If it's anywhere like where I work, the PM took it upon themselves to create the pr (along with 20 others) and did absolutely no testing because they're still under the impression that creating the pr is the work.
Either I'm stupid or [2] doesn't actually say anything at all. It starts with "in 2025..." And later talks about how estimates are expected to rise in 2023 and beyond while referencing data that ended in 1988. What am I missing?
"In 2025, it was estimated that over 163 million Americans were in some form of employment, while 4.16 percent of the total workforce was unemployed. This was the lowest unemployment rate since the 1950s, although these figures are expected to rise in 2023 and beyond."
That's not true at all. I worked with Palantir on a project for a prior company and they'd basically do whatever you wanted if you paid them. They had a very heavy data / "AI" presence and this was years ago. They certainly do not just do integrations.
Not only is SNAP already funded via emergency funds, the administration was just told to resume SNAP benefits and they are unsurprisingly doing the absolute minimum.
I picked one at random (NVKP, "Diseases and Vaccines: NVKP Survey Results") and, while I needed to translate it to read it, it's clear (and loud!) about not actually being a scientific study.
"We fully realize that a survey like this, even on purely scientific grounds, is flawed on all counts. The sample of children studied is far too small and unrepresentative, we didn't use control groups, and so on."
Turns out the NVKP roughly translates to "Dutch Organization for those critical towards vaccines."
I understand being skeptical about vaccines, but the skepticism needs to go both ways
This isn't just a list of highest murder rates per capita, it's got some population threshold- likely the 300k population on wikipedia- which boils down to there being like 5 Republicans that have managed to get elected in large cities.
I worked in a couple companies with the "agenda rule" but I worked at one company in particular where it was successful. In that company, leadership had a "no nonsense" type approach and it only took a few reply alls from leaders to meeting requests with "Where is the agenda?" for everyone to fall in line. It also helped that every meeting they sent out contained an agenda.
3 years ago people understood LLMs hallucinated and shouldn't be trusted with important tasks.
Somehow in the 3 years since then the mindset has shifted to "well it works well enough for X, Y, and Z, maybe I'll talk to gpt about my mental health." Which, to me, makes that article much more timely than if it had been released 3 years ago.
I think the likely reason is they have signed a non disparagement agreement and have no avenue to publicly criticize. Additionally, quietly criticizing just means quietly getting fired, then likely still being unable to publicly criticize.
The only way to say "hey, I don't think this is right and I don't agree with what's happening here" is to publicly resign and hope that alarm bells start going off in people's heads as to why many of these folks are resigning simultaneously.