It's not misleading or ambiguous. As a bystander to this discussion I'm shaking my head wondering whether you are doing this on purpose.
The vast majority of employed people have a single reasonable choice: to take their employers insurance. Anything else would be much more expensive because of lack of deduction. When they change jobs, they are again at the mercy of their (new) employer. Sure there are self-employed folks, and it's different for them, but this thread is not about them. And of course most people with their own insurance choice are self employed precisely because everybody else doesn't really have a choice, which is the whole point.
So, can we please stop with this smoke screen? My popcorn reserves are running low.
The EU has certainly its issues, no doubt about it. They need to be pointed out and addressed for sure. We are not in disagreement there.
But the flat out denial that EU is in principle a democratic system is just a too simplistic view. It tends to be mostly touted by those populists who ultimately would like to see an authocratic state with themselves in charge.
51.4% is a majority. You are free to disagree again, but that won't change the facts. You can just as easily disagree about gravity, evolution or climate change. Still won't change them.
Look, I don't like lots of things about the EU either. But the first step to being able to change sth is to acknowledge the facts. Claiming that von der Leyen wasn't democratically appointed is similar to Trump claiming the 2020 election was stolen. Not a great start.
Um, joining the EU is not the same as joining the Euro. They can keep doing this exact thing after joining the EU if they keep their currency just like a few others are doing.
No, this is mostly about fishing rights afaik. Britain also kept having issues on that front.
The European Parliament is elected every few years by citizens in all member states.
The European Commission is nominated by the European Council and and confirmed by the European Parliament.
The European Council consists of government officials from the member states where they have been chosen by national democratic processes.
It may be a little complicated, but it's all rooted in democratic processes. Please stick to the facts and keep the populistic anti-EU nationalistic propaganda to yourself.
(Every kid in the EU has been learning those basic facts in school for decades, making it surprising that this populist nonsense still catches on with so many people. I have an easier time forgivin non-EU folks, but even those should check the facts before claiming things.)
How widespread is LLM cheating during video interviews these days? Honest question.. How do people even do it? Let an LLM app listen in and suggest avenues of discussion and lists a bunch of facts on the side to spice things up?
Even if that's the case, isn't it just a matter of conversing in a way that the LLM can't easily follow?
I didn't claim anything about identifying writing. That's a strawman. I'm talking about humans talking to each other. Even if it's in a zoom call. Any interview process that doesn't include that is broken, and that's my claim. Echo chamber or not.
An interviewer is a "victim"? Maybe they should just, you know, speak to their interviewees. At least in 2024 that's hardly faked by an LLM. Therefore, if you are fooled, you cheaped out, and you are hardly a victim.
> At this point every remote internet checklist has to include checks for humanity,
I genuinely don't understand this requirement. Isn't an interview exactly that? It's a conversation pretending to be about a technical problem/question/challenge but in reality its purpose is to find out whether you click with the person and would want to work with them. If some ChatGPT text can trick you then your process is broken anyway and everybody joining your company can expect colleagues selected by this sub-par process.
As much as I'd like to support the overall sentiment of the article, or at least of the part that I actually read, the stats just don't pass the smell test.
> If you’re like one of the Americans surveyed by Reviews.org, this is one of 205 times today that you’ll be checking the device in your hand. To spare you opening the calculator app, that’s about once every five minutes you are awake or two and a half full months out of your year.
That just can't be true. First of all, it assumes 1 minute of spending at the phone, every of those 1 times per 5 minutes. Totalling 5 hours a day. On average for everybody. I'm sure there are some outliers like that, but there are tons of people out there for whom there is no way they would get even close.
To top it off, their sample was surely neither random nor representative. Of course you get heavily biased data if you are asking a tech crowd.
I stopped reading at this point. Garbage in, garbage put, i.e. whatever conclusion they were eventually drawing was not based on actual facts.
By default, return nonsense on all ports. But once a certain access sequence has been detected from a source IP, redirect traffic to a specific port from just that IP to your real service.
A useful trick is to then at least visually structure those 150 lines with comments that separate some blocks of functionality. Keeps the linear flow but makes it still easier to digest.
I contributed some code to a FOSS project recently which is written in C. In my 10 lines of contributions, 3 were a complex conditional. I'd have loved to do what the article suggests, with some intermediate booleans. But that C version would have required me to define those variables at the beginning of the function, a hundred lines earlier instead of just right there. No way that's going to fly, so now they will need to live with a complex conditional. It's one of those "modern language" features which C fanatics generally frown upon but which makes code much easier to read.
> We were told that a really smart developer had contributed to it. Lots of cool architectures, fancy libraries and trendy technologies were used. In other words, the author had created a high cognitive load for us.
Maybe that dev was "really smart" but then not very senior. Eventually the dev will hopefully use their smarts to make things so simple+dumb that the cognitive load when maintaining all that code is minimized.
One of the first things I try to drill into our junior devs. If the code looks smart, it needs to be fixed until it's really simple and straight forward. "That's impossible" some people might say. And that's why only the really smart folks can achieve it.