54% of Wikipedia pages contain at least one link in their “References” section that points to a page that no longer exists.
My impression was/is that over the last years/decade Wikipedia made efforts to/switch to not linking directly but extending direct links with (dated) Web Archive links or using Web Archive links directly (dated as "sourced from this in this state; which protects against upstream edits too).
What I’m reading is that it’s a quick way to lower expenses and pad the investors’ pockets, flooding the market with developers and reducing their value, to then hire them back a few months later at lower salaries.
That sounds like what I see people comment on Lemmy. Those opinions or impressions are not necessarily true though, or seeing the full picture.
People are laid off, which makes the news. But many others remain employed, those don't make the news. Many others founded or found new companies, which don't make the news.
Creating your own company, with all its investment, management, and risk involved is much scarier, higher investment and risk, personally and professionally, than being employed. Some people are willing to take that leap, others not.
I imagine profitably in creating games is very hard. You need to grow a user base or publicity. The market is flooded with games, publishers, and developers. Only the big ones have marketing budgets big enough that the marketing makes a bigger impact on profitability than the quality and discoverability of the product. (Like CoD investing a similar amount into marketing as the product development cost. And marketing is effective - more than a good game or product.)
Either way, I don't feel I have an overview of the whole market situation, or statistics on the broader market and development people movement. But I'm sure "why don't people start their own companies" is a wrong premise. They do. Some do. We just don't see it.
The hiring back is unlikely to be the same people too. It's new people. At the cost of experience, and possibly gain on lower salaries. I'd be skeptical it's generally good long-term management though. Short-term management is popular. Lay off, you reduced costs, get more people, you increased productivity - and the cycle continues. Managers gotta manage. (/s)
Between confirmation bias, human pattern recognition even where there are none, under/in-development brains, higher fantasy and creativity in children, less separation and knowledge about inner and outer experience, and dreaming/dream-like hallucinations, I'm skeptical any of it to be true.
Every discovery and connection they make read like possible fallacies, misattributions, confirmation-bias.
The sheer mass of humans means random hallucinations will match adult knowledge and sometimes deceased people. 2.2k across the world, and a third of them without a deceased match doesn't seem implausible to that.
a mechanism that might explain how a person could recall living a past life
For centuries Europe knew and experienced witchcraft and other demons. The U.S. experienced aliens and abductions - but only after they became popular in the media. The human race is great at hallucinating, even on a broad societal level and with confidence.
We can explain many misattributed traditions, hysteria, and other behaviors and hallucinations. We hallucinate more of what we heard of than if we hadn't. I don't see why we would find a past-life remembering more likely than faulty human nature. Which I guess requires some knowledge and awareness about human history and perception.
There have also been numerous cases of people lying for the hell of it or publicity. I'm certain some people make use of this theory / legend too.
I'm reminded of AI hallucinating facts, which seems like an interesting analogy. :P (In a more narrow and artificial, trained system. If it can happen there, why would it not in more complex systems/the human brain.)
The article was too long for me. I only read through the first two sections.
Quoting the abstract (I added emphasis and paragraphs for readability):
AI code assistants have emerged as powerful tools that can aid in
the software development life-cycle and can improve developer
productivity. Unfortunately, such assistants have also been found
to produce insecure code in lab environments, raising significant
concerns about their usage in practice.
In this paper, we conduct a
user study to examine how users interact with AI code assistants
to solve a variety of security related tasks.
Overall, we find that
participants who had access to an AI assistant wrote significantly
less secure code than those without access to an assistant. Partici-
pants with access to an AI assistant were also more likely to believe
they wrote secure code, suggesting that such tools may lead users
to be overconfident about security flaws in their code.
To better
inform the design of future AI-based code assistants, we release our
user-study apparatus and anonymized data to researchers seeking
to build on our work at this link.
Caveat; quoting from section 7.2 Limitations:
One important limitation of our results is that our participant group consisted mainly of university students which likely do not represent the population that is most likely to use AI assistants (e.g. software developers) regularly.
Assessment of your question depends on your goals. It's not something I myself would invest time in, but it sounds like a fun project that some people may even be interested in using as a form of exploring areas/their surroundings.
Kissaki @ Kissaki @beehaw.org Posts 33Comments 482Joined 1 yr. ago
My impression was/is that over the last years/decade Wikipedia made efforts to/switch to not linking directly but extending direct links with (dated) Web Archive links or using Web Archive links directly (dated as "sourced from this in this state; which protects against upstream edits too).