Trolls trying to argue in bad faith.

They use the fact that both race and gender are social constructs to try and trap you in a contradiction. Which is technically correct but their argument doesn’t come from a desire for a good outcome in either case.

wow holy racist batman

Yes, but it’s also the most logical place. What other activity do you dedicate so much time to? Maybe sleeping but it’s hard to build a community around that.

I’m starting to understand that many people never felt the sense of community, in the workplace or otherwise. Yes it’s possible.

The trick is that it doesn’t depend on the company, it depends on the people. Last time it happened to me, we pretty much all quit together because we were frustrated at the company but kept being friends afterwards.

Back into corporate after working for a startup.
It’s mentally suffocating, socially isolating, career ending, source of hopelessness. I spend most of my life specifically avoiding this trap because I knew what’s waiting there, but sometimes life puts you in a situation of limited choices.

Something amazing happens when there are more than 3 levels of management. Even if you want to “create value for the shareholders” you won’t be allowed to.

Continue the war. Doesn’t matter too much when and against who. Constant war is the only thing keeping Netanyahu in power. They’re going to keep doing it as long as they can.

American Founding Fathers were not dumb - a lot of them had spent time in the 18th century Europe, which was an interesting place at the time. Full of wars and rebellions. Great for analyzing pros and cons of political systems, awful for an average guy. Keeping the general population armed was a good idea in the context.

What they failed to predict is the identity politics. That being armed or not will become a show of loyalty to your group rather than defense against tyranny. With those needing it the most being the ones to reject it.

BRICSV? VBRICS? BRVICS?

Good food for thought.

I agree in the sense that while universalist morality is desirable, only expanding the identity of the in-group is a reasonable way to achieve it.

Contrast 2 narratives:

• some people are different and we need to accept their differences (equal but separate)
• what difference? there is no difference they are a part of us (inclusiveness)

I don’t think anyone asked me that question phrased specifically like that. It’s usually “what do you find appealing about our company”.

But I was asked another stereotypical one - what my biggest flaw is. Apparently my answer is considered a good one “of course I have flaws but I’m on a job interview, I’m not going to tell it here”

A chess-specific algorithm beat a language model at chess. Shocking!

Try training a chess model. Actually I think it’s already been done, machines have been consistently better at chess than humans for a while now.

I disagree with the conclusion of the article, although the contents do touch on some important points.

The article itself claims there aren’t enough resources for everyone to live a “developed country lifestyle”, which is connected to higher emissions per capita.
One way forward is to reduce the consumption. But the other way is to reduce the population so there is enough for everyone to be at least somewhat wasteful. Imo, the best would be both.

Because they are ok with other instances operating without censorship. Or with different ideological bias. Some people want their safe space. I do consider it generally harmful, but that’s how humans are - we want to discuss with like-minded people even if it limits the range of discussion.

On the balance, Lemmy existing is a benefit to humanity. You don’t have to talk to developers themselves.

We do need to reduce the human population. About 4-5 billion would be ideal.
On the negative side, we don’t know how to handle this situation of declining population. The entire human history is one of non-stop growth interrupted only by catastrophic pandemics, which were the only way the population dropped so far.

Finally, a good use case for AI

It took much longer than it should have.

One of the greatest successes of Netanyahu (and catastrophic failing of pro-Gaza activists who accepted the narrative) is to equalize “support for Israel existing” and “support for genocide”.