If you work to earn a living, you're working class. If you use capital to pay your bills, you're a capitalist. So I'd say someone with that kind of salary and stocks is probably halfway to not-working-class. If you already have 1MM in stocks then you're not working class anymore, you don't need to work at that point.

> If you work to earn a living, you're working class

They are using a divide an conquer strategy. By splitting the working class they want to weak our ability to resist capital.

There is no logic to their argument just lies to fulfill their goal.

> So I'd say someone with that kind of salary and stocks is probably halfway to not-working-class. I

Just halfway seems low. But this is Silicon Valley News after all.

Of course quitting can be in the cards, but I'd much rather see a successful pushback from meta employees against this new policy; maybe this could be a good cause to form a union over.

In the actual article (not the headline) there is no mention of staff reporting to be unhappy.

Quotes from unhappy staff are in the Business Insider article which the article links to in its third paragraph.

Ah I saw it now through another HN submission.

The actual irony is that this very title is the ragebait, as they say in the article:

> .. so it can keep them clicking on ragebait ..

Can you elaborate what the problem is? IMO hosting and search are quite decoupled, why not just search for "open source solution to problem XYZ" in your favorite search engine?

I specifically like the filtering to say "permissive license in Go language"

I agree with the 'setting limits' bit.

But also maybe the parent post and you refer to kids of different ages?

I didn't have access to a computer until I was 9, and then also we didn't have tables and smartphones, so there computer was only available at home as well.

I think below a certain age the limit is fine to be set as 'not at all'.

Individualizing systemic failures to regulate businesses is counterproductive. Meaningful change will only come by regulation.

Give me one example, where consumer behavior really changed anything. Usually what follows from large boycotts is political action or the company succumbing to pressure.

Just stopping to spend your money there might make you feel good but don't kid yourself, it barely does anything if you're not turning it into an organized action.

How do you turn it into an organized action?

Like other commentators I'd argue that the intentions don't matter much, the outcome does.

"The purpose of a system is what it does" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...)

Thanks for replying that. I think after reading this, I'd go with what was said at the end: “There is no such thing as an unintended consequence” - Amazon claiming that what they're doing is to the benefit of consumers is bullshit. Obviously Amazon knows about all of what's going on (i.e. they cause prize inflation elsewhere) and they willfully tolerate these consequences of their policy.

Brilliant. Like how Google websites constantly deprioritized Firefox (and promoted Chrome) and slowly killed it.

I really want this to work! But maybe my requests are too niche. It also hallucinated an EP for me. And the bandcamp links never work?

Great idea though! I got inspired to listen to some stuff by it, even though it wasn't really what I wanted to find.

IMO this is a great example of how we're often asking loaded questions without realizing it.

IMO it's the same when we're asking:

"Should I implement X from scratch, or import a small library to do it?"

vs

"Should I add feature X to the codebase or bring in another dependency for it?"

In the first question, it sounds like a good idea to not reinvent the wheel, in the second it sounds bad to have dependency.

I totally agree! Interacting with LLMs at work for the past 8 months has really shaped how I communicate with them (and people! in a weird way).

The solution I've found for "un-loading" questions is similar to the one that works for people: build out more context where it's missing. Wax about specifically where the feature will sit and how it'll work, force it to enumerate and research specific libraries and put these explorations into distinct documents. Synthesize and analyze those documents. Fill in any still-extant knowledge gaps. Only then make a judgement call.

As human engineers, we all had to do this at some point in our careers (building up context, memory, points of reference and experience) so we can now mostly rely on instinct. The models don't have the same kind of advantage, so you have to help them simulate that growth in a single context window.

Their snap/low-context judgements are really variable, generalizing, and often poor. But their "concretely-informed" (even when that concrete information is obtained by prompting) judgements are actually impressively-solid. Sometimes I'll ask an inversely-loaded question after loading up all the concrete evidence just to pressure-test their reasoning, and it will usually push back and defend the "right" solution, which is pretty impressive!

Yes, great you're sharing this in a bit of detail! I think I've been using a similar approach to getting solid decisions.

My experience with Chatbots outside of a coding context also ends up like this.

A while ago I asked:

Is "Read more" an appropriate project for the Getting things done framework? - The answer, yes, it was.

Then I asked "Is Read More too big of a project to be appropriate for the GTD Framework" - The answer? Yes, it was far too big.

Answering questions in the positive is a simple kind of bias that basically all LLMs have. Frankly if you are going to train on human data you will see this bias because its everywhere.

LLMs have another related bias though, which is a bit more subtle and easy to trip up on, which is that if you give options A or B, and then reorder it so it is B or A, the result may change. And I don't mean change randomly the distribution of the outcomes will likely change significantly.

Yes I really wish people saying "X is the best place to live in the world" would add where else they have lived, otherwise their opinion is not very useful to me.