For me, it was taking the joke too far. The catwalk comment intro was actually really good, but then it just kept running with it the whole way through. That is not in and of itself a sin, but unless there's a good reason to do so, it dries quickly. You need something to keep it flowing, otherwise it just feels like you really needed to write 8 flamboyant lines mocking HN about inheritance with catwalk references stuck in for all of the lines. Feels forced, almost like you are trying to meet a quota. Which is what makes it feel AI-ish, to me at least.
Definitely one of the better ones though, very impressive. AI really is great at making some very impressive things. But since AI doesn't "get it", a lot of what it produces just feels off or misses the point.
I like this. I tried something similar ~10 years ago, but it didn't go very well. I'm sure an LLM can do much better than the nonsense I hacked together.
you have to be a barista for this too work: "You Latte is going to take an extra five minutes to make is that ok?", then you turn around and start chatting in Spanish to your fellow coffee shop employees.
There are probably several local maxima on the distribution curve. At some point having dogmatic, extreme ethics probably hampers getting everything down, and the worst, most cartoonishly evil company also is leaving money on the table. In the less extreme, I think you probably have three schelling points. 1) High-Integrity companies that promote and use the culture of ethics to attract customers and employees. It probably is industry specific if this works. 2) You have "ethics agnostic", but legal" companies that just do focus on near-term profit maximizations and while they may have individuals trying to make ethical choices, the organizational structure won't reward that outside of the whatever profit it generates. Non ethical behavior that gets bad press or crosses idealogical lines, gets dropped fast if not profitable and arbitrarily depending on leadership otherwise. 3) Then you have companies covering up illegal/fraudulent issues, where the incentives are to double-down and reinforce the behavior.
Depends the environment you're working in - there are several cultures within the US where I think your statement is quite true... but in general people find that working for a company that doesn't care for them is a detriment and will demand higher compensation due to the obvious risk. That all said - you should always be defensive as an employee about how much risk you accept on yourself since the employer/employee relationship can be terminated suddenly and without any real recourse in most circumstances.
Depends on the circumstances. If you are trying to make a valuable product, good ethics will probably serve you better than bad ones in a majority of cases. If you aren't concerned with generating real value and are fine with running your company and reputation into the ground, then sure.
Yeah definitely not. 95% of what he's talking about is true and correct, it's largely about the systemic corruption in politics. If you think none of that is real your education on US government stopped at Schoolhouse Rock.
I don't know anything about Russell Brand but I am just browsing through his recent videos and yes it's very much woo and conspiracy. His latest videos, chronoligically (I won't be clicking any of them, so some are hard to assess),
* So, this is happening - appears to be about the scenario under discussion here
* Hang on, Biden 9/11 Speech Was A Lie?! - conspiracy nuttery
* Bill Gates Has Been HIDING This And It's ALL About To Come Out - with an anti-vax symbol in the thumbnail, conspiracy nuttery
* Hang On, Obama Did WHAT?! - hard to say what this is about
* So, Trump Just Said THIS About Vaccines And It Changes EVERYTHING - conspiracy nuttery
* So, They LIED To Hawaii Victims About THIS - conspiracy nuttery
* So… They Fcking KNEW It Was A Lie All Along - conspiracy nuttery
Tucker’s Countdown To WW3 Has Started… - doomer nonsense
* The FBI Have Been Harvesting Your DNA?! - conspiracy nuttery
* So… Trump Just Changed EVERYTHING With This Move - no idea
* Shoespiracy EXPOSED: The HIDDEN Truth Of The Shoe Industry - conspiracy nuttery
* So… Tucker Just COMPLETELY FLIPPED The Ukraine Narrative - no idea but sounds stupid as hell
I didn't cherry pick anything, this was purely chronological.
If the videos that I listed are about something other than the title I would be interested to hear it. I sure as hell am not going to listen to a rapist talk about 9/11 and vaccines to verify it.
This seems like a pretty uncurious point of view to post on a forum thats all about intellectual curiousity. What discussion can there be if you intentionally put blinders on like this?
I don't get it. Do you disagree? How many of your textbooks could have been written by drunken adulterers or abusers?
I don't know that what brand says is right or wrong, and I'd understand the "oh dear, of course I wouldn't listen to that kind of riffraff" performance if you had HR or a boss to worry about, but who thinks that way when they have the freedom not to?
Who thinks what way? Who thinks, "This fucking jackass who's been spouting nonsense for years is now being accused of rape. A guy who has a rumble channel... I should check out that guys sketchy and culty content! FREEEEDDOOOOOOOOOOM!"
I have the freedom to poison myself with household cleaners every damn day, but I don't. Does that make me a 'sheeple'?
Your preferences are your prerogative. My point was in response to mvdtnz weighing in on something while being explicitly ignorant on the subject.
Its like going to a book club meeting, telling everyone that you obviously didn't read the book because you're not some unwashed heathen, and then proceeding to confidently give your analysis based on what you half heard someone on the train say about chapter 2.
To be very fair his youtube titles tell a lot about their content. To any persona with more than a handful of working neurons, that's more than enough.
Dude has lived so long without true consequences, getting second chance after second chance at the bbc before high tailing it to LA ... couple that with the probably epic amount of drugs and alcohol. My dude has cooked his brain.
So it looks like you actually have something behind your opinion. That's worthwhile.
> To be very fair his youtube titles tell a lot about their content. To any persona with more than a handful of working neurons, that's more than enough.
I can't agree with that. A handful of working neurons doesn't magically give you the ability to divine the contents of a book from its cover.
But it seems like you've at least watched some of his content and have your own opinion on it. I can respect that.
What I can't respect is when people happily form their opinions based on vague impressions gleaned from other people who also aren't familiar with the subject matter, and then pass that opinion on as if it's worth something.
> Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off, or as emojis: ""[1]) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent; rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong.
