People back then just needed to learn one skill, say baking. Then they ply that trade for their lives.
Our economy changes so fast that we need more generalized skills to adapt. If you were apprenticed as a telephone operator, what would you have done? So we learn math, science, communication, etc.
Kids are absolutely right - much of it you will never use to make money. But if you learn how to learn, then that will help make you successful no matter where you go.
My Costco runs used to be about $200-$300, now they're regularly $400-$500.
And yet half of the country votes for the orange one, whose big beautiful bill cut SNAP and Medicaid, basically food & health care assistance for the poor.
But hey it's really all about winning the culture war, and making sure we don't have a woman president, right?
I feel bad but I just don't know what to do when so many people vote against their own self economic interest. A good leader would make rally the country to make progress on these (like Obama did with health care), vs focused on their own grift.
What a great application of AI in college course. The processor made them critically think about how AI may impact their writing, the value of it vs human writing. That's exactly what college should be doing, producing critical thinkers to navigate tomorrow's world.
Wow this cue method was confusing to me. It's like saying the most efficient way to drive a car is to press the pedal, while turning a crank, while also tooting a horn.
No. The most efficient way is to just drive the car with the pedal. Likewise, efficiently being able to identify words is, surprise surprise, the most efficient way to then read a series of words (sentence).
I recently read a helpful Quora post on cancellation
Basically, while it's totally fair to hold people accountable, it needs to work both ways.
Additionally, there's a line between boycotting someone (your collective actions) vs attacking others for supporting. If you didn't like what a musician did, you and others could stop buying their albums. That's different than issuing death threats to radio stations that play that musicians music.
So in this case, we seem to have
-one sided accountability, a coordinated effort around one side of facts
-a boycott vs attack. The open letter makes it clear that only the signatories will be engaging in these actions. Others (such as organizations that employed him) are requested to cut ties but not threatened
So I would say this is only a partial "cancel". It would have been better if he could have "had his day in court" before he was thoroughly condemned, though I'm not sure how.
If the website even lets you access. I use empower personal capital to track finances and on mobile they only support their app. And if it's broken (like it has been for the past month), tough noogies!
Believe to know more. As someone who has managed to live comfortably in the margins... I have never been more miserable than recently. What changed? This unsolicited assistance.
I was a perfectly fine and productive remote worker before the pandemic. Now, every bit of energy I have goes towards "no, really, I'm alright" and the leagues of hustlers.
As a manager I’m going thru performance management myself. It’s a hard experience.
What I learned is: you need to hold a high bar, because people can do anything to keep their job, and often not what you want them to do
What you want is someone who is open to feedback, understands it, and takes effective action.
Outside of that, there’s a whole gamut of people. Some get defensive. Some are politely open to feedback but don’t actually try to understand. Some understand but don’t care enough to follow thru. And some try hard but aren’t effective. All of that is bad for your team, and unlikely to change. Just need to cut your losses to open your seat for someone who can do it.
The current person i have is open to feedback, but doesn’t fully understand it and doesn’t care to. It’s like dragging a horse to water. After doing that for six months my manager pointed that out, it’s just not a good fit. I like to see the best in people, and even a little bit of improvement gives me hope. But it’s dragging down our team potential. It’s a hard truth.
And what I’ve found is your team knows who is and who is not performing. And if you fail to do something about the low performer under the guise of being a nice person (or hoping they’ll eventually figure it out), your team will lose respect for you.
A team of high performers does not want to have to carry along a straggler, no matter how nice they are.
In my experience, I wish I’d made those hard decisions sooner in hindsight, rather than hoping they’d get where I wanted them to be.
It can create some weird unintended consequences though. Like if people know you regularly manage out low performers, they might be risk averse to try something difficult for fear of failing and losing their job. They need to be able to see exactly why someone didn’t make the cut.
It’s a difficult line, especially when complicated by blunt corporate incentives like stack ranking and PIP’ing the bottom 10%, etc where it can be less than clear sometimes.
You are not being paid by a company “to be human”. You are being paid to produce. If you don’t produce it makes sense they don’t want to pay you, especially if it’s easy to find someone else to produce in your place.
You've perfectly described why most corporations get low-engagement employees producing whatever is asked without much questioning because they simply don't care. You pay me, I produce what you asked, no matter how shit it is since I'm not paid to be a human with qualities that could produce something better.
An awful lot of graduate positions in the U.K. are things like customer service, account management, paralegal, data analysis.
These categories have seen broad application of AI tools:
- CS, you’ll most likely talk to an LLM for first tier support these days.
- Account management comprises pressing the flesh (human required) and responding to emails - the latter, AMs have seen their workload slashed, so it stands to reason that fewer are required.
- Paralegal - the category has been demolished. Drafting and discovery are now largely automated processes.
- Data analysis - why have a monkey in a suit write you barely useful nonsense when a machine can do the same?
So - yeah, it’s purely correlative right now, but I can see how it being causative is perfectly plausible.
There's always a new tech frontier. Like, weaving machines replaced looms, cars replaced carriages, and now it's AI. Each time, we need a new kind of worker. We shouldn't worry about jobs changing or vanishing, but we should worry that we won't learn and teach the new stuff fast enough.
If I am running a factory that use to create carriages and now creates cars, I need people who can create cars now. If I want to expand the number of customers I serve, I need to hire more people.
If I am a software company, I don’t need to scale the number of software engineers I hire to serve more customers.
Since gen AI has been a thing, I mostly pivoted to more strategy based cloud consulting than hands on keyboard software development. But before Gen AI, I would have needed a couple of junior developers to do the grunt work of implementing well defined implementations. Now I can do both the strategy and implementations in the same amount of time.
Even before Gen AI the entire reason that software engineers get paid so much because software development has high fixed costs but near zero marginal costs. No other industry has been like that historically.
This is an assumption where competition (as a wide term) does exactly the same and focuses solely on AI. But in reality, competition will scale both in incorporating AI and hiring more to keep up with the market.
The article is about entry level jobs. If I brought in two entry level developers to do the current POC project where I did the discovery, design and architecture, it would slow me down as opposed to feeding in the requirements to ChatGPT and letting it spit out the technical simple code that I require where the complexity is in the orchestration and business requirements.
I have never once said “it sure would be nice to have a few more junior devs. That would really increase our velocity”.
As someone who is responsible for getting projects done on time, within budget and meets requiremenga, why would I push for hiring fresh entry level devs instead of hiring a mid level dev with experience for only 20-30% more? The spread isn’t that great for enterprise developers.
It’s even more true now that I can push for hiring a mid level devs working remotely in East BumbleFuck South Dakota for peanuts.
For what’s its worth, I am classifying seniority by the ability to work at certain “scope” and “deal with ambiguity”, not someone who “codez real gud” and can reverse a b tree on the whiteboard
And there is a diminishing return on new features. If Google fired every developer not involved in search and ads, they could survive another decade or so and probably end up being more profitable since they can’t produce new good profitable products to save their lives
Our economy changes so fast that we need more generalized skills to adapt. If you were apprenticed as a telephone operator, what would you have done? So we learn math, science, communication, etc.
Kids are absolutely right - much of it you will never use to make money. But if you learn how to learn, then that will help make you successful no matter where you go.
reply