contagiousflow

What do you think courts are for?

> even those who lose the jobs should benefit overall

Do you have a further explanation on this?

I don't think you actually watched the video? Nearly all of the criticism is about the myth creation around him with a short bit at the end mostly praising him as a person

Couldn't you just blame any business non-decision on fear of regulation?

"We were prevented from building a proper Windows phone because we already had such large market share on desktop, and already had an anti-trust against us so our hands were tied"

It's just an argument that creates a Kafka trap

Doing something with the knowledge given in a lecture is very distinct from fact checking it

You double check every university lecture you've been apart of?

We don't disagree at all. I was disagreeing with the notion that regulation as an idea is bad. I completely agree that people and experts should have a democratic voice in the regulation that governs them

Why have municipal laws? Everyone can just carry around an AK-47 and decide what's right and wrong for them

I'm guessing you're American? What regulations make it expensive in America but affordable in other parts of the world?

On the other hand, there are thousands of invisible interaction points in your day that are the result of regulation, and your life is better for it. You only get to see the bad in current regulation, not in the bad that could have been caused without it.

Would you please like to tell everyone how that's oversimplified?

So you would be happy to have your digital identity be managed by Xiaomi, Yandex, or Eitaa?

I'm guessing you're American? It's much different when a foreign company wants to provide this service to you.

What does this mean?

Books exist

[citation needed]

Why is a national conspiracy to sell toys more plausible than a harmless fad?

But you're not just trying to out compete one AI slop, you must compete with ALL of them. And over time the AI slop to thoughtful company ratio is only going to increase

Why wouldn't you assume that AI doing it would only increase the amount of bad journalism and bad science? If the cost of something goes down shouldn't the amount of it increase?

Can I ask you why you think that will happen?

I'm sure the introduction of standardized tests are an improvement upon a current system, but that's not really the point I am making. My point is the ongoing use and optimization of them leads to worse outcomes overall in terms of actual understanding of the material.

> For one, it's a huge equalizer

Could you explain this for me? It's nice that everyone is taking the same test but every piece of data I've seen points to a clear correlation between household income and SAT score, hardly an equalizer.

Out of curiosity, when was the last time you were involved in the school system? Things have changed a lot over decades what time previously spent "teaching the students the actual subjects" or time spent with extracurriculars continues to be eaten away by SAT prep. The downside of a bad score is now a disastrous outcome, and other parents have continued to optimize for the best score.

Let me make a comparison.

If your manager says your performance is based on lines of code, you will be incentivized to write lots and lots of code. Does lots and lots of code mean you are being productive and making good software? Sometimes yes! Sometimes heaps of code means you are being ultraproductive and making amazing software. It could also mean you are writing much more code than you need to, introducing new bugs, not thinking about generalizing patterns, creating technical debt, making a worse UX, all of which I'm guessing you would agree are important to software engineering. But none of those things are going to matter in the lines of code metric.

So yes, sometimes having metrics for performance are worse than imperfect. Sometimes they are antithetical to the supposed goals. Student time is a zero sum game, and having a large portion of a crucial time in their development spent cramming for one metric is not going to have good outcomes for a society, only good outcomes for a metric.

> If there's one school that claims it successfully teaches children to love reading, and another school that makes no such claim, but has +50 on SAT over the first school across the board? The second one is probably a better school.

Or it's better at SAT prep? That's the entire point of OPs comment. Metrics become targets and then anything (that may still be incredibly important) but doe not contribute to that target gets lost.

If you think talking to an LLM is the same experience as talking to a human you should probably talk to more humans

Why was this flagged?

I would recommend you asking the women in your life what they think.

I don't follow the analogy? Are you just comparing two technologies that have had criticisms at their infancy?

Don't ever look into the US's involvement in Latin America if you want to keep believing this

You think every new technology is inherently a good thing and good for society?