Psychologists have been saying for ages that a good job interview is a small version of what the job requires them to do. But as always with most professions with people (and hence ego) involved, these people either mimic what the trending company in their sector does or test irrelevant academia knowledge.
Maybe for such changes to happen the whole profession to go down a notch in prestige. Not sure if people can stomach that.
I think it's their first big test of a layoff? Am interested to see how this plays out.
In any case, WoW has been stagnating for quite some time even before the merger. The devs act as though everything is slow because it needs to be. Classic+ could've been much better.
Pay for your work. An eye for an eye. Equivalent exchange. Justice for any crimes perpetuated.
Such are some timeless principles that brings fairness.
And to counter on Camus when he writes:
> that there is no proof that the death penalty ever made a single murderer recoil when he had made up his mind, whereas clearly it had no effect but one of fascination on thousands of criminals;
This is where he's wrong. Having such a law alters the calculus of people's decisions. It's a simple first principle. It's one net of many nets for would be offenders, if it alters even one of their minds it's worth it.
A lot of these no value, didn't ask, pro-linux comments are probably leftovers from linux software maintainer groups and it's passive aggressive culture. And we all know what kind of a role model that person used to be. They've been in that cesspool for too long to recognize how to interact with people.
Condolences on your hardware problem btw. Give the windows 10 iot version a shot - it's a fairly quick install anyway.
There is a trend in online mobile game design, that the best interaction between players is through limited-option emotes and solo gameplay masqueraded as 'multiplayer'. That's saying something. People don't know how to give feedback that doesn't tilt someone else. They'd rather label others names instead.
It depends on the perspectives. Some people play to achieve things, to progress, not meander around doing things that they've done before and getting the same results.
You blame gaming as a scapegoat and escape from real life. I'd like to differ. The reward-effort-sense of a regular job is getting worse and worse over time. Take a job for example - you take guides and classes and interviews worth an examination only to do low level stuff. Then you find out the humans governing you are incredibly flaky on their promises. It's just not as satisfying compared to finding a guide and getting your worth out of it.
Sure I'd acknowledge the risks taken. Arguably though, there should be some degree of a known benchmark just so people don't get overly taken advantage of.
But these are still numbers plucked from the air (or as you put it, from the 'future'). I want *tangible, material bases* to start from if any.
Another far more sensible model I've found is slicing pie. Each founder's input % of the pie pre-'bake' is their % of the rewards. And what makes up for one's slice of the pie? The dollar-value you would've earned if you worked somewhere else, times the period of baking. These can be tweaked accordingly to the type of investment put in. IMO, it seems far more grounded compared to say a flat 10%.
Add to that, if there exist individuals who have enough of the resource of highest utility, it can become a liability for society. One bad way is that they use it to suppress others, through lobbying or buying out media companies or whatever. The other is how vultures react to them, pushing up the prices whenever the billionaire individual is involved and pricing out others.
Many of these billionaires they're referring to are paper stock billionaires. It gives you access to maintain control/takeover other companies. For example, Elon made an argument that his package payout (if fulfilled) was so large because it served him to be able to retain control of his company.
Another example would be taking over media companies like what Bezos did, the side effect would be being able to waylay/hide any dirty laundry.
Is there some standard he/people use to come up with the initial company paper-stock worth? A 2m company I would imagine needs to have some tangible traction already.
Agreed, what a disappointment of an essay, encouraging a growth at all costs mindset and pretending that this growth doesn't involve/encourage bad side effects.
And a lot of these structures either involves a percentage cut or a security of some kind. And it's not new, it's copied.
Are you just throwing out buzzwords at this point?
What has ranking have to do with the standard website? Or fraud detection/prevention? Clearly these are out of the scope of the standard website. And I highly doubt they require deep math, just some probability, maybe a slight use of matrices.
Given the number of surface level buzzwords you throw out, I think your ego's preventing you from looking deeper.
To add on context, the experiment you're giving is called a *blind judging test*. Remove the branding and labels, and let judges sample the results and see if they can tell which is ranked correctly.
Some examples are blind wine tasting tests. There are instances whereby some journalists invited renowned/established wine tasters and subjected them to blind wine tasting tests. Turns out the judges couldn't tell which was which. Pretty embarrassing.
It speaks volumes as to how people can accurately judge the value of things. There is research by some network scientist that says you can't generally can't tell the 1% from the top, though you can tell the really bad from the generally good. What OP's experiment might tell us is that the LLM competitive advantage is so small no one can tell which is objectively better.
Maybe for such changes to happen the whole profession to go down a notch in prestige. Not sure if people can stomach that.