You haven't learned MSFT's m.o. yet... this kind of pop-up only shows up when you're absolutely certain about something, like removing files. In those cases they ask for confirmation endlessly and needlessly.

When they're trying to collect money, they go ahead and quickly guess with all the defaults as they see fit. I'm surprised the default isn't 1000 seats tbh. After all, you're certain to be a huge success now that you've chosen them as a vendor.

;-)

But yeah, the contrast is wild. Try to delete an empty text file? "ARE YOU ABSOLUTELY SURE?". Try to upgrade a $3 billing plan? "Let me just casually attempt to charge you $1k while you blink

Their predictions may certainly be embellished as well. However, their statements can also be taken out of context or misinterpreted.

None of this is in question. The challenge is to make a careful judgment of your own.

I believe this is a bad assumption. Most likely the boost is not normally distributed. So, although all employees become more productive, some employees become much more productive thereby making the others redundant.

As someone pointed out already... there are diminishing returns. In addition, there are marginal returns. Put the two together and you get ever diminishing marginal returns from the laggard employees.

Vibe coding the generation of simulated trades is another matter. That has value.

She can play along on the computer by installing mit-scheme (http://www.gnu.org/software/mit-scheme/) and placing the snippet below into ~/.scheme.init

   (define atom?
     (lambda (x)
       (and (not (pair? x)) (not (null? x)))))

   (define lat?
     (lambda (l)
       (cond
        ((null? l) #t)
        ((atom? (car l)) (lat? (cdr l)))
        (else #f))))

   (define member?
     (lambda (x l)
       (cond
        ((null? l) #f)
        ((eq? (car l) x) #t)
        (else (member? x (cdr l))))))

   (define mber?
     (lambda (a lat)
       (cond
        ((null? lat) #f)
        (else (or (eq? (car lat) a)
                  (mber? a (cdr lat)))))))

Customers realize this, even if subconsciously, and so the new "AI Modes" offered by search companies are required to stay relevant.

It's the process of creative destruction at work... round and round we go.

Since that time this blogger

http://www.seobook.com/blog

has been relentless about how unfair it is so when I see people upset about how their precious posts are being hoovered up for ChatGPT I can only think “Jesse they are really slow on the draw, maybe ChatGPT would be better off not hovering that stuff up”

But to take that hat off, AI mode works on many queries that would never have worked with the old Google. If I am having a conversation with somebody in a language I barely know I can go back and forth to make very precise replies and ask it “why does it have … in it?” and get a good answer. If I remember there was a scientific paper that came to a certain conclusion I can describe the conclusion and… get it first thing. No way that would have worked with the old google, pubmed, arXiv search…

Of course, if Google didn’t come out with a useful search engine based on the new tech, somebody else would have.

> Stop fooling around with abstract puzzles

I beg to differ on the simplicity here.

The very best candidates don't want to think about your stuff at all, unless they're paid ahead of time, since they've already made tons of $$$. In effect, they're already getting paid by your competition or they themselves are your competition.

It's a great example of Akerlof's "market for lemons".

The "satisficing" solution IMHO is to take [calculated] risk on available consultants/contractors and keep the better ones on retainer [to hire]. Yes, in a sense, I'm suggesting you pay [more] to interview people. That way you stand a chance of beating the average.

Finding the "best value" in a candidate is a trap... you only need good enough.

Have you tried reading Camus' essay "The Myth of Sisyphus"?