100% agree! And I'm pretty sure the Linux community had many more (hardware) KVM users than the general population. Kernel-based virtualization should've been abbreviated KbVM.
Or, if you don't want to fight this battle in lieu of other tenants, _threaten_ to sue to either force the agency to reveal the name and address of the landlord, or ideally, have them put pressure on the landlord to return the security deposit.
I'm already suing over the security deposit - that's actually an open and shut case. In this case it's not clear that I actually suffered any personal damage so it's not immediately clear whether I have standing in a civil suit.
Did you ask a lawyer-- any lawyer-- before writing the sentence surrounding this word?
I assume the answer is yes. But I also think I remember reading a blog by you where you wasted hours attempting to reverse-engineer some hardware before finally sending it the help flag.
Roma or Romani people, commonly known in Europe as gypsies, are not the same as Romanian people, although there is a large population there. You'll have to reference Wikipedia for a deeper dive.
Is your opinion about the latter because the self-taught may not stay on task?
As a self-taught person on a lot of different matters, I find myself exploring rabbit holes that expand my knowledge, but don't progress the task I originally started doing.
My reading is that the statement wasn't an opinion either way, rather it was questioning whether survivorship bias needs to be accounted for.
To your point though, I think it doesn't matter so long as you've learned to deliver business value. Application of broad and diverse skills may deliver value at a start-up for example, but wouldn't get too far at a ticket shop.
The point I was raising is that I don't think it's the self taught angle itself that is the causal factor. As an example, there's lots of things I'm self taught at but also terrible.
However, someone who already has the talent to be really good at something and who has the inner drive and motivation to push themselves is someone who is likely to excel. So if you find someone who is excellent at something and self taught, it's not a surprise. They probably combined natural talent with a strong work ethic, and lots of exploration of the entire search space.
I like the Battlestar Galactica theory for this - a group of humans and human-Cylon hybrids bred with the early Neanderthals in different regions of the world.
"do not work for me", I believe, is the key message here. I think a lot of AI companies have crafted their tools such that adoption has increased as the tools and the output got better. But there will always be a few stragglers, non-normative types, or situations where the AI agent is just not suitable.
Maybe, but there's also some evidence that AI coding tools aren't making anyone more productive. One study from last year found that there was no increase in developer velocity but a dramatic increase in bugs.[1] Granted, the technology has advanced since this study, but many of the fundamental issues of LLM unreliability remain. Additionally, a recent study has highlighted the significant cognitive costs associated with offloading problem-solving onto LLMs, revealing that individuals who do so develop significantly weaker neural connectivity than those who don't [2].
It's very possible that AI is literally making us less productive and dumber. Yet they are being pushed by subscription-peddling companies as if it is impossible to operate without them. I'm glad some people are calling it out.
Does somebody have a breakdown of an analyst's tasks and the percentage of time or money spent on each? Was it 50% data gathering, analysis, and projections, and 50% on making PowerPoints?
And anyone seen a McKinsey slide? How information dense are these things?
