SimianSci

Throwing bodies at a problem doesn't always scale. There are many difficult problems that do not get easier by throwing more juniors or mid level engineers at them.

Respectfully, After a certain level of compensation, you are indeed judged purely off of input and output. Workplace improvement does not justify your salary.

You will also find that many problems in the harder sciences do not get easier by throwing more bodies at them. Comments like these remind me that some project managers think they'd be able to delivery a baby in 1 month if they simply had 9 women.

Our expense is roughly around 12.3 software developers when you break it down across all people related expenses. But we've spent alot of time and energy prior to this focusing on our ability to measure our software development output across multiple teams. The delivery improvements are not evenly applied across all teams, but the increases that we have seen suggest a better ROI than if we had hired 12 developers.

I think there is alot of baseless fury behind your words, but my regular interactions with my leadership dont lead me to think they have the end goal of replacing labor. We're blessed to have leadership with technical backgrounds, so the tools are regarded more as significant intelligence enhancers of already exceptionally smart engineers, rather than replacements.

Doesnt seem to us to be wheelbarrows of money, when you consider the average AWS/Azure bill.

we are in the SMB space, the spend is almost entirely usage for us at this point, rather than seat cost. For context, we are a software firm focused on difficult engineering problems, but I cant divulge much else.

The spend at my organization has reached beyond the $200,000 per month level on Anthropic's enterprise tier. The amount of outages we have had over these past few months are astounding and coupled with their horrendous support it has our executive team furious.

its alot of money to be spending for a single 9 of reliablility.

Your comment on vagueness misses its mark.

> business leader throwing those salutes and backing it up with talk of a "white homeland"

It is not every commenter's duty to cite their sources when you have the ability to easily infer the context and search the internet. These are very well documented actions that they refer to. Your attempts to drive sentiment through casting doubt are noticed.

If this were completely uncharted territory, you might have a leg to stand on here. But you are correct that this is exactly how Facebook started, and we know exactly how that goes, the poster is correct that this just leads to harassment at scale.

The author's response was the main problem, showing a complete lack of character or ethical concern. There is a world of difference between being a hacker with a sense of rebelliousness and a jerk who thinks there should be zero consequences to their actions.

- Own a monopoly - Inherit your fortune - Run a criminal enterprise

Using just these three filters alone, you encompass more than 99% of all billionaires in existence. The amount of billionaires who do not fit into these categories can barely occupy a family sized vehicle.

The criteria here suggesting that there is a specific sociopathic personality requirement to being a billionaire as each category can be argued as harmful to societies.

The Republican party is wholly a party for the Rich and wealthy. All other claims to the contrary are attempts to deceive people that this is not the case.

I want to disincentivise people with wealth using it to corrupt systems of power into doing what they want.

> Wealthy people find loopholes, and so you end up taxing the middle class and limiting social mobility with those initiatives.

Sounds like we should get rid of these wealthy people then...

Republicans just play whatever meta will win them power until they get into office. It's a time-honored tradition at this point, so any time they tell you what they believe, what they say their beliefs are and what they actually do, will often be two separate things.

It's a watering hole attack. At any point your iphone sends an http request to a compromised site, by add, link, embedded, etc. your device will be exploited. there really isn't a way to permanently defeat this. We are about to see an explosion of novel attack types utilizing this exploit as their basis, you realistically cannot defend yourself against these without either updating or no longer using an iphone.

People have always been fascinated by where they might find monsters. This one so happens to be in our history, so many will find it noteworthy.

I call it pointless because I and many other Americans have been told these things before. We are always in a constant "Red Queen's Race" with other nations as a means of establishing dominance. We subsidize allies like Israel with billions of dollars that have never been allocated by our congress, and which only serve to subsidize the healthcare of Israeli citizens while we continue to have nothing of the sorts.

"Bro, just trust me Iran is SO CLOSE!" for the past 40 years is not convincing us that this war has any benefit to us. Americans are already on the hook for trillions of dollars in debt we cannot pay as a country, and now we want to continue exploding the deficit to the tune of $1 Billion per day. Its existential threat after existential threat with no consideration to the actual troubles americans are facing in the here and now. Its just endless wars with no end in sight. Outside of manufacturing consent on behalf of Israel, posts such as yours seem highly dedicated to trying to convince nobody aside from the wealthy few Americans with international holdings.

You're right, but neglect to mention that infrastructure necessary to enrich uranium is not something so easily squirrled away and hidden while also dealing with radioactive isotopes.

It was a treaty, many concessions existed to ensure both parties were comfortable with the arrangement. But that does not at all suggest that the agreement didnt account for foul play on either side.

It was an incredibly solid diplomatic option employed for several years, during which the perpetual "months away from nuclear weapons" rhetoric never proved well-founded. Iran's existance is perpetually an existential threat when the only alternative to diplomacy is its total destruction at the expense of American and Iranian lives.

The two deals you mention are not at all comparable.

Ukraine's deal was vague promises with vague consequences, which of course materialized into zero ability to stop a land invasion.

The Iranian deal before its destruction was very much concerned with safeguarding against any attempt to "potentially circumvent" and gave auditors alot of freedom to investigate without obstruction.

Your partisan posting in regards to the notion of the war being pointless indicate that you're coming more from a place of emotion than logic. I can empathize, but strongly caution that its important we discuss the facts of arguments rather than gesturing that all but you fail to see the light.

Iran has always lacked an ability to project power at a distance. Outside of sympathetic lone operators, there really isnt much to suggest they can do anything more than ramp up rhetoric and calls for violence.

The reason why I call it empty threats is because it accomplishes its goal no matter the outcome. If a sympathetic lone operator uses this as an excuse to start shooting, they can claim the credit. But if all it does is stoke fear that "Something somewhere might happen" then it's still a win for them.

Pointlessness of this war aside, I fail to see how the situation is materially different than it was prior to the war begining.

Iran has generally been an active and persistant threat for many US firms long before this war began, and I have a hard time thinking they have had the restraint and the resources to collect together an arsenal of zero-day exploits they have yet to unleash. To me, this just reads as empty threats intended more for the potential economic fear it can produce.

Cutting taxes has consequences. Americans have enjoyed a huge increase to their living standards over the years and have become decoupled from many of the services that their taxes fund. In turn, large swaths of the populace are insulated from the consequences of degrading government services and infrastructure. This has caused a shift in attitudes towards taxes as most of these Americans no longer see the benefit of paying their taxes, incentivizing politicians to focus on cost reduction and tax breaks. The problem here is that this attitude of Anti-Taxation has translated into no longer addressing the root cause, and people believing things like unproven stories of government corruption as being the sole cause of these degrading services despite the evidence for such being low to non-existant. They dont want to address the real cause, so look to a convenient scapegoat that explains the degredation without accepting that they should pay more taxes.

Just like how at the federal level DOGE found almost no waste and corruption during their crusade against the federal services (stoked by similar anti-tax sentiment) it seems that every time a narrative of "corruption" takes hold enough to actually tackle the issue and launch a program to handle it, the program in turn finds its just wasting money.

People just need to accept paying more taxes in order for their society to flourish.

This is not supported by good data, Car manufacturers are pushing to make bigger larger vehicles because they require very little additional manufacturing overhead over smaller vehicles and the manufacturers are able to sell them at higher prices.

What people want are Inexpensive vehicles, not necessarily larger ones. American car manufacturers have been actively suppressing cheaper smaller vehicles for their own benefit.

Many would disagree, the narrative that X is running smoothly and without issue is undone by any read over the many cotroversies its been embroiled in. It is insulated from its failures by Elon's money and little else.

Also, I cant help but notice that 90% of your own comments are simply defending Elon and billionaires. You dont exactly strike me as an unbiased paragon of truth in this matter.

The state department is proving themselves far more competent than the defense department. This just looks like further evidence to the poor leadership. "Pete the Pathetic" looks to be using ham fisted measures to try and make companies compliant to his will. Zero precision or intelligent application of force.

Conservatism has largely been unpopular outside of rural townships, and the nation continues to undergo a process of urbanization as young people continue to move to cities. Normally, a healthy response to this would be to realign and target a more popular set of messaging and policy objectives. Instead the American Right has decided instead that this popularity (and the reflection in media) is a threat to its ability to continue serving a shrinking pool of wealthy benefactors.

It should come as no surprise that the moment they were handed the power, they began to push the boundaries of what is acceptable when it comes to censoring media they see as a threat. Republicanism doesnt work for anyone but the wealthy, it will do everything in its power here.

Palantir is a fantastically straightforward example of how a country experiencing an era of averice quickly degrades in the quality of its leadership. Karp and Thiel are examples of certain types of personalities that make their way into positions of influence where they start to expel toxic cultural pollutants responsible for an empire's decline.

More people need to realize the parasitic relationship the wealthy in America currently occupy.

Seems to be an extension of something we are dealing with across multiple parts of many societies. Monetary pursuit has become a guiding principle for alot of people, and its been revealed that such thinking is leading to major societal consequences.

The current Technocratic idealization of efficiency by those in powerful positions is missing the second order consequences of financializing everything, and it appears to me that we are sacrificing societal necessities like trustworthiness and collective responsbility in favor of more efficient markets. If no corrective action is taken, we can expect increasing issues.

The answer is and always has been "paperclips."

without human influence or directive, capital ceases to be become anything meaningful beyond [insert data type] at which point, it spreads like a cancer, ie: universal paperclips

Capitalism is revered due to how it has significantly impacted the living standards of populations that participate in it. But increasing the living standards of populations was never the purpose of capitalism, it was a simply a side-effect.

> self-made billionaire industrialist

We've reached levels of billionaire worship that would make any court jester of the 1400's blush

Sometimes, I wonder how people in the middle ages accepted the whole "Divine Right" of their ruling Kings, while simultaneously suffering under their rule.

> Larry Ellison, another hyper-informed genius business man

"King George, another royal blessed by the divine."

Doesn't the idea of Orbital Datacenters imply that the constraining resource right now is physical space, and not compute, electricity, etc?

Did we suddenly solve the electricity problem, or the compute problem? As far as im aware there are still plenty of datacenters being planned and built right now.