BertramDitore @ BertramDitore @lemm.ee

Posts

1

Comments

554

Joined

2 yr. ago

There’s very little detail in the article. I’d be curious to find out exactly what the intern’s responsibilities were, because based on the description in the article it seems like this was a failure of management, not the intern. Interns should never have direct access to production systems. In fact, in most parts of the world (though probably not China, I don’t know) interns are there to learn. They’re not supposed to do work that would otherwise be assigned to a paid employee, because that would make them an employee not an intern. Interns can shadow the paid employee to learn from them on the job, but interns are really not supposed to have any actual responsibilities beyond gaining experience for when they go on the job market.

Blaming the intern seems like a serious shift of responsibility. The fact that the intern was able to do this at all is the fault of management for not supervising their intern.

Good, thank you for addressing this! I think the temporary ban is a perfect solution. I only care about this because of how close we are to the election, and this solves that problem.

Think about it this way: remember those upside-down answer keys in the back of your grade school math textbook? Now imagine if those answer keys included just as many incorrect answers as correct ones. How would you know if you were right or wrong without asking your teacher? Until a LLM can guarantee a right answer, and back it up with real citations, it will continue to do more harm than good.

I usually start with Calmatters. They tend to have good writeups for CA ballots when I’m looking for how candidates feel about specific policies.

Then I go to my local independent newspaper, which runs interviews with all major local candidates. I usually have a pretty good idea of who I’m going for by the time I read the interviews, but they’ll often put me the over the edge for a particular candidate and help me finalize my decision.

It does:

…the paper was reviewed, and its appropriateness for the journal's publishing criteria was rated as "excellent" by the journal's peer-review process. It was accepted for publication with minor editorial changes. The paper was not actually published, as Vamplew declined to pay the required US$150 article processing charge. This case has led commenters to question the legitimacy of the journal as an authentic scholarly undertaking.

I’ve started reporting their posts for spamming/trolling. Not sure if it’ll do any good, but at least the mods might see our frustration. If the account engaged in good faith conversations it’d be a different story, I’ve really tried, but they’re clearly a troll.

In general I think you’re right about the tech just being shitty, but a slight correction: LiDAR was not developed for self-driving, it’s just a relevant application of the technology. LiDAR has been around for quite a while, and was initially best known as a remote sensing technology. It is effective at remote sensing because it can penetrate certain solid materials, most importantly foliage. So when an aerial LiDAR dataset is collected for a forested area, since the light can penetrate through most of the foliage, one can essentially ‘delete’ the vegetation from the resulting point cloud, leaving a bare earth model, which is a very close approximation of the landscape’s actual topography if there had been no trees. This can be especially valuable for archaeological research, as foliage is often a significant obstacle for accurately mapping large sites, or even finding them in the first place.

All of that to say, yeah, self-driving buzz made LiDAR well known as tech, but it wasn’t developed for that purpose.

This article does a good job of explaining how she was assigned to the documents case last year, and still applies to how cases are assigned in her district in general. There just aren't a lot of judges in the pool of available options.

The difference being, in this case, that this type of hormone treatment is a medically responsible and widely accepted treatment for both things.

To add to the pile of evidence that this is all just hateful bigotry and has nothing to do with children's safety, cisgender children can still legally access these drugs, but not for the purpose of transitioning genders. The same drugs can still be used to delay aggressive puberty, which is a standard and relatively common usage, as well as other conditions that might affect a cisgender child. But a trans child who needs the same drugs for a different reason, will be told too bad, you're out of luck. So two children could walk into the same doctor's office and one will be turned away and forced to suffer through their gender dysphoria, with permanent repercussions for their mental health and body, and the other child will be treated with the drugs they need to be treated with. It's absurdly unfair, unequal, and purposefully harmful to a vulnerable population.

This is great, and the economy is clearly way better than many of us feel in our wallets.

My problem with this framing is that the job market is just different today than it was a few years ago. In order to get paid what you’re worth, you basically have to be on the job market permanently. If you don’t hop from one job to the next, your wages will quickly stagnate. I like my job, and I get very small raises every year or two. My salary is reasonable, but not great, and the raises are usually 1-3%, barely inflationary. I know I could get way more if I put myself back in the market, but I don’t want to do that, because like I said, I like my job and have been there for 5 years. I don’t want to have to be a hustler to be paid what I’m worth, I want to be loyal to a company that pays me fairly. I probably need to get over this antiquated way of thinking, but just considering going back to selling myself on the job market gives me heartburn.

The specifics are important. There were tens of thousands of people who were eligible for and enrolled in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program when it launched, did everything right, and still didn’t get their loans discharged, despite that being the purpose of the program.

When the very first round of forgiveness came up, only 96 borrowers out of the 28,000 eligible in that round, actually had their discharge approved. This program was a huge failure at the beginning, and they recently made significant improvements to it, so I’m also curious if this is talking about new debt or existing debt that should have already been discharged.

Yeah, I see the series, and that’s all well and good but Axios does a lot of damage with their headlines imo. They need to choose their words carefully, but they never will, so I’ll just keep calling out their crap whenever I see it. No disrespect to you, I appreciate the submission.

Jesus Axios. One candidate has been found guilty of 34 felonies by a jury, and liable for sexual assault by another jury. And you choose to talk about theoretical political handcuffs for the other candidate? Their headlines are always absurd, but this is just irresponsible bullshit.

Donziger’s story is heartbreaking and infuriating, and I’m continually disappointed that so few people are familiar with his story and what the courts did to him. It’s one of the clearest examples of judicial corruption and the power and benefits that are afforded to corporations and almost never extended to the people fighting for what’s right and just.

The AI-generated thumbnail really undermines the seriousness of the issue.

That’s a very cool concept. I’d definitely be willing to participate in a platform that has that kind of trust system baked in, as long as it respected my privacy and couldn’t broadcast how much time I spend on specific things etc. Instance owners would also potentially get access to some incredibly personal and lucrative user data, so protections would have to be strict. But I guess there are a lot of ways to get at positive user engagement in a non-invasive way. I think it could solve a lot of current and potential problems. I wish I was confident the majority of users would be into it, but I’m not so sure.

Holy shit that’s fascinating. This never would have crossed my mind unless I somehow found myself standing at the intersection of four square properties. Such a quintessentially American legal dispute.

That's mostly right, but as with a lot of these kinds of things, it's more complicated than that. Some of these checkerboard patterns were caused by systematic deforestation to help build the early railroads, but the checkerboard pattern itself comes from the way the federal government subdivided and sold Native American land to private individuals. It all goes back to the Dawes Act and our exploitation of indigenous tribes.

From a 2012 Democracy Now interview:

Eastern Navajo has a lot of—what we call the checkerboard area, and there’s these individual Indian allotments, which were created through the Dawes Act. And because of this individual ownership, Navajo allottees, they have the right to lease their land. And so, what the company does is they target individuals in our community, and they really, you know, use this divide-and-conquer tactic. And what they’re doing is basically promising all these riches and basically monetary gain for an already poor community that doesn’t even—a lot of our people don’t even have running water or electricity. And so, some of the individuals are dependent on this—on these promises of a false economy and jobs and all these good things that they—that they say they’re going to do.

It has caused a lot of problems for the tribes and their sovereignty.

Beginning with the Dawes Act of 1887, Native Americans, including the Navajo, were assigned plots of reservation land on which to practice subsistence farming. This was an attempt to assimilate Native Americans into Western European land use and domestication practices.

The checkerboard mix of lands owned by tribes, trust lands, fee lands, and privately-owned tracts severely impedes on the Navajo nation's ability to farm, ranch, or utilize the land for other economic purposes. Problems of mixed jurisdiction (tribal, federal, state, or county) have also contributed to economic instability, as well as to racial tensions and community conflicts. Source

For sure, it's not an easy problem to address. But I'm not willing to give up on it just yet. Bad actors will always find a way to break the rules and go under the radar, but we should be making new rules and working to improve these platforms in good faith, with the assumption that most people want healthy communities that follow the rules.