms race. This isn't the end state of the market; it's going to get worse before it gets better.

I've done quite of work on Calc, and never had much of a problem. It's not a one-to-one match with Excel, but I've had few issues. I don't really use Powerpoint or Impress, save to view presentations, and haven't seen any significant issues.

I have used Writer *a lot* (I've written a novel and several proposals and projects). Once I got it used to it, I actually prefer the way I can work styles in Writer to Word, and every time I'm forced back into using Word, I find it just a huge pain in the ass. In general it doesn't molest docx files too much (unlike Google Docs which horribly mutilates styles).

I'm pretty much using LO full time at work now, and only use Word and Excel when I log on our Terminal Services server. I'm not sure I'd ever be brave enough to completely abandon Office, but I'm definitely not looking at further re-entrenching myself.

If it's the principle that's driving the decisions, not the affluence of the beneficiaries, across a sufficiently-large set of cases we'd expect to find no correlation between the political leanings of the justices and their votes benefiting wealthy vs poor people. Which is what the article said happened for many decades.

Unless, of course, the principle being applied is "Who benefits?"

It's worth pointing out that although gtall framed it as the Republicans siding with the wealthy, it's equally true that the Democrats are siding with the poor. Both sides are inordinately focused on who benefits.

His advisors told him that he wouldn't be able to get a cut. Not even a measly 5%.

I used HP/UX as a development platform in the mid-90s, cross-compiling to m68k boards running pSOS and VxWorks. It was a little weird, but rock solid, utterly reliable, as were the HP workstations it ran on.

The data shows that college improves your options and your income now. Who cares what effect it had 50 years ago?

But... shouldn't they? I graduated from college in 2002. Today I run software development teams that build cloud hosted machine learning models pretty much none of which was a thing in 2002. Even if we want to imagine that college is essentially a trade school but with ivy and columns, the fact remains that your average college graduate's degree far outlives the value of most of what they're taught unless they're majoring in history.

We certainly want people to exit college with the skills they need to either enter the workforce or grad school, but those skills could be aquired for a whole heck of a lot less time and money than a four-year-degree. The college degree is about critical thinking skills; managing complexity; proving a capability for self education and improvement; etc. Or it should be, anyway.

That's funny. My EV is the vehicle of choice for long trips. Fuel costs are much lower than my ICEV, and long-distance travel makes that more important, not less.