The message might be indeed end-to-end encrypted but the local WhatsApp installation could extract keywords as you type from the message and send them to Meta.
tbh, if you want your insult to be likely to survive for nearly 2000 years, it takes a bit of dedication even now.
probably Secundinus had insulted him by shouting at him, making a hand gesture or spilling his beer. But whilst such low effort insults can drive people crazy, they're unlikely to achieve results quite as impressive as worldwide media coverage in future millennia, or historians musing on why Secundinus was considered to be a shitter as they figure out a caption for the centrepiece for a new museum.
> whilst such low effort insults can drive people crazy, they're unlikely to achieve results quite as impressive as worldwide media coverage in future millennia
That result might impress you, but I think everyone involved would have considered the insult a bigger success if, say, Secundinus' engagement fell through and no one in the future ever heard about the dispute.
I don't think you'll get effort. But you might get quality by limiting the posting rate. Something like 1/day. That's not enough, so you also need to encourage the community to highly regard quality posts, rather than just evocative ones. Imagine Twitter where only moderating, calming tweets are liked. It would be a different place!
I used to think corporations strive to reduce costs and therefore keep their workforce to the minimum necessary. Now my theory is that managers in a company try to maximize their influence and standing and this is mostly done by making sure they have as many people below them as possible. Therefore they hire consitantly for their teams and create new sub-hierarchies below them.
If this is the case, the obvious side effect is the emergence of bullshit jobs as the purpose of hiring is not primarely to finish work but to increase power of managers in corporations.
There is periodic pressure to return to [greater] profitability, at which times companies fire like mad. Either it's a higher level of management realizing one branch of the org chart is stupid and directing its removal, or a directive from the top "figure out how to cull 10% of the workforce".
Between those events, however, managerial accumulation of influence takes over.
Maybe c-suite execs don't rip out excess staffing immediately because, even operationally, it's not all downside:
Within a relatively small branch of the org chart, having more than bare minimum staffing (with some of them doing bullshit jobs) provides a human resource buffer that might be tasked with solving really important problems that crop up sometimes: significant new requirements from a customer, or, if the incentives are right, opportunistically solving non-critical persistent problems (e.g. refactoring more) or automating more. I guess there's not enough pressure from higher management to keep teams to true personnel requirements + a few extra, so the "few extra" grows like mad.
Within a larger branch, occasionally having "excess" staffing for internal corporate competition is good. One of the best strategies for large projects (like larger government contractors) is to run two teams each with half the budget and select the best result. It seems insane from a naive perspective: wouldn't it cost nearly twice as much to have double the headcount? But it doesn't seem to, especially when the vast majority of project costs are labor costs or linearly related to staffing (rather than external resource costs, which are more static—though even for resource-intensive projects, internal competition provides incentive to figure out how to use less resources).
It's a super strong phenomenom, having a lot of people around you, an entourage, a posse. Projects a huge amount of power. And it's done with the whole management chain's approval, the low-level boss has more people then his boss has those same more people too because it's a tree.
I think it's important to remember is corporations are just groups of people, and each individual will have a different personality and motivation. Some will be empire builders, others will only hire when push comes to shove.
When it comes to an actual companies personality, it basically boils down to the behaviour you reward, the behaviour you put up with, and when exceptions apply. As an example, how many time does the "no asshole" rule get overrides by someone talent? Suddenly you're full of assholes.
Of course patterns emerge. If the market generally rewards empire builders, then you're going to get people empire building in your organisation. Even if you do not directly reward it, they'll just leverage the title and the reports to land a job elsewhere.
Why do we put up with this? Well quite simply, you tend to be hiring for roles you yourself don't understand. Here me out. If your CEO is a sales guy, which is perfectly fine, he's going to be taking a leap of faith somewhere when he picks a CTO.
I read on linkedin on a regular basis that you shouldn't promote your best developer to CTO. There may be some truth to this, but the reality is that there's a bunch of non-technical people vying for the top technical job. Now from your position as CEO, do you pick the guy who's a bit more salesy and familiar, or the tech you don't understand or empathise with? After all, that CTO with 2 years as a junior programmer in 1993 does articulate a really good argument.
Personally, I think you doom yourself to mediocrity by having a monoculture of bean counters run your business. I might be wrong, but if you hire a person who needs to hire a person to do the job, it's likely they'll want to hire someone a bit like them, and suddenly you'll be hiring a person, to hire a person, that needs to hire a person, for many layers, until one of those people will be a person that does a thing.
Your observation is a good example of the perverse incentive. Fortunately, everyone can win in this particular scenario. If the company can pay its employees on time and doesn't care that much about minimizing costs, and managers can spread the wealth by providing jobs, then it's hardly the worst thing in the world.
Employees can also be seen as insurance against bottlenecks created by other employees. The more employees you have on hand, the less likely that a particular employee going AWOL will cause a noticeable interruption. I've seen companies make the mistake of only hiring a minimal number of engineers, for instance, and end up in a sticky situation when one of them leaves.
This also applies to startups. At least recently. Many startups (specially in the finance market) try to hire and grow like crazy, because it drives investment (or at least so they think).
If you see startup founders as "managers" with investors being their bosses then the parent comment applies too.
A lot of startup founders' goals is to raise more investment and live off that - this gives them the "startup founder" lifestyle & influence without actually having to take on any of the risk & uncertainty of running a self-sustaining business.
Some of these answers seem to be too good to be true and certainly need to be verified by others.
Beside that, even if the interview is not manipulated, it is not a proof for human-like sentience. Human emotions are based on neurochemical processes. If emotions can actually arise on the basis of electromagnetism as well, that would be a groundbreaking discovery. But an "interview" of a part-time researcher with a computer program is not enough evidence to seriously claim this.
I’m not a biologist, but I thought the neurochemical processes can be the results of an emotion rather than the cause of it. Instead, emotions are meta-level states of the system.
Some popular packages are Python version dependent. For example, I was using Python 3.10 early and no Python wheels for 3.10 were released for PyTorch back then. The only thing you can do in this case is to either wair for the publisher to provide these packages or use a lower version Python interpreter.
Python does sometimes have backwards-incompatible changes, e.g. for 3.10 they removed a bunch of stdlib modules and methods, like the "formatter" and "parser" module [0].
So if you used those, your code wouldn't work in 3.10.
But the main reason to wait for wheels (which is pythonese for "pre-built packages") is if they use native code (like C or rust) and you would have to compile them yourself otherwise, which increases installation time quite a bit.
(this was also the reason why Alpine was a bad choice for python containers for a long time because it uses musl and there were only wheels for glibc available. AFAIK musl wheels exist now so that isn't relevant anymore)
I always wondered what’s keeping packages back from having wheels ready the day a release drops, or way before even?
I imagine often it’s just another parameter in a CI somewhere, where things mostly “just work” because backward-incompatible breakages have become much rarer.
It's usually a question of having the resources (usually developers to debug issues). IIRC pretty much all Windows wheels are maintained by one guy, Christoph Gohlke, he was a godsend when I worked on a Windows laptop. I owe that guy many beers.
I've never seen a better illustration of xkcd 2347 than Christoph Gohlke. I tried to find a donation link to send him small thank yous but couldn't find one.
I think the main problem is C modules. CPython only maintains ABI compatibility across minor releases (e.g. 3.10.0 and 3.10.8), so you may need a different binary compiled for CPython 3.9 and 3.10. https://docs.python.org/3/c-api/stable.html
It's absolutely an issue with C modules, especially ones that aren't easy to build or if you're running Windows where it's unlikely that there's a compilation environment setup.
Pillow used to _always_ get this when a new Python release came out, because while we were generally following the betas and build away, our quarterly releases weren't sync'd with the Python ones. So there's be a gap, and every. single. time. we'd get support issues with people pip installing on the newest python and not having a compiler or the basic dependencies. (Aside: even if the last line is "Couldn't find required dependency libjpeg" many many people just don't get that it's requiring additional libraries).
So, we just shifted our fall releases to come after the Python releases.
However, as the page you link also mentions, a C extension may also opt to use the "Stable ABI", which does not change across major releases (with some caveats).
> Elon Musk has something special that you don't have
I believe that there are many Elon Musks in the world but due to various circumstances (born in the wrong place at the wrong time, bad luck, terrible parents) they never get the chance to shine.
The difficulty in making accurate predictions here is based on the fact that we humans tend to think the status quo linearly into the future, which is why many wrong predictions have been made regarding the adaptation of computers or the Internet or other technologies. However, it has been shown that certain unpredictable ideas may be developed based on these technologies, leading to mass adoption of the respective medium.
Long story short: If you don't know which horse will win and you have enough money (time), bet a certain amount on the most promising ones.
Critics might now argue that the goal of the diversity movement was never to create equal opportunities for everyone but to promote specific groups.
Anyway, the illogic of this movement already starts with the fact that only certain characteristics are seen as a source of discrimination, while others are not. Skin color and gender are known to be factors of discrimination. But what about "beauty," "social origin" or "age"? It is known from studies that attractive people are considered to be more competent or more successful and are promoted more often - less attractive people therefore suffer an unfair disadvantage. Shouldn't this therefore also become part of any effort to stop discrimination?
Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN, and please don't cross into personal attack. We ban accounts that post that way, regardless of how right they are or feel they are.
Perhaps you don't feel you owe uneducated people better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
Olympic Games have been used before to underline the power and greatness of a nation - look at how the 1936 Games were used propaganda-wise, so I don't think this is a new phenomenon. What has definitely changed is the importance of live events on TV. In the German speaking area in the 80s to the 2000s, Saturday night shows were popular that gathered the whole family in front of the TV (I'm just saying "Wetten Dass..?"). Due to on demand entertainment that can be perfectly tailored for the desired target audience on Youtube or similar platforms, such TV events have simply lost their importance.
