Shadowing is very important for jobs where the outcome of failure is potentially harmful or costly. Biological research is done almost exclusively through an apprenticeship-like training system, and part of that system is that you shadow a mentor when you start. (You’ll also continue to work closely with your mentor so that they can continue to supervise you personally for a long while before you’re allowed to work on your own)

My understanding is that hospital or medical work is pretty similar in that regard

The potential alleviation of suffering is great, the potential suffering is also great. There’s a reason nobody gene edits humans (with one notable exception…), and it’s not because it’s hard to do, I’ll tell you that much.

It’s at least somewhat reassuring that all scientists (except the one notable exception who shall not be named) is taking their time to really understand the implications of the technology.

Gene editing is, like many technologies, a tool, and it must be subject to guidelines and regulations to ensure that it can only be used for good. That much, everyone agrees on. The question that people still need to grapple with is where the line is drawn between acceptable and unacceptable editing.

I will also point out that there are ways to influence your biology without messing with your DNA. And similarly many ways to mess with your DNA that do not carry over to the next generation. All of these fall under the umbrella of gene editing but don’t fit the popular concept of gene editing (germline editing). These techniques are much less ethically ambiguous and many are already being used to help people. Here’s a fun video where a guy transduces a gene into himself to cure his lactose intolerance. It’s gene editing by technical definitions but not the type of gene editing that you’re probably thinking of.

https://youtu.be/J3FcbFqSoQY

fruitarian

It’s interesting to me that they went with that name, since there’s already a name for eating fruit (frugivory)

Isn’t that what I meant? English saying is a prescriptivist version of the Chinese song; Chinese saying is a descriptivist version of the English saying

To be clear, the Chinese saying isn’t implying that the problem will naturally go away. It’s implying that people will be driven to solve the problem as the deadline approaches

There’s a saying in Chinese. It rhymes in Chinese (which makes it so much cooler) but the translated version is this:

Given equivalent units of gold and time, it is easy to trade time for gold, but it is challenging to trade gold for time.

Essentially, be wary of how much you’re devoting to your work, because it doesn’t matter how successful you are, you will never get your life back

There’s another one that I find to be very relevant with the times:

a boat with naturally straighten itself when it nears a bridge

It’s a descriptivist version of the English saying “we’ll cross that bridge when we get there.” Essentially, problems have a way of sorting themselves out when things get desperate enough

My opinion? Decompiled software has always existed in a legal gray area, it just hasn’t been worth ruling on because of how challenging it’s been to decompile software. AI seems to have allowed sloppers to get in on the action, and given how many sloppers have zero concept of nuance, they’re being very loud about their efforts. In particular, releasing decompiled paid software seems like the easiest way to get companies on your ass. You’re probably breaking half a dozen established and existing laws, especially since some of these projects are selling their decompilation. I expect the legal system to step in and rule in favor of the companies.

To summarize, just like in every other field, AI sloppers are ruining it for everyone

Organisms in general tend to be overwhelmingly prokaryotic in the ocean and slightly more eukaryotic (but still overwhelmingly prokaryotic) on land

It’s always the ones you suspect the most?

AI-generated slop. This is a pretty basic story, you should have the basic capability of just typing out a couple sentences. Assuming that the entire account isn’t just a bot, of course.

You’re interviewing them as much as they’re interviewing you. It reflects poorly on you if you don’t ask questions. Because it shows that you haven’t actually thought about how you plan to fulfill your job expectations.

Advice: do some research on the company, know what they do, know what you’ll probably do if you get hired. Then come up with questions - things that aren’t obvious through your research. For instance, ask them to talk about work culture, management style, expectations of your performance, etc. The exact questions will depend on the specifics of the job. But in other words, put some careful thought into envisioning the day-to-day activities of the company and how you foresee yourself fitting within that structural framework.

Second advice: search up common interview questions, and prepare an answer to them. It’ll be shame if you get tripped up on easy questions. For instance, you should know how to respond if they ask you why you want this job.

Please don’t put that much perfume… My nose is pretty sensitive to perfume and it makes me sneeze. Most of them smell like dust. I never understood why people try to smell that strongly of dust.

I wonder if we could sidestep this issue by generalizing “Flock” to simply refer to all ALPR’s

2000 a month is not enough to live on (California), but it’s also not nothing. It’s a pretty serious amount of money, especially if it’s given per month. For reference, the median salary in California is around 4000 per month before tax (according to US Census). If we assume that he is an average person from California, then he is giving you 50% of his entire income. He’s left with 2000 a month himself, which isn’t enough for him to survive. And California pays well, so if he’s not from California, then he’s likely sacrificing a lot more than in this example.

As a general rule of thumb, a single person’s salary in America typically cannot support 2 people, so even if he’s “only” giving you minimum wage, it’s still a very substantial amount of money. Also, 2000 a month is almost double of what you earn on federal minimum wage, so what your friends say isn’t even true.

Honestly, my read is that your friends sound problematic. It’s minimizing and downplaying his contribution and sacrifices, even if it’s meant to be a joke.

It’s all related. Massive societal pressure = no time for children. No time for children means birth rates are significantly below replacement rate. At first the issue was ignorable. Now it’s not. Cracks are starting to show. With so few children, nobody is “picking up the torch” for virtually very industry, and whatever workers are left are dwindling as they retire.

You see a similar thing happening in Japan, too. And a similar issue is occurring in America and Europe, though their situation is not as bad in comparison. It’s speculated that all advanced economies will eventually face this challenge, but South Korea is really trying to speedrun total societal collapse

My personal line in the sand is, “do I feel like the developers wanted me to use the solution that I used?”

In my opinion, developers can design multiple solutions to a problem and it still may not count as an immersive sim. Because the key characteristic of an immersive sim is that there must be sufficiently complex interacting systems and mechanics that you can come up with your own solutions, independent of what the developers intended

I think Hardspace Shipbreaker does a really good job of this. You work as an exploited blue collar worker, and the gameplay really makes you feel like a blue collar worker. Especially at the end, the plot and gameplay synergizes in a really creative way.

In addition to the other comment, a lot of companies typically sell support for their software, not the software itself. That counts for a lot in the business world

I’m confused now. Do you genuinely think dogs are a natural species? Because… that might explain a lot about this entire post

I think, at the core, my argument is simply this: don’t rush into sex. Take your time to figure out if this is really what you want.

I believe everyone can agree to that statement. But my perspective is that quantifiable, actionable advice is more helpful than advice in which the recipient has to apply their own judgment (what’s the purpose of giving the advice then?), and so I have semi-arbitrarily chosen that 6 months to wait is a safe bet and 1 year is ideal.

And I acknowledge that waiting a year is unusually chaste - that’s why I consider it to be an ideal circumstance rather than a practicable target. Is waiting a year for sex unusually risk-averse? Yes, undeniably. But you also can’t deny that waiting that time would give you the best perspective on whether or not it’s a good idea to have sex with someone

Humans will survive. Civilization will survive. That’s almost guaranteed. That was never really up for debate. The debate is whether civilization will survive in a form that we would consider to be dignified. Will we have political rights? Will we have privacy? Will we be in a democracy? Will we live as serfs in a technofeudal society? These are the questions that we need to ask.

And they are important to ask because these are things that we can do something about. In my opinion, the elite intentionally promote doomerism, because people are more unwilling to fight back if they feel like the fight has already been lost. I believe that things can get better. I believe it despite everything going on because I have to. The worst thing you can do is to cede the future to the enemy.