Many fields are grappling with the question, "will AI take my job?"

I think a more reasonable response is one I've seen in, for example, the medical profession:

"Langlotz concluded that “Will A.I. replace radiologists?” is “the wrong question.” Instead, he wrote, “The right answer is: Radiologists who use A.I. will replace radiologists who don’t.”"
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2022%2F1...

The same is probably true for software engineers. We can't just hand over the whole task to a machine, but we can definitely get some productivity boosts by having code assistants handy to generate starting point code and same a lot of time.

Back in the mid-nineties, when they were still Anderson Consulting, I *was* one of them. All of the parent's post are pretty accurate. Some of my colleagues were working 90+ hours when deadlines were near.

Unfortunately, the partners would take advantage of the green beans, who were bright about the work itself, but clueless about their own value and career development. Even with all that, it was a great learning experience, and I have lasting friendships with colleagues from that time.

Would I hire them to work for my hypothetical company? Well, the alternative of trying to do it all in house may not be an effective option. I would consider working with them, just I would be very careful about how the contract works around scenarios like the original story.

This is an observational study, not a clinical trial. That is a very weak form of research.

If it was a clinical trial, we would have a control group vs a test group, where the only different is the amount of cholesterol or eggs consumed. Because this is is an observational study, there would be many other differences in diet and lifestyle.

For example: some people are more likely to follow the guidelines for diet and lifestyle than others. One of those guidelines is "eat less eggs", and others would be "eat less of various other unhealthy things" and "get more exercise". As a result, that group would be healthier, but it may be completely unrelated to the eggs consumed. In other words, it is association, not causation. The egg consumption and the CVD percentages may not be causally related to each other, but may be causally linked to another factor "follows mainstream guidelines".

Nice speech. Would you have given the same if he had asked for Alpha Centauri by next Tuesday? Because setting foot on Mars by 2020 is about as likely

Border security *is* important. But a wall doesn't help that much to stop illegal immigration. Because more of them are arriving by plane and overstaying their visas, than are arriving by foot. Source: http://cmsny.org/publications/...

I want to see the law enforced when it comes to illegal immigrants. But I don't want MY TAX DOLLARS spent on a waste of money like a wall. And by the way it's not 5 billion, it's more than that, eg projected to be at least $21.6 billion over three and a half years (same source).

Also, the number of Mexican unauthorized immigrants declined since 2007. Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fac... So why this should be the most important issue right now, worth shutting down the government for? Answer: Trump's ego.

And as a final irony, the shutdown itself has resulted in immigration agents being furloughed, so actual number of deportations is down now. Good job Trump.

Hey, great examples of
1. the "tu quoque" fallacy. Latin for “you too,” is also called the “appeal to hypocrisy” because it distracts from the argument by pointing out hypocrisy in the opponent. This tactic doesn’t solve the problem, or prove one’s point, because even hypocrites can tell the truth.
2. A “red herring” is a distraction from the argument typically with some sentiment that seems to be relevant but isn’t really on-topic.

> Media has been devolving into internet clickbait for some time

And why is that? Because people click on it.
If we want to know who the problem is, we should look in the mirror.

What Rosenstein says: "There is no allegation in this indictment that any American had any knowledge."

What Rosenstein thinks: "Please don't fire me, please don't fire me, please don't fire me ..."

> "No Americans involved who knew what was going on or that Russians where involved" is the key thing I took away from it.

If you were on the Titanic and heard of the iceberg, I think you would be saying:

"No boats have sunk so far" is the key thing I took away from it.

No doubt they were trying to sow unrest. However, if you're saying they didn't care which candidate won, that is bullshit.

The indictment says the Russians' efforts included "supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaging Hillary Clinton,".

It fits too, as it is well known Putin hated Clinton.

Listen, whether you like Trump or not, isn't it important to face facts and protect the COUNTRY from this kind of thing?

> Yes, of course Bitcoin is a scam.

Why exactly?

I think a scam means it claims one thing, but reality is another.

Madoff was a scam for example, where the claim is that he had some brilliant proprietary method that was generating actual returns on the investments. In reality the new investments were funding the expenditures and withdrawals of the old investments.

What exact claim is being made about bitcoin, that is false?

You might say, the claim that one bitcoin is worth $10000 is a claim, and you don't think it's true. But the definition of price is what someone else will pay for it, and there are people who will pay that right now.

If you mean scam in the broader sense, of something where you might lose money if you invest in it - you could say that about any investment.

> There are tons more fun ones, like:
> It's crystal-clear this is just 15k+ random people signing a feel-good petition

It's ok everyone, it's ok! Relax. Turns out not all the 15000 people are climate scientists. Therefore we can all just take it easy, safe in the knowledge that the earth is fine, and we can go back to consuming resources like there no tomorrow.

> It's crystal-clear this is just 15k+ random people signing a feel-good petition. Any claim that these signatories are "scientists" in general, much less ones in appropriate fields to make authoritative comments about the subject matter, is unadulterated horseshit.

I call bullshit on your horseshit. Scanning the list, there's a lot of PHD's, professors - that sounds like scientists to me. Also re field of study, the vast majority of them look like they are natural sciences, which is totally appropriate. Sure there are some that don't list the field or the level, or else list something which is in an unrelated field, but that seems like it's pretty rare in the list actually.

If you did filter the list down to just those with post-graduate qualififations, and also in natural sciences, at rough glance it seems like the list would still have at least 10000 people. Why is the list with extra people any less convincing?

Then again, I'm guessing in your case either list would still not be convincing.

"More than Two Thirds of Millennials Say They'd Rather Own Stocks Than Bitcoin"

but that would imply the opposite idea, rather than the preconceived notion that the authors wanted you to think.

The media is full of that kind of thing: sensationalizing the headline to grab attention, whereas if you really think about the information it's not so interesting.

It would be nice if slashdot editors didn't get sucked in and pass these kinds of things onto us though.

That's ridiculous. By that logic, smaller countries like New Zealand and Australia that have high per-person emissions but low absolute emissions because of low populations, should be given a free ride?

You could define any arbitrary sub-division to support a given position. For example, California total emissions would be way more than Rhode Island, but that is completely meaningless because the populations are so different. Should we apply much stricter reductions to the californians more than the rhode islanders? No one would advocate that, but that is similar to the approach of viewing China vs USA on total emissions.

In terms of managing the effect people have on the environment, it makes much more sense to compare the per capita emissions of those regions (or any regions), because it relates closely to what people *need* to be using and emitting, because requirements are also per person.

If we want to work out how much people should pay for government services (aka taxes), are the rates based on the the total contributions of the two regions, or is it per person?

You're right that nature doesn't care about how we measure. In that sense, the choice to measure in these groupings we call "nations" is completely arbitrary and counter productive. Nature doesn't know about China or USA, it's knows about 7 biliion people that are all contributing to the problem. Just some people are contributing more than others.

> Really. Is it that hard?

No, it's not. There are some examples out there. So if you're asking for information, here you go:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F1...

http://www.philly.com/philly/n...

What is that hard though, is to understand why your comment got modded insightful.

If you're demanding no less than the full set of ads involved: it's natural to expect the tech firms involved would hold back, because the whole thing is very embarrassing for them.

> and certainly not any journalist's outright lies about this

Aha, herein lies a big part of the problem. Trump has convinced you that "the media" is the enemy, it's all fake news. That is one of the steps that autocrats take, to discredit a free and open press, to remove one of the points of accountability on them.