It can be both. It depends a lot on what kind product is being supported. Tech support usually doesn’t get abuse hurled at you by the callers but financial/medical it gets a lot dicier.
That said, I 100% left every call center job I had when I couldn’t put up with the bullshit middle manager crap anymore.
Nothing like having a “team leader” who knows literally nothing about the product who then has to come up with the most nitpicky garbage because they’re required to have criticism on call reviews. Meanwhile some other asshole starts yelling at him to yell at you for not being on the phones enough when the reason I’m not on the phone is because everyone on the team turns to me to ask questions to because, unlike our illustrious leader, I know what I’m doing.
I think ascribing humanity to to something that isn’t human is far more dehumanizing to actual real life humans than the alternative. You are taking away actual people’s humanity if you’re giving it to anything we call AI.
I am capable of distinguishing between talking to another person and talking to an LLM and I don’t think that is hard to do.
I don’t think there is any other word than delusional to describe someone who thinks LLMs should be treated as humans.
AI isn’t “from a different culture”. It doesn’t have culture. Any culture it does have is what it has sucked up from its training data and set in its weights.
There is no need to be “humane” to AI because it possess no humanity. It has no personhood at all. It can’t feel. You can’t be inhumane to something that is literally incapable of feeling.
A blade of grass has more humanity and is more deserving of respect than anything being referred to as AI does.
Aliens might not be received well but it’s going to depend a lot on how they show up.
AI is a “revolution” where the promise is that nobody will have to do meaningless work anymore ( I guess).
The only problem is right now basically everyone has to do work meaningful or “meaningless” because the dominant thinking requires it for human survival. Weird how most people aren’t happy for the thing that is pitched to take away the meager scraps they get under the current regime.
I agree by the way that a one line comment of “show your work” is not useful or constructive, much like your original one line comment. (I don’t mean that as a slam against you either, I appreciate that you actually followed up with additional information)
I disagree that I’m not responding to your actual argument and am specifically asking you to clarify the terms of what “worse off” means so that I can address it with more specificity or at least understand what you’re saying.
I still think citing an opinion poll to argue that people are happy with their employer insurance while also making an argument about how opinion polling is deeply flawed is a very strange way to back up your own argument.
I have yet to actually hear anything that supports the idea that people with employer provided insurance will be worse off because of M4A other than you saying they the way the costs would be less obscured means people would be more upset. This wasn’t even an argument about the real cost of M4A vs Prost insurance, it was just a statement saying that the money looks different.
Well you can’t prove a negative so I’m not sure how useful a theoretical one line comment about a CEO saying his insurances means we need M4A would be received.
Regardless if you’re not willing to support your argument that’s fine, but at the same time if you’re going to put something out there and and then be upset if other people being skeptical of your skepticism then I don’t know what to tell you.
I still don’t really see how anything you’ve offered necessarily means people who currently have employer provided private insurance plans will be worse off. I especially don’t see it because people with incomes like you proposed the median income for households with employer provided insurance plans often have employer provided private insurance plans in countries that also have a public health system.
I guess maybe here is the meat of it and what matters. How are you defining worse off? Are you defining it based on quality of care/outcomes or in a financial sense? Either way seems pretty speculative to me but I’d be interested to know which (or both) of those you think makes them worse off.
Sorry but I reject this thinking. You’re essentially saying that Medicare for all is bad because it’ll seem to cost more because the way the money works isn’t obscured so people will be mad and that it has to be worse than their existing policies.
I’m still not seeing how or why it has to be worse. This just seems like an assumption you’re making. Also sure the exact existing policy you have won’t be available by definition because the system has entirely changed but once again if you want private insurance you will still be able to get it, as is the case in other countries with socialized medicine.
Also really don’t see why you would say that the polls that say people want socialized medicine are rigged and not-representative but the polls that you’re saying show that most people with private insurance are happy with it are accurate. Not really sure how that stands to reason.
I really feel like the argument you’re making here boils down to M4A is bad because it has to be worse and people who have private insurance now are happy with their plans and could only have them replaced with something that would be worse. Or even more simply: Change is scary so I guess we’re stuck with the current system and actually people like it so don’t rock the boat.
Also the median income for someone with employer provided healthcare is 120K? I’m going to need some data on that. Also you’re then cutting out everyone with marketplace insurance which is 24 million people.
More people are poised to lose Medicaid and my marketplace insurance plan, if I chose to accept it for next year was going to cost me 6X for the monthly premiums and require co-pays I don’t have before as well as much larger copays for ones I did.
I’m going to be completely honest. I don’t care if people making 120K/year are upset if their visible cost for healthcare is more obvious or not. From 2024 census data 41.2% of households made above 100K annually. That number becomes roughly 33% when you step it up to $150K/year and drops to something like 12% when you get to $200K/year. By the time you get to $400K/year you’re at like 3%.
Also households as a unit isn’t necessarily representative of the distribution of people within them.
I reject the idea that government system are inherently bad and so we can’t have them. I reject the premise that the wealthy will be forced to have worse healthcare to subsidize the majority of Americans. I absolutely reject any notion that our private healthcare as it exists is efficient, affordable and the superior system.
You’re right. The No Surprises Act did make this a lot better. However it still doesn’t cover ground transport (and specific state laws do in some cases.)
Additionally for post-stabilization care the hospital is going to shove a lot of papers in your face and they’re probably not going to tell you that one of them is the one that says you agree to pay to whatever those services and waive your protection against balance billing. Yes they’re supposed to present it on its own and with your full consent and yes you can dispute that but people sign the forms and then still get screwed.
While I might not have been happier income-wise when I was on Medicaid vs now, I was much happier with my medicaid insurance than I have ever been with any private insurance. I could see basically any provider and didn’t have to deal with any of the typical insurance bullshit.
Also when you’re beyond the Medicaid threshold but not that much beyond it absolutely sucks. One year I was paying for dramatically worse insurance with a deductible that would have just made it better for me to just not make more money because if I hit that deductible I would be net negative on my income vs the threshold for Medicaid.
Also I think this is such a false premise. You can still have private plans if you want in the UK or elsewhere with a public health system. Nobody is forcing you to use the public system if you don’t want to. To wit, I don’t have children but I still pay for schools with my taxes. You might not want to use the public health system and instead go private, but yes, you should still be paying for a freely accessible healthcare system.
Here’s the rub on that too: The prices we pay here are so much higher than in Europe even if you go private in those countries. Our system is terrible. Point blank.
I would agree that the NHS in the UK has gotten pretty bad. A large part of that is the result of the Tory government actively working against it though for a very long time. The waitlists for a lot of things are quite long and my fiancé who is from the UK and still lives there has to do some things there are crazy to me. On the other hand she still is able to get care freely. She’s paid private for some dental work but that also cost her pennies on the dollar compared to what I’d be paying if I did the same thing here.
If you’re happy with your insurance I am truly thrilled for you because I don’t think of that as being a common experience.
Based on what? Why even leave this comment if you’re just going to say “would likely be worse off” without giving literally any evidence or even suggestion of why.
Insurance is a pool. The bigger your pool the more you spread the risk/load. It’s brain dead simple. Medical care is a human right, beyond that.
Nothing about our system makes any sense and it is built to pad so many pockets in entirely opaque ways between you and the care you actually receive. Cut out several layers of middlemen and the costs go down. God forbid you have an accident and you end up at the wrong hospital when the one down the road is in-network but the one they took you to is out-of-network and you wake up owing thousands of dollars.
I had pretty good marketplace insurance this year but the plan I’m on now isn’t even offered anymore and if I got the next closest offered plan I’d be paying 6X as much for the premiums with higher copays on top. I’ll be switching to my union offered plan instead which is much better than the new marketplace plan but still worse than the marketplace insurance I had before.
Good grief. Developers who use Unity/Unreal/Game Maker/ whatever don’t announce their game as being a revolutionary new tech.
The problem isn’t that they made yet another chromium based browser with their garbage on top. The problem is that they’re positioning it as this exciting and radical new thing when it’s just chromium with their garbage on top.
I couldn’t possibly disagree more. I’ve always worked with end users and I can say with confidence that the majority of people wouldn’t change it or more accurately wouldn’t feel like putting in the effort/dealing with the hassle of changing it, minor as it may be. Also a non-trivial segment of the population most likely wouldn’t be aware of that it is even an option.
The power of the default is just that, they it is the default.
Also Apple themself has only one incentive which is to get the best deal for themselves. Is Microsoft willing to offer more money than Google? The evidence points to no.
I’m not ashamed to admit that I often download obscure games I see on steam to see if they’ll actually hook me or not. I pay for what I actually am able to sink my teeth in to.
The vast majority of movies I download are me going out on a limb. In some cases I’m subscribed to a service they’re available on. I still download them though because I’d prefer to use my own player on my own terms. You can’t even get higher than 720p on Netflix on PC without using edge. Horseshit. It is also not infrequent that there is no way for me to pay someone to watch it online. I’m not going to buy a used copy of a DVD/blu-ray to watch something I’m interested in. Ain’t nobody making money off a used copy. Is resale of used media ethical?
Well actually (Yeah I’m going to well actually you) many movies are quite literally produced in such a way that structures the production companies to not make any money and instead shift any profits up the pyramid while extracting the maximum value of possible tax credits and grants offered any number of political entities, as well as disbursing themselves from several liabilities.
On paper many incredibly successful films lose money. The game is rigged. The industry more than makes do.
People are free to draw their own lines. I pay for some things and don’t pay for others as far as digital content goes. The structure of it doesn’t even necessarily fit into this clean cut idea however. If I pay for Prime and download something that I could watch via prime ( and I do, because I’d rather watch it in my preferred video play whenever and not only if I have an internet connection or on specific devices or god forbid the thing I’m watching or intending to watch in the near future slips off the service) what is the math in that?
Yeah I mean regardless of any of Unity’s limitations, this is entirely upon the developer.
However, I also find the suggestion that because there are other high profile examples of unity projects with performance issues, it must be a problem with unity.
You don’t hear that about Unreal Engine, despite the fact that there are poorly optimized UE games.
Yes. It’s a combination of those factors for sure. There are just so many more constant disk hits from 8 and on, and a good deal of them are from Defender. I do PC service and repair on the side and tossing in a cheap SSD makes most people happy because the drive being slammed was the only thing “wrong” with their computer.
Thankfully we’re largely past that.
That said, I rarely see malware on most of the machines I touch. I get more calls about automatically fullscreened browser windows with scare text and a phone number to call than any actual software problems.
Defender does work well enough for any average person and I’m happy if only because the vast majority of AV software is sold in the most disgusting way. Just as bad as the malware scare tactics honestly.
The AV stuff is huge. It’s always why windows Windows 8 era PCs were maybe the most brutally slow.
SSDs mitigate those issues but it is so painful to run things on mechanical drives, a lot of which is down to the antivirus processes. The practical realities have changed.
(Also things being snappy and fast I don’t think is a common memory of people when the machines the author is writing about were contemporary. The world of software is much bigger than notepad and cmd.exe)
The sad thing is he probably didn't need to cheat but he did. And of course he has only doubled and tripled down on this. It is the same thing that happens a lot in some e-sports. People who are really competitive and able to perform at the top of their game end up using hacks as a crutch, if only to give themselves a mental break. Multiple competitive streamers have been caught on stream accidently alt-tabbing in to their hacks and then have the gall to double down much like Billy Mitchell and say that they weren't and it was just there for some reason and they weren't using it.
Like the unwillingness to admit it is where it gets sad. In Billy's case the lawsuits are where it gets gross. The dangers of wrapping your entire identity around one thing I guess. I don't think anyone even cares about Billy Mitchell and his donkey kong score at this point outside of the continued circus. But I guess for him it is actually the only way to keep himself relevant.
That said, I 100% left every call center job I had when I couldn’t put up with the bullshit middle manager crap anymore.
Nothing like having a “team leader” who knows literally nothing about the product who then has to come up with the most nitpicky garbage because they’re required to have criticism on call reviews. Meanwhile some other asshole starts yelling at him to yell at you for not being on the phones enough when the reason I’m not on the phone is because everyone on the team turns to me to ask questions to because, unlike our illustrious leader, I know what I’m doing.