Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Offshoring didn’t increase jobs. That’s absurd.

Higher population and 4% unemployment would suggest jobs have increased since

You don’t know latin I see. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a well known fallacy where one assumes that something that follows an event in time was caused by that event.

“AI will lower the barrier for entry level position”

No. Empirically, has it?

It will do the opposite. It removes trust, therefore making existing powers more powerful. Ain’t going to democratize anything but cybercrime.

Not sure I follow you. Do you mean that the existence of AI will undermine trust that applicants know what they're doing?

It hasn't really been around long enough for an empirical analysis of effects. It's also incredibly hard to measure effects with the systems themselves being in such flux.

For what it's worth, I think categorical statements of any stripe are a little premature. Even the EA folks speak in probabilistic margins.

“AI will undermine trust that applicants know what they're doing?”

Yes. Is that not obvious? It’s already a major problem in educational settings. I’ve seen video of people using it for job interviews.

Have you been handed any code yet that was written partially or wholly by gpt? If not, you will soon, and then you’ll get it.

I see. I suppose I'm sort of partially blind to that given that I've been really lucky to mostly have interviews where the code portions were more "build this whole thing" rather than "whiteboard this function".

The most charitable thing I can say about this is that it’s likely wrong.

If the flyovers/Texans have to buy an electric car, then they will likely buy one from Elon. I agree, they aren’t clamoring for EVs unless and until they have to.

“They have warned about nato expansion and the overt, publicized plans of US think tanks and policymakers about destroying Russia for two decade.”

Ah, you didn’t watch the tucker Putin interview!

First question was whether NATO’s threat caused the Ukrainian invasion, and Putin quite clearly said, I’ll paraphrase, “Nope, Ukraine has always belonged to Russia.” Puty’s actual response was 30 minute history lesson on why Russia owns Ukraine. No mention of NATO. Anyway, you don’t know what you’re talking about it seems, or Putin is lying about his intentions, which I suppose is totally on brand for genocidal despots.

Hacker news is a place for intellectual curiosity, not ideological cliche.

“The only lasting fix for technical debt is for management to empower the IT side of an organization to start saying no to all the requests for shiny new things, and focus on making what an organization already has more robust, more secure and futureproof.”

One could argue that technical debt is really just regular debt. If can see that, then you also will see that federal fiscal and monetary policy are really the long term fix, not IT departments saying “No” which of course they already do.

The whole problem is that it isn't. If it were regular debt, it would be visible on balance sheets instead of just ruining everything behind the scenes.

Perhaps we just need better bookkeeping ;)

Value accounting?

Like cost per user for infra? operating cost per hour, by hour? like that...

You need an accountant embedded in your department to just watch and track spend and map it to something. Preferably they are in tech and told to hold product teams feet to the fire.

Well, businesses in the US are now required to account for R&E (including improvements to existing software) as capital investment..

Where should I put the line items for technical debt, and how should I quantify it?

I’m finding twitter (now x) is rapidly replacing YouTube in direct proportion to YouTube’s increasing suckifucation. At least for new content. Mostly I use YouTube for old content that is or should be in the public domain, and for music, mostly classical which I could get from the radio for free with almost no ads. I think society really needs something like Wikipedia for video.

I only use Youtube through my TV interface. X is not an alternative

From the anecdotes I hear, it seems dubious from an ethical standpoint because the assertion is almost always that a person cannot think clearly due to add, so they need meds. But how can they consent to taking those meds if they can’t think clearly? Surely researching the cost/benefit and long term health outcomes of a drug like that requires the ability to focus and think clearly. It seems hard to defend, ethically.