Less connected is good. Also making the other person feel more awkward or uncomfortable with the interaction.
I suspect most people desperately trying to hang on to it, except with those they are good friends with. Unless they want out of a conversation. Although i may be projecting here.
Probably because there are 1000x or whatever human driven miles compared to AI. And no one wants to be crippled by an AI have have to fight $billon_dollar_corp for compensation.
If you are required to use a Microsoft tool is Azure DevOps now a better choice? Our Azure hosted instance rarely (if ever) has had an outage that effects our ability to work.
As someone who maintained a product that was, until recently, on Azure DevOps, stay away. Like, really really far away. There's nothing positive I can say about it.
That's not necessarily a bad thing for stability, but long-term I would not be surprised if it gets EOL-ed, or radically shrunk to just a basic Git mirroring service.
Discussion about it going ELO has been around since 2020-ish. But that is a worry i agree.
I get the feeling there is a long tail of old-school corps (migrated from the TFS days) that will keep the lights on. And for some orgs you just need "good enough" CI/CD pipelines that are reliable.
Maybe I'm a weirdo, but i find the kanban/sprint board pretty usable as well.
> Even if its an engineer that's making 6 figures that you are liekly alluding to, do you expect everyone to agree with your moral code and quit their job?
No, but you shouldn't expect to see them addressed with respect either, just like Enron traders, Purdue salesmen or tobacco scientists don't get a lot of it.
And second best would be these people owning their moral vacuity.
I can sort of respect a response like, "Yeah, I like Zuckerberg's money and I don't give a shit about the harm I'm enabling. I'll keep cashing my checks and being an asshole." It's the people who expect us to pretend they're not asshole that get to me. They want the upside of bad behavior without the downside. Sorry bub, FAFO.
Everyone has the moral obligation to not enable or profit from harm. Do we all live up perfectly to that all the time? No. There's no meaningful moral rule where people can do that. If there were, it wouldn't be worth having as a moral rule.
Is Zuckerberg responsible for the harm he's causing? Yes. Are the workers enabling that responsible? Yes. Are the people who profit from indirectly supporting that responsible? Yes. Responsibility is not zero sum.
"Harm" is a mushy term that means everything and nothing. There are many competing definitions of "harm" based on one's cultural, religious, and philosophical priors. So what kind of harm are you talking about exactly?
That any particular thing is harmful can be a worthwhile discussion, one that has been going on for centuries and will continue for centuries more. The notion that nothing is harmful is idiotic, so I presume you're not claiming that. As long as we agree that harm to others exists, my point stands. If you'd like the details, I suggest you consult said centuries of dialog. But in practice, it's pretty clear that people can and do come to useful decisions on the nature of harm all the time.
If you work for a company, you are enabling that company's practices. If those practices are bad and you are aware of them, then continuing to work there means your hands are dirty too.
People have, of course, every right to make such a decision based on their own ethical sensibilities. I have every right to judge them based on mine.
These big companies have orgs within them that do, e.g., charitable work. Or work on standards or open source. Or accessibility or inclusion or other work to genuinely improve lives. How does your judgement apply to folks who attach their altruistic efforts to the funding and reach of a big company?
I would understand if you said, "Nope, still equally responsible" or if you said, "Relatively less worried about these folks".
Genuinely interested in hearing thoughts about these orgs at big companies.
Doing good deeds does not absolve anyone of their bad deeds.
> How does your judgement apply to folks who attach their altruistic efforts to the funding and reach of a big company?
If it's getting the company to fund your altruistic efforts and isn't benefiting that company, then it's not contributing to the bad deeds. Otherwise, it is.
Either way, if you're working for the company, then you're still enabling them. Whether or not you participate in internal do-gooding efforts doesn't change that.
> Anecdotally, it’s getting harder for them to date
I wonder how much of this is the reputation, and how much is the same thing over all society in recent years.
(Alternative narrative: everyone else is fine and the news stories about this are all driven by people at Meta having above-average influence on the news reporting and/or who is going to participate in the surveys).
“Anecdotally” this is not the case, it’s getting harder for everyone to date meta employees are not doing worse than anyone else and with their income likely the opposite
> it’s getting harder for everyone to date meta employees are not doing worse
Anecdotally, I know several women and a few men in New York and the Bay Area who have drawn a line on dating anyone at Meta. They want to raise families and don’t feel comfortable with someone with those values. None of them are woke or leftist. One of them worked there. All of them make good money.
If I were dating today, I don’t think I’d date someone who chooses to continue working there. (Unless they were doing research.) And I don’t have a lot of those limits.
> There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart that you can't take part! You can't even passively take part! And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus -- and you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it -- that unless you're free the machine will be prevented from working at all!!
Terrible take. Trying to moral gymnastics your way out of taking responsibility for who you work for. If you're working at meta it's unlikely to be your only good option. Yes, the janitors get a pass.
The AI bot does change it, random spam emails get ignored already as you say.
A request from an AI agent doesn't, as the parent showed.
Now anyone can source 40 samples from Vietnamese factories and get a response, the sort of request that would only come from a serious buyer before AI agents impersonating humans were a thing.
Tokens aren't free so there's already some level of buy-in on the part of the human sending out the agent. The amount of unserious requests will be limited by the cost of the tokens to run the agents.
On the other hand op said they'd been wanting to do this for years but never had the time / ability. This is work that would otherwise not be happening.
Yup, apparently people that live their lives in the UK are the indoctrinated ones. Not the majority of the HN crowd that consume whatever the algorithm feeds them and think they are enlightened.
I suspect most people desperately trying to hang on to it, except with those they are good friends with. Unless they want out of a conversation. Although i may be projecting here.
reply