> A nosy question is nosy because it demands an answer to which the querent is not entitled.
Jesus, is this really what you meant? I can't imagine how barren my life would be if I restricted my interactions with others to only include things to which I was "entitled."
It's not an "all the time" thing, but an aspect of how human relationships work. Like everything else there, it's contextual. In the context of public conversations and professional relationships, it's reasonable to consider there exists a threshold of intimacy beyond which further inquiry is improper.
That shouldn't be a tremendously controversial statement, I hope. If there's a variation on it here, it is only that "improper", again as with anything in human relationships, is contextual and not always obvious, but that there can exist subtexts in a conversation which indicate when it verges thereupon.
I wasn't trying to straw-man you and I agree with this more verbose phrasing. There's a vibe in some related comments that suggests that the proper way to manage your work affairs is to interact through some narrow "proper" API, in which nothing is sought nor proffered, that we exist to each other as callable services only.
I try to generally be polite and treat people the way they seem to want, but I'm not going to live some meek life terrified that someone might take offense at my over-reach. If I'm going to screw up, my defaults are set for errors of commission.
> If I'm going to screw up, my defaults are set for errors of commission.
There have been times in my life where I said the same.
> I'm not going to live some meek life terrified that someone might take offense at my over-reach.
This isn't about that. This is about the wrong assumptions people make, much more easily than they realize, based on someone speaking knowledgeably of things very far beyond their own experience. Those assumptions easily motivate harmful behavior.
> There's a vibe in some related comments that suggests that the proper way to manage your work affairs is to interact through some narrow "proper" API, in which nothing is sought nor proffered, that we exist to each other as callable services only.
This is a cold and mechanistic view of the thing. I would rather say that some relationships more easily bear personal intimacy than others, and a basic aspect of human social competence lies in knowing which are which and avoiding the imposition of undue strain on those relationships that can't support it.
Maybe not _equally_ but yeah, this is a key point. There's not a good way to place this bet, but I bet the day comes when the full-remote advocates will rue that advocacy, or at least, many of the Americans will.
At the risk of caricature, it seems like there are two camps:
1. WFH is amazing and just as good for productivity and back-to-office is just a flex by evil managers.
2. WFH is bad for global productivity and so we need back-to-office.
Seems pretty straightforward that if #1 is right, then full-remote companies will have a massive competitive advantage, and the issue should be adjudicated decisively once more companies implement b-t-o.
The game is rigged. There is always more behind the RTO. Examples include - political pressure to prop up downtown businesses (and real estate), easy ways to lay-off without having to announce it, hiring cheaper younger workforce as opposed to expensive senior workers, etc.
You’re assuming a fair world. It isn’t. As an employee the game is rigged against you.
I agree the world isn't "fair" for most definitions of the word. Unlike many, I don't attribute zero weight to human pettiness that desires a sea of toiling workers as a prestige accent to an executive's self-image.
But also unlike many, I believe that that weight, whatever it is, to be overwhelmed by the colder calculation of profit, growth, etc.
If our corporate overlords could get it done with 50% of the present workforce fully remote, they would, happily. Even better if they were in Bangladesh. Which is another reason to be careful what you wish for.
Yes and the profit in this instance is from resignation. That profit motive is also short term over longer term, who cares if it's not in the long term interest of the business, think of their bonus.
What about "whether WFH is more or less productive is irrelevant because people hired with the understanding they would work remotely shouldn't be forced to 'return' to an office they never worked in?" Sure, maybe it's more profitable for the company to have all of their employees in the office, but plenty of other things are more profitable that we also have decided as a society aren't reasonable, like paying below minimum wage or flouting safety regulations. If a company didn't think it could make a profit while employing remotely, they shouldn't have hired remote workers in the first place.
Yes. The fact that literally no one does this makes me continue to wonder wtf people are actually doing w/ LLMs, since I feel this need so acutely and the solution is so obvious.
I assume that there are people who are doing this. For example, you could set this up via the OpenAI API with an embedding model. The API processes the text using a pre-trained model like
text-embedding-ada-002
which converts the text into a vector to store in the database.
I assume that this sort of functionality will become more commonplace.
These are good points. The devil is in the details for how to implement stuff like this, and there are a host of other tradeoffs, e.g., seemingly optimal regimens that people despise and that are de-motivating are, in practice, far worse than theoretically less-good training that people will actually do.
If it was as straightforward as some of the "expertise" research suggests, the world would be teeming with super-beings. That it isn't should give one pause about the relative leverage of constructing the problem this way.
The protocol XMTP is built to last forever and will outlive us all, the name of the company is a reminder that if the company ever went away that the protocol must be able to live on. Requirement for decentralization.
Where can I go or what can I read written by credible people (not autodidacts and conspiracy theorists from the internet) that makes the case against anthro-caused climate change, and puts the arguments in context with the pro-ACCC people?
Jesus, is this really what you meant? I can't imagine how barren my life would be if I restricted my interactions with others to only include things to which I was "entitled."