HarkMahlberg

Yeah I'll admit "escape" didn't do me any favors LOL, but I meant it more in the context of my family and the difference in social mobility. Factories can be, and ought to be, great places to work, I just don't think a person can do that work for their entire life. Just like a factory should be a great place to work, it should also be possible for people to find other places to work.

By the way, it's nice to be able to talk about it without it getting hostile in the way social media tends to do. :)

Can't wait to meet the successor to M1 Abrams: the M2 Sad Tin Can.

Sorry this comment is a doozy, I had a lot on my mind with it lol

While I agree with you, I did not come away from that article with the same conclusion. Nowhere in that article did the SOC mention supporting strong labor protections or progressive labor policy.

In fact, we know from experience that Republicans hate those things, because they're backed by wealthy industrialists. This is absolutely crucial: the things that would make factory work a worthwhile career, like good wages, lots of PTO time, safe workplaces, low pollution, retirement funds, etc are not only expensive to capitalists, they are also the things people need in order to leave a factory job.

Our hypothetical factory worker is happy, but he's getting older, slowing down, his hands hurt from all the work, its unavoidable. So he wants to move up the corporate ladder and into positions that require more soft skills. To that end, he pursues higher education, which requires money and time off. And once he gets his degree and reaches the top of this corporate ladder, he can now transfer his very desirable skills to new jobs, new industries, maybe even white collar work.

You see how this is at odds with Lutnick's vision of intergenerational factory workers? Like, this utopia I've just laid out is not what he's selling. He's selling the complete destruction of class mobility. He wants people who can't leave their jobs, who can't pursue better prospects, and who can't create a better life for their family. He wants your children to know "you will never amount to anything more than your father, or your grandfather."

And that's very appealing to the factory owner. He doesn't have to maintain a safe workplace, because the alternative is jobless and homeless. He doesn't have to pay a dignified wage, he doesn't have to schedule work around your vacation time, and he won't have to pay for the tools you need to escape. And, the cherry on top, he has the next two generations of workers lined up, learning from Pops!

I grew up watching my father go from field technician, to night school bachelor's student, to software engineer. I saw my uncle become a car mechanic, stay a car mechanic, and is now too old to keep working but doesn't have enough saved for retirement. My grandfather worked in a glass cutting factory. Believe me, I'm not shitting on factory work. I'm shitting on the people who want to create shitty factory work. And the article is very captivated by the guy who wants to create shitty factory work.

At least your mistake was mostly just a factual error and fairly easy to correct. The person you were commenting to though... I don't even know where to begin.

Fucking... geography, is why we joined WWII? Really? And everything else is just a screed, it's not even worth reading.

Not necessarily wrong buuut that can only come true with strong labor protections, fair employment practices, guaranteed benefits and solid wages. The reasons we have labor unions, OSHA, EPA, etc. All things conservatives want to destroy.

Trump's SOC may promise this utopia, but he will not deliver. They want Great Smog of London-producing factories. They want 1 week of PTO per year, no sick time, no parental leave, no retirement, bare minimum healthcare to keep your ass working until you drop.

Why, asked Legasov? Because it's cheaper.

Edit: Heck, they're already throwing child labor laws out the window, and it's not about "letting kids learn the value of a dollar." It's about explicitly exploiting people who don't yet know their own value, in the short term. And in the longer term, it's about making sure they never know what it was like to have a desk job, or a service job, or a job in education or the arts. Never let them yearn for a better life, by never letting them figure out that one could exist.

I've seen lazy developers take solutions from Stack Overflow, and paste them directly into code with no scrutiny, no testing, no validation. I've also seen talented developers take solutions from Stack Overflow, verify them, scrutinize them, simplify or expand on them. The difference wasn't the source of information, but what the developer did with it.

AI is a crutch for the shameless, careless developers who create more problems than they solve. It's just made them more efficient at it. Which only creates problems faster than than the talented developers can solve; it's easy to destroy, but difficult to build. I know talented developers who use AI, but it hasn't made them faster or more efficient, because their strength is also their weakness: they take their time, they evaluate their options, they scrutinize AI output because they know its prone to mistakes.

My greatest worry is the folks in the middle - they're neither experts nor novices, just average. I want to see more engineers develop the skills needed to make them experts, but I worry that AI will just make them lazy.

That sounds like treating the symptom rather than the disease. Why automate the toil, when we could remove it instead? The other commenters brought up examples:

generating (the boring) parts of work documents

when I notice auto-generated parts, which triggers that I use AI in turn, and I ask it to summarise all that verbose AI generated content.

The AI wrote a document a human didn't want to read, so AI then read the document AI wrote. The incentive thereafter is to save, and use, the shorter AI doc over the longer one.

Was any value created by this cycle? We just watered down the information with more automation. In the process, we probably lost nuance, detail. Alternatively, if we all agreed the document wasn't worth a human's eyes or keystrokes in the first place... why have the AI do anything? Sounds like we would all be happier to not have the document in the first place.

I wonder what will win out, the sociopathic need of managers and execs to gaze over heads in cubes like it's their kingdom - e.g. "return to office" mandates that saved no money and made no sense other than to control people - or the sociopathic need of the business to cut costs so low that the stability of the entire company teeters on a house of cards, be it AI or something else.

That might be a good selling point of Debian, if you never try anything advanced with it. I wanted to get GPU passthrough working on Debian with qemu, and it was such a pain trying to get the packages that Debian didn't come with. Had to add new apt repositories, started messing up the boot cycle, and I eventually just gave up.

kbin and mbin are good alternatives developed by folks who did not want to do business with tankies.

new out-groups

Better yet, same out-groups, just new assignments. Straight person criticized trump? Call straight person gay, now free to persecute them.

You misread my comment. I'm relating direct tithing to churches, to things like NOAA. That's actually an incredible example of what I'm talking about. But I'm not saying churches are taxpayer funded no.

That being said... I'm not putting it past religious fundamentalists to convince Trump to issue an executive order garnishing every American's wages in the name of tithing to the church. It would be foul, and fucked, but the last 6 months have given me an ample imagination.