I think, assume. With the Military, with the goal of killing people, that there is assumption of more human judgment being involved. Beyond even the issue of a man-in-the-loop for targeting systems. But even generally, that these are big decisions that shouldn't be farmed out completely.
For every job in the private sector, there's probably someone in the DoD doing the same thing. In 2005, the tooth-to-tail ratio (combat to non-combat roles) was 1:8.1.
I'm guessing the vast majority of the AI usage is for things any typical office worker would use it for.
That essay really shook me into understanding things I had never thought of, and I've been better at my job ever since.
I remain grateful to Joel for the insights!
In 2026, test suites can and should handle much of this uncertainty. If Nancy wrote a good test for her fix, we can rewrite and refactor with much less fear and risk.
Around 20% of people have a fear of needles. Around 4% have a clinical phobia, often intense enough to induce fainting.
I suspect a lot of "vaccine skepticism" is just an expression of such needle phobia.
Maybe developing more needle free vaccine delivery mechanisms would solve a lot of this problem. I have much doubt about arguing people out of phobias.
I don't see any evidence that the level of fear of needles is different now from what it was 10, 20, 30 or more years ago, so it is hard to see how it could be a significant factor in falling vaccination rates now.
It's not. It's scientific ignorance combined with lies (Wakefield) and misinformation. There may be some small percentage of people who completely avoid injections but most people who understand vaccines accept the benefits outweigh the short term fear / pain of needles.
No one is arguing that such a thing as wealth creation doesn't exist. The question is about who or what creates it.
Which is a topic of intense discussion in economics over the last few hundred years, BTW, and the discussion here so far has shockingly few references to those.
Well gee, to start France has higher healthcare quality/access, higher life expectancy, much lower treatable mortality, better work-life balance (less hours worked, more guaranteed leave), lower wealth inequality, higher voter turnout (indicative of less apathy or less efforts to disenfranchise), among others.
One of the problems with just using economic metrics is it seems to confuse the fact that the economy is supposed to serve society, not the other way around. So it leads one to wonder: with those better economic measures, what is it buying for US citizens?
Many Americans have a strong bias for measuring everything in money. If you've lived there, it can be shocking how pervasive the thinking is in EVERY decision.
All these things become meaningless when you cross the ~50th income percentile.
Besides work/life balance, the US gets much better as you earn more, and frankly high earners are generally less concerned with time off work too.
Also why the US enjoyed ~30 years of European brain drain, those benefits are much less enticing when you are the one paying more and getting less.
Median US income is $45k. Almost 18% of US household income goes to healthcare costs. So you’re saying healthcare access/quality, time off, and mortality are moot once you make $23/hr? Color me skeptical.
I mean, you're on the cusp there but $23/hr is around where "full benefits" jobs become the norm.
Also keep in mind that French pay a lot for healthcare too, except it's called taxes. That $23/hr in France would be taxed at 30% compared to 12% in the US.
This only gets more dramatic as you climb the income scale, which inevitably means (in France) you are paying way more taxes (41% at $100k) while using those social services the least.
Compare to the US where you are paying 22% on $100k and likely getting high tier health insurance for ~$200/mo from such a job.
The takeaway is that America sucks if you are poor, but gets much better if you can make it out of the bottom half, and way better if you can get to the top 25%.
P.S. there is a reason the media only talks about the bottom 50% and the top 1%. Talking about the 50-99% would reveal where the real money in the country is (and offend/call out half the country too).
> That $23/hr in France would be taxed at 30% compared to 12% in the US.
So, since you're full of shit, let's do the math. I'll even be kind, I'll go 1$ = 1€. 23€ per hour, 35h/week, 4 weeks per month (broadly). 3220€ gross, which, to cut things short and not even get into gross -> net, let's assume 100% of your gross is now net, is 38640€ / year. The 30% tax BRACKET starts at 29316€. 25% gets taxed at 30%, 60% gets taxed at 11%.
Anyways, you're full of shit, I just needed people reading you to know it.
Benefits are paid based on hours worked not on rate. You also seem to confuse marginal and effective tax rates because you don’t factor in the other tax structures in the US like FICA/state/local taxes. On the US healthcare side, you have to factor in deductibles; my annual family HSA deductible is $8k. And on and on. As a general rule, I try not to spend much time debating with new accounts that miss basic facts/principles.
But this all digresses from the point: simple economic indicators like GDP without fuller context are a lazy and misleading metric for evaluating the health of a society.
This is why I spent most of my career in startups. I did work at big companies twice for a few years, and it strongly reinforced that decision.
Startup life has it's own problems. Primarily that the company may cease to exist at any time. it's not for everyone, but I adapted after my first big layoff.
reply