This almost works, except instead imagine that the manager has been begging for another manager or three to help take over some of their workload because they're completely swamped, and their repeated requests for backups and redundancy have been being dismissed for years due to budget constraints.

I take issue with it just because the kind of answer you'll get from an LLM is going to be high on word count, short on information, and likely to be inaccurate to boot. Remember the people who got in trouble because they used chatGPT to write court docs for them and it started citing non-existent cases? I've even seen LLMs that were specifically trained on a dataset (e.g. a medium sized codebase) give confidently incorrect answers, even citing references to the codebase it was trained on, that didn't exist.

Sure you can say "well just check the work then" or "well humans could get it wrong too", except that the issue is just how confidently incorrect LLMs can be. If a human states "this thing is this way, here's the source", we can often take it for granted that the source supports it (or at least exists and is relevant). When a human is wrong, they're usually wrong in a way that looks wrong. When an LLM is wrong, it tends to be wrong in a way that looks plausibly correct at first glance. The latter is a nightmare to sort through.

You're skipping over a whole lot of nuance there. Blocking the easy roads always has a cost, and it has to be worth the benefits. How much harder is it to circumvent? How much is the exposure increased? What's the cost to blocking and enforcing that block?

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty certain that blocking off a country from the internet would be trivially easy to circumvent for state level actors. Especially if they've got access to space. If space was out for some reason, there are plenty of other ways to sneak a data pipe (and even a really fat pipe) out of the border. Hell, even if we could project some kind of faraday cage over the entire country they could just dump a truckload of state agents into some other country and set up a troll-farm over there.

All you'd end up achieving is cutting off all of the "normal" people from the rest of the world while the state agents and well connected oligarchs ignore the ban. At that point you're ensuring that the people trapped in the country can only access whatever info their government feeds them, they can't publish anything to the open internet about the internal goings on, and you're still having to deal with all the shitheads in power causing problems.

Yes, but only if you show up with only the clothes on your back and expect to arrive at your destination dehydrated and miserable. Once you start adding on extra luxuries like a carry-on bag, being allowed a few sips of water in-flight, or not being stuffed in between the family on their way to be hosted on an episode of jerry springer, it starts to become comparable with any of the major carriers.

Hardly. People would do a whole lot less "hollering" if there wasn't well documented abuse of red light cameras as revenue generators, e.g. the duration of the yellow being shortened (sometimes to an illegal/unsafe level) shortly after the cameras were installed. They should also be required to have a wide angle shot (or better yet, video clip showing a few seconds before/after) of the intersection and surrounding traffic to give context, and have an actual human looking at it and deciding "yes, this is actually something this person should receive a ticket for"

The region it's operating in. Waymo cars are already locked in to their specific region. They see "hyper accurate map" as just another one of the cars sensors, i.e. as it is currently, if you moved one away from the heavily mapped parts of the bay area it was currently designed to operate in, its functionality and reliability would be severely degraded.

Judgemental language aside, human drivers exhibit a "body language" in how they drive. For example, if somebody is planning to change lanes, they'll often drift a bit as they check over their shoulder. If somebody is getting ready to stop in a city/downtown kind of environment, you'll often notice their speed reduce as their attention shifts and they scan for a place to stop.

My personal theory is that part of the reason that everybody thinks every other locales drivers are assholes is because different areas have different driving body language, and people misinterpret that. In rural areas, people following closer than 1 second per 10mph are seen as asshole tailgaters. In places with more crowded freeways, you're seen as the asshole for not using that space efficiently if you tried to keep that following distance (plus you'd constantly have people cutting in front of you until you were doing 30 in a 65). There are plenty of other unspoken things like usage and duration of turn signals, when and how violently brakes are applied, etc.

Programming in this kind of body language would make the waymos safer around the other human drivers, but since we're talking silicon valley software developers, half of which probably don't even drive and all of whom are probably on the spectrum, I'd be surprised if they're even aware of it.

What you describe is called price gouging, not surge pricing. It's a shitty thing to do, and it's explicitly illegal in quite a few states. The proper way to handle that kind of panic buying would be to set purchase limits.

I don't think you quite understand how to spell quit.

With the way disney treats their artists and park workers, and how predatory their pricing models are, I'm honestly surprised they're not the liberal boogeyman also.

What? Pretty much anything with an LLM these days screams "cult"

I don't necessarily disagree that serving size is a useless unit, but that's also why they put actual numbers right underneath it defining what a "serving" is.

I went from working at a shitty company to working at an amazing company and find myself asking the same question, but rhetorically. It's hard because you can describe what both are doing by using the same words in the same order, but it's as if the tone or the reasons behind it are all wrong at the shitty company. Think how wildly different the statement "you look good today" could be meant and/or interpreted depending on tone of voice, relationship between the speaker and listener, and general context. Say it to your significant other and maybe it's a good thing (or maybe they're in a bad mood and they take it as sarcasm and now it's a bad thing). Say it to a subordinate at work and maybe it's mildly inappropriate. Say it to a stranger while drunkenly looming over them and after having missed several previous rebuffs and it's going to get you maced.

Couldn't agree more, but then this necessitates competent upper management, and if they had been competent they probably wouldn't have gotten the middle management problem.

From my experience working at a company that started out great and then went to shit over the course of about 10 years, the incompetence starts at the top and works its way down until the whole thing is just rotten all the way through. By the time it reaches the guys on the front lines it's too late to be saved.

This assumes competent management that could make good selections during a layoff though. If your middle management is incompetent and doesn't have a good feel for who's performing and who isn't, this kind of forced attrition isn't much worse than middle management laying off the people who don't suck up to them enough.