Teachers can weaponize CPS reports and absolutely cause legal problems. I know someone who dealt with that. Their kid's doctor put the kid on an ADHD medicine, he had a bad reaction to it, and then the doctor told the mother to immediately discontinue it.
The teacher was annoyed the kid was kind of disruptive and so filed a report that the mom had committed "medical neglect" for not giving her son the meds.
She had to take off work and deal with random CPS visits until they were satisfied.
This is a kid with good grades who can read multiple grade levels higher and who is most likely bored in class. I think he was in the first grade at the time
I don't know what the consequences of that are or could have been but it raised my eyebrows
I agree with this. I've been writing a new internal framework at work and migrating consumers of the old framework to the new one.
I had strong principles at the outset of the project and migrated a few consumers by hand, which gave me confidence that it would work. The overall migration is large and expensive enough that it has been deferred for nearly a decade. Bringing down the cost of that migration made me turn to AI to accelerate it.
I found that it was OK at the more mechanical and straightforward cases, which are 80% of the use cases, to be fair. The remaining 20% need changes to the framework. Most of them need very small changes, such as an extra field in an API, but one or two require a partial conceptual redesign.
To over simplify the problem, the backend for one system can generate certain data in 99% of cases. In a few critical cases, it logically cannot, and that data must be reported to it. Some important optimizations were made with the assumption that this would be impossible.
The AI tooling didn't (yet) detect this scenario and happily added migration logic assuming it would work properly.
Now, because of how this is being rolled out, this wasn't a production bug or anything (yet). However, asking the right questions to partner teams revealed it and unearthed that some others were going to need it as well.
Ultimately, it isn't a big problem to solve in a way that will mostly satisfy everyone, but it would have been a big problem without a human deeper in the weeds.
Over time, this may change. Validation tooling I built may make a future migration of this kind easier to vibe code even if AI functionality doesn't continue to improve. Smarter models with more context will eventually learn these problems in more and more cases.
The code it generates still oscilates between beautiful and broken (or both!) so for now my artistic sensibilities make me keep a close eye on it. I think of the depressed robot from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy as the intelligence behind it. Maybe one day it'll be trustworthy
As one of those supposedly higher level ICs, I agree entirely with the assessment.
A decade or so ago, the high level ICs I interacted with were much more technical.
They were the kind who would perhaps not invent truly novel things--but plenty did in the right companies--but they had mastered their domains and genuinely solved thorny problems that others struggled with.
Nowadays, they are more political and less involved. I have met many that do not code or barely code. I've been in months of meetings to decide to do something fairly obvious just to ensure "alignment" even though no parties actually disagreed, just wanted to nitpick minor details that could just be a comment on a PR.
I had a Southern accent and had to train it out because my northern colleagues kept making fun of it. I noticed that I was perceived as "smarter" without it. My story is not exactly uncommon and there are a bunch of famous people (e.g. Stephen Colbert) who did the same thing.
Pulling weeds by hand works for a lot of weeds and is the most environmentally friendly solution where possible. It's what I've done, for the most part.
I will say for some weed species that can be ineffective or counterproductive, unfortunately, and for those a chemical (or other) solution may be in order.
Weeds can also be a sign of a potential problem, such as poor drainage, a leak, etc.
Nutsedge is an example of that. As I recall, pulling it out results in it sending more shoots up if you don't get the nut (which can be feet underground).
At that point, you have to continuously pull weeds on a daily (or multiple times daily) basis in order for it to use up more energy growing than it generates.
It likes water, so if it's there, it might be because there's standing water from rain.
I dug up a raised flower bed to get rid of it once. Nuts were absolutely everywhere because of poor drainage. I had to go down 2 feet I think to get them all, I replaced the bottom layers of impermeable clay soil with something that drained, along with a drain pipe or two.
Now the sedge is gone, the risk of foundation damage from being too wet is gone, and no chemicals were required.
> The only other app I noticed doing this is Caviar.
DoorDash does have a percentage fee. For me it shows "free" delivery and taxes and fees. Tap on taxes and fees and there's a service fee.
I have a Dashpass, so my service fee is cheaper, but I think it's 11% without the pass based on looking at some of my past orders.
I just tested a couple restaurants that are on both Uber Eats and DoorDash and it's pretty mixed in terms of cost. For some reason the delivery fees are really high on DoorDash for some restaurants, but for others they are "free" and the lower service fee tilts things in their favor.
Sometimes the price of the items themselves is different.
>Fedex works because people near you also need packages.
That's exactly my point. The more people who need packages around you, the less it costs to deliver a package specifically to you. Going off the grid in remote corners sounds great, but part of the reason we moved to cities is because sharing infrastructure costs makes things more efficient.
>Also, the US population density is ~100 people per square mile so chances are good someone within 1 mile of you also needs a package today.
The US's population density is 100 people / square mile, but that doesn't tell you the full story. We don't live all over America, we are clustered into cities and towns, mostly on the coasts. There's a lot of desert and Alaskan wilderness with no one around bringing down the average. NYC alone is ~6% of the US population. The Northeast megalopolis is ~17% on ~2% of the land.
>I suspect you could scale the 'off grid' lifestyle to around 1/2 the US population without many issues.
As you spread out the population, the cost of FedEx deliveries is going to grow. Now you can drop off goods in a city via a highly efficient train, have that switched to a truck, and have it delivered to the end customer.
If everyone is off the grid in the wilderness, that train becomes a lot less useful to deliver goods. Now you've got to reach a larger area to serve the same number of people.
> Web + Fedex means a lot of jobs can be done remotely
A lot of jobs can be done remotely, but that doesn't mean they could be done remotely without cost. Many people are less efficient when working remotely. I find communication to be much harder when remote than when in person, especially as issues get more complex.
The teacher was annoyed the kid was kind of disruptive and so filed a report that the mom had committed "medical neglect" for not giving her son the meds.
She had to take off work and deal with random CPS visits until they were satisfied.
This is a kid with good grades who can read multiple grade levels higher and who is most likely bored in class. I think he was in the first grade at the time
I don't know what the consequences of that are or could have been but it raised my eyebrows