774 karma · joined April 25, 2018
I don't know about this. I run a team of ML engineers, and the ones who require being told what to do in order to be productive are simply worth less to the team. Sure, the scope of work is very specific (often limited to the teams purpose/mission), but autonomy is very much sought after and rewarded where I work. I simply don't want to work on a team where I, as the boss, am the sole person responsible for finding high leverage problems to solve, and have to then package the work then assign it.
- Use a python script to switch heating from my heat pump to my gas furnace when energy prices invert. - Have live monitoring of my HVAC pressure health so that my servo controlled actuators don't bork my system.
Additionally, studies have found that (when A/B testing recommender system vs no recommender system) users create their own, more localized "echo chambers" in absence of a recommender. This is measured by the "diversity" of content consumed, which decreases if a user is their own recommender.
Isn't this how you drive change? You have to give people the desire to change before they can actually change...unless you think authoritarianism is a solution (not saying you do, but I'm not sure what other options there are other than 1) give people the opportunity and desire to change, or 2) force them to change).
The speed at which we are changing aside...we ARE changing as a society, and that should be celebrated.
> Come up with a good headline. A big idea that hints that here is something your reader really, really wants (and can get from you).
So many words for such a simple concept.
> that hints that here is something
?
Either you are making an argument for "Netflix/AirBnB are considered tech companies, so why not WeWork?". Or you are saying that Netflix/AirBnB aren't actually tech companies? Or are you implying that given enough time, WeWork would have become a tech company, despite its non-technical beginnings?
To compare AirBnB/Netflix to WeWork from a technology standpoint doesn't make any sense IMO.
What an incredibly level headed take. It's so level headed that it seems fake when projected onto the landscape of modern political discourse.
Nicotine is actually the hardest thing to quit when taking into account all of the factors that lead to continued use in the face of adverse consequences. It's everywhere, a large number of people do it, it's relatively inexpensive in comparison to other vices, the time horizon for negative impacts is VERY long, and it's in general socially acceptable (depending on where you live).
This is irrelevant.
The conditional probability of my willingness to post this information, given your willingness to post this information, is equal to the the probability of my willingness to post this information. P(X) = P(X|Y). This means that just because you are okay with it, I'm not...and additional people being okay with it doesn't change my opinion regardless of harm.
Also, if you truly believe in a technology and its future, doesn't "everyone hating it" just widen the inefficiency gap for some folks to make a bunch of money on a technology they are certain will be valuable one day?
Tell me more....
I do shrooms with people who work in tech (just did them last Wednesday). We talked about the intersection of "intelligence" and "emotional vulnerability", and why are group of friends gravitates toward and attracts people who have a healthy dose of both. No woo-woo love chants...just some deeper conversations, below surface level that provided insight into who we are.