Outside of a few small local businesses that actually care about doing right by people, loyalty hasn’t mattered for decades dude. Companies don’t give a shit about any of us. Why even bother thinking in terms of loyalty, it’s completely misaligned with how they operate.

Damn beat me to it

Are there modded clients for mobile?

Lol I can tell you just used Google Lens or some shit and then proceeded to make it sound like you knew what you were talking about by assuming it was Japanese (it’s not).

The more people get into it the less valuable it becomes is the thing. But others pointed out there’s a ton of other reasons it’s problematic, like the need for those other jobs to exist to actually, like, have a functioning society.

Edit: Also arguably a lot of the low hanging fruit coding positions aren’t as lucrative as they once were. People with experience are doing well. New people are having a tougher time getting their foot in the door compared to 5-10 years ago.

My high school never had math competitions so I’ll never know how I’d do. :(

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

As related as they are, though, CS and IT are still separate disciplines so idk, as much as some CS people are struggling to find work too, I feel like CS people specializing in development isn’t super relevant to the struggles of an IT person looking for IT work since only a minority of IT grads go on to become developers.

Although one way that CS grads can have an effect on IT people’s employment chances I think—anecdotally, in a way that applies to my local area at least—is that fresh CS grads are preferred over fresh IT grads for IT roles, and often better paying ones. But more experience and/or having the right certifications can give anyone an edge on either side. The catch is there’s usually far less people graduating with a CS degree than an IT diploma, and only a fraction of them are interested in an IT track career.

Where I’m from IT is usually a 2 year diploma at the local college, or at most an associate’s degree and there wouldn’t really be a path to further that academically by doing, like, a master’s degree or whatever which limits the options of IT grads but also makes them less desirable I guess as the education isn’t as rigorous. According to Google, other parts of the country offer a full on IT bachelor’s but at that point I’d be asking why someone used that 4 years on a vocational degree that’s pretty limiting instead of an academic or engineering degree. Anyone with a technical skillset can learn IT on the job, but a proper CS, CE, or SWE curriculum is difficult.

To be clear, I don’t disagree with what you said it just felt disconnected from the context of IT employment.

Is the AI open source? Curious what you’re using and what your experiences with it are.

You’ll call a Phillips a Phillips but not a Robertson a Robertson or an Allen an Allen, smh

And trying to get by on a single income is a fucking nightmare for a lot of people.

I think I heard about it actually, it’s the issue where people make up shit on the spot online to confirm their biases

I would say it applies to a lot of the Anglosphere but I have zero evidence that it applies to every western nation. I’m sure a ton of them have their own names for generations with their own quirks and subcultures.

In-spite of its potential for liberation and independence.

When it shows that potential, maybe more people will get on board. Until then there are a host of problems that make a ton of people not want to touch it including but not limited to:

1. Capitalists and scammers are already exploiting it the way they do with traditional currencies, except in sometimes new creative ways because of either the lack of regulations or because the technology inherently makes it impossible to trace.

2. I don’t see the involvement of predatory capitalists or financial institutions changing in a fully crypto world either, because people are always going to need financial services like loans and insurance on their savings and the financial institutions will always have the imbalance of power.

3. The currencies mostly benefit people with a ton of capital to handle consensus, which further entrenches the power imbalance found in (1) and (2).

4. Insane amounts of resources are needed to reach consensus in a way that is not good at all for the environment, whether that be electricity, computer hardware, or whatever other resource. Sure we already use a lot of power to make our society run. But crypto is asking for more ON TOP of that, compounding the issues. Saying the financial industry already uses a lot of power is not a good argument when I don’t think anyone is reasonably convinced that they’re going away even after crypto were to take over, and now you’re adding an insane power or pollution requirement to run the world’s currency system.

5. Relying solely on crypto leaves people destitute if their wallets got hacked, unless they decide to utilize traditional banking with insurance (hint: people like stability and a lot of people will choose to do this over having their life savings wiped out).

6. Chucklefucks are using the technology to commodify and break the best part of the digital world which is the ability to have bit for bit reproducible copies of information.

I’m serious. Fix all of that and you absolutely would get people on board. Not even kidding. Crypto would be taken seriously. But I have yet to hear compelling solutions by cryptobros.

True but sometimes the tortilla rips open and the foil provides solid backup

That’s one of the reasons wrestling fans prefer the term scripted or staged as opposed to fake. It still requires tons of athleticism, and lots of wrestlers are still taking very real hits and injuries despite trying to minimize the impacts of them.

It’s simultaneously possible to realize that something is useful while also recognizing the damage that its trend is causing from a sustainability standpoint, and that neither realization particularly demonstrates a lack of understanding about AI.

The conventional view on infinity would say they’re actually the same size of infinity assuming the 1 and the 100 belong to the same set.

You’re right that one function grows faster but infinity itself is no different regardless of what you multiply them by. The infinities both have same set size and would encompass the same concept of infinity regardless of what they’re multiplied by. The set size of infinity is denoted by the order of aleph (ℵ) it belongs to. If both 1 and 100 are natural numbers then they belong to the set of countable infinity, which is called aleph-zero (ℵ₀). If both 1 and 100 are reals, then the size of their infinities are uncountably infinite, which means they belong to aleph-one (ℵ₁).

That said, you can definitely have different definitions of infinity that are unconventional as long as they fit whatever axioms you come up with. But since most math is grounded in set theory, that’s where this particular convention stems from.

Anyways, given your example it would really depend on whether time was a factor. If the question was “would you rather have 1 • x or 100 • x dollars where x approaches infinity every second?” well the answer is obvious, because we’re describing something that has a growth rate. If the question was “You have infinity dollars. Do you prefer 1 • ∞ or 100 • ∞?” it really wouldn’t matter because you have infinity dollars. They’re the same infinity. In other words you could withdraw as much money as you wanted and always have infinity. They are equally as limitless.

Now I can foresee a counter-argument where maybe you meant 1 • ∞ vs 100 • ∞ to mean that you can only withdraw in ones or hundred dollar bills, but that’s a synthetic constraint you’ve put on it from a banking perspective. You’ve created a new notation and have defined it separately from the conventional meaning of infinity in mathematics. And in reality that is maybe more of a physics question about the amount of dollar bills that can physically exist that is practical, and a philosophical question about the convenience of 1 vs 100 dollar bills, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the size of infinity mathematically. Without an artificial constraint you could just as easily take out your infinite money in denominations of 20, 50, 1000, a million, and still have the same infinite amount of dollars left over.

I see this come up on social media, moreso with Gen Z and people that just like to be outraged about stuff online. They seem to be more sensitive to age gaps and call it grooming, even stuff within the typical “half your age plus seven” rule that most millenials and older gens seemed to find normal. I’m not sure that only 3 years would be a problem even for them though.

The weird thing is, I’m not sure any customers actually do care. it genuinely just feels like engineers finding ways to masturbate over how thin they can get something.