The rule of law isn’t based on the state’s monopoly on violence. Its entire purpose is to protect citizens from state violence by subordinating it to law adjudicated in courts.
Covid-era over-hiring was never going to end well. If there’s any silver lining to this, it’s that with the AI tools used to AI-wash the dismissals, it’s easier than ever to bone up on economics and why it’s a bad idea to hire people without a clear view of the economic margins along which the employee will be profitable for the firm.
Someone made a great post about other companies who have shed their 'covid excess' but are still citing that period as a motivation for their decisions.
I wouldn’t count on reduced drudgery. The assembly line automated many movements needed for manufacturing. But which work involved more drudgery—-craftsman-style car production or standing on an assembly line at Ford?
With any new technology, subsequent drudgery depends on the technology, its concomitant economics, and the imagination of the people using it.
It also seems possible that clever, young outsiders will, by creatively employing AI, displace senior devs. Because unlike with law and accounting, novices in software development can generate a lot of their own reps at low cost (mostly just their time, which will be cheap compared to senior devs).
Another possibility could be using junior devs (with AI) to come up with enormous numbers of fresh ideas and minimally working programs, with the promising ones then worked on with senior devs.
Most fundamentally, because AI lowers the cost of testing out ideas and potential software products, it seems like a tool to test notions of what you should build or continue to offer customers in the first place.
The real threat is SPAM. No matter how great you are at spotting diamonds in the rough, if the rough expands exponentially (unlike the singularity), the real trouble is going to be about how to actually evaluate whether or not whatever is presented is a solid code, or three AIs in a trench coat.
We already see it overwhelming HR systems, but once all this code gets generated, how is anyone going to know, without being extremely competent, that these vibe coded things are sufficient demonstration of future value.
Or worse, how are you going to even find these new age AI wunderkind, when it used to be hard to polish up a project and now anyone can spit shine their project.
Common sense and experience inform my theory of good sleep: Pitch black, stone quiet, with noise limited to pre-sleep audial approximations of the dream-like mental noise that precipitates sleep.
A norm of scheduling the “start” on the hour or half hour while really starting the meeting five minutes later also works. That way, attendees have an opportunity to arrive “on time” and chat if they like, building relationships in the process. The freedom to arrive at any point during the first five minutes also helps to create the kind of ease that’s conducive to serious discussion. This second part is particularly important when power dynamics might otherwise derail real discussion.
Because five minutes of pure chitchat can feel excessive to some folks, though, a three-minute norm probably works better—-especially because the off-centeredness has the informal aesthetic that, again, forms a better backdrop for serious discussion.
Whether it's planned or not, that seems like a pretty normal dynamic. "Let's give people a few minutes and then we'll get started." Especially with back to back meetings which are the norm for a lot of people, they need a few minutes to grab coffee/water, use the bathroom, etc. (And, of course, with in person meetings they usually need some time to run to the next room.)
Yep. In general, when you see social solutions emerge in the wild from the free choices of participants, there is an underlying logic that’s doing important work. It’s easy to think you can improve over these natural solutions, but usually you can’t.
I recall working at this place that prided itself on starting meetings a minute early, as if trying to prove a point. The early starts did prove that, yes, you could get people to scramble, but not much else.
You can’t afford to risk being weird anymore. Housing is too expensive. Too many weird steps in non-pecuniary directions and you’ll end up on the street or your mom’s couch.
This includes full Israeli withdrawal to a buffer zone, Rafah crossing reopening, and Hamas giving up weapons and control of Gaza, with US/Arab-funded rebuilding.
If you don't understand the difference between now, and those events, then I can't help you.
> was aided by his "toughness", such as, you know, striking Iran
Striking Iran didn't end hostilities in Gaza, Trump leaning on Egypt, Turkey and Qatar did [1]. (The Iran strikes might have worked because Hegseth was sidelined [2].)
Hegseth is a wuss who couldn't cut it in the military. He's in place because he's loyal, probably compromised, and plays masculinity well on TV.
I didn't say it directly ended, I said it was aided by.
> "I think it really started when we took out the nuclear capability of Iran," Trump said, referring to the June strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites. "When you look at what they had, you couldn't have made this deal with someone sitting over there with a nuclear weapon over your head." [1]
The last ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was in January of this year, before he took office, but yes, he's a special boy for actually doing his job.
Of course, everyone in the room has already read the same leadership tips, likely earning you plenty of eye rolls and detracting from the straightforward, honest cooperation and on-task communication that are the backbone of all successful teams and companies.
reply