> look to send them abroad to prevent domestic unrest
Great, now other countries can import and share that domestic social unrest from the oversupply of frustrated reproductive age celibate males, all in the name of making GDP number go up. Lovely.
Surely using hindsight of documented history and well researched human behavior science, we can't already predict this will lead to a rise in political far right extremism, and everyone will be shocked as if it will suddenly come out of nowhere, and then the local males will exclusively be to blame for it, leading to further frustration, radicalisation and disenfranchisement. Surely this is not EXACTLY what's gonna happen.
India gets a metric fuckload of money back in remittances every year. Debatable if that's actually worth the brain drain, but then there's also the angle of having your young people learn from the rest of the world and return with new skills. I lean more towards the remittances though.
I have seen a lot of smart people in thrall of ideologies that could be used to manipulate them left and right at will. Meanwhile, true morons tend to be unpredictably chaotic.
Someone spending 40 hours drawing a nude is not equivalent to someone saying take this photo and make them naked and having a naked photo in 4 seconds.
Only one of these is easily preventable with guardrails.
Is Grok simply a tool, or is it itself an agent of the creative process? If I told an art intern to create CSAM, he does, and then I publish it, who's culpable? Me? The intern? Both of us? I don't expect you to answer the question--it's not going to be a simple answer, and it's probably going to involve the courts very soon.
So, if that "software program" had a traditional button UI, a button said "Create CSAM," and the user pushed it, the program's creator is not culpable at all for providing that functionality?
I would agree with this if Grok's interface was "put a pixel there, put a line there, now fill this color there" like Photoshop. But it's not. Generative AI is actively assisting users to perform the specific task described and its programming is participating in that task. It's not just generically placing colors on the screen where the user is pointing.
It creates a lot of value though. You may not see it but it exists. People so easily forget what you he financial systems looked like historically. Everything from having fluid loans of all type that don’t discriminate, to ipos, it’s easy to sell a business or to buy one. If I am buying stock it’s never been easier and modern spreads are some of the lowest in history.
While I welcome the places where it is bringing value, I’m more worried about all the places it’s being shoehorned in that are a waste of money, fueling the bubble. The blast radius is going to be spectacular.
That is just absurd. You are stuck in your head if you genuinely think that is true. Reminds me of some of the “10x engineers” I have worked with in the past that were so arrogant they ignored reality.
In his defence, Monkey Island is Ron’s creation and the ending is probably what he always intended. It felt like a fitting conclusion to me that neatly tied a bow on the whole saga.
I believe that, as far as "The Secret" goes, this is what he always intended. The idea had been floating around forums for quite a while and I have no objections to that.
Having said that, RtMI feels like Ron Gilbert telling me to go away and do something else with my life. The world is falling apart, the game characters don't care, the ending itself gives up on you and, in case you didn't get it, there's a letter afterwards from Ron Gilbert himself telling you that, if you try to recapture the past, "you'll sort of get what [you] want but it won't be what [you] expected".
As far as I'm concerned, I would have preferred it if he hadn't made the game at all.
I thought the ending was lovely as well. We get sincerity, but seems some people can't go to sleep without an epic boss fight and some dramatic reveal of the "secret". This was the better way to do it and for me the best point and click ever made.
So instead you get a sophomoric meta-ending that has absolutely no originality and shits on decades of storytelling? The ending is trash and an insult to the fans' intelligence because the author can't accept he's "just" writing adventure fiction, as if that's beneath him and instead needs to make some philosophical point about the nature of aging, thereby completely stepping out of his skill set. Go read Proust, Ron Gilbert, and leave that silly ambition to rest.
My issue with it was not even the end, but everything else: it felt like a nostalgia tour and retreading of old ideas. Even the themes of the soundtrack were based off the originals. I quit a couple hours in; I wanted a new Monkey Island story, all I got was a game for people that simply wanted to relive their youth.
This is the problem. Adults thinking children are useless. Don't you remember being a kid?
Whenever there's a blocker (one case from my childhood was how to use net send to broadcast profanity across the network), someone will figure it out, and by the end of the day EVERYONE knows.
Using vscode wasn't a red flag, using a different IDE was just a green flag. Everyone uses vscode, I wouldn't hold it against anyone for doing so, especially not a junior. But picking a different tool exhibits a unique level of interest in the job and our tools, and a different mindset. Those are pluses for me.
Nobody was rejected because they used windows. It just so happens that none of the windows folks got past problem 1 of 3 (as in, they ran out of time without solving).
Edit: I'm remembering now, one of the windows folks did get to the end of the interview, and they were the first person I recommended actually, so it's not like it was a deciding factor, just something that I'd see and go "hm" about.
reading a love letter to hitler. What? It doesn't say anything about the skin color?
> Tommy Robinson, is a British anti-Islam campaigner and one of the UK's most prominent far-right activists with a history of criminal convictions. [0]
> That was then. Now, I wouldn't dream of it. London is no longer the city I was infatuated with in the late '90s and early 2000s. Chiefly because it's no longer full of native Brits. In 2000, more than sixty percent of the city were native Brits. By 2024, that had dropped to about a third. A statistic as evident as day when you walk the streets of London now.
the "no longer full of native Brits" is a link to an article on the ethnic makeup of London. The cite only makes sense as support for his argument if he means white native Brits.
I know it feels like everyone is in tech, but, in fact, there's no evidence for that here:
After I graduated, I had a brief stint as a Nursing Home Administrator until David Jr. was born, then stayed home and hatched a couple more pups over the next few years. In 2000, I formally joined the family real estate business and worked there until I was diagnosed… with ALS (I kept working through my long battle with cancer 12 years ago) … Yikes!! Cancer…THEN ALS. Ugh, Honestly, you can’t make this stuff up! I am very proud of the book I wrote about my journey through cancer. Check it out, it’s called “F Off Cancer” by Linda Brossi Murphy.
reply