Just make sure that if you aren't born into wealth and status you know how to code switch into it, lie if you need to, as long as people think you are from the wealth class they won't begrudge negotiations around compensation.

And that's why I'm not sexist (lol), when asked gotcha questions all imagined doctors are sexless lines on an unwritten page that exists in the soupy pre-semantic peircean firstness of my brain.

My minds eye was somewhat diminished after a procedure at 11 when they put me in a twilight instead of fully under.

I have a sister younger who is 6 years younger, we used to play imaginary games all the time, few years ago she asked why we just stopped playing games and it was because I couldn't see the characters anymore.

I eventually recovered like, idk, a faint outline of my parents faces from before the surgery that I can kind of conjur.

It's not semantics.

> Thus when selling we emphasize human qualities like experience, reputation, trust, relationships, etc., and when buying we want cheap, fast, and convenient.

False. Just obviously false.

> We think of our own work as meaningful, but we think of most everyone else’s work in instrumental terms

Also false!

Every single line becomes drivel because the "truths" the author states in this section should start with "Some percentage of people", if it remotely wants to make grounded propositions.

Who is this absolute misanthrope?

Sounds like the only reasonable solution to the problem you raise is that the part of our government that's responsible for defense should be put under the seperate part that is responsible for protecting our environment instead of being exempt. I can't see any other real way of resolving that issue can you?

God save you if you have a company with narrow but correct technical tradeoffs, because you operate at scale.

Opus from 4.7 one will wreck your code and argue for hours with your engineers.

Certain parts of our company have had to mandate 4.6 and a training doc to explain why our current choice is both the cost efficient and performant one and shouldn't just be ripped out.

Newer models will re-litigate the same bad, known failed architectures over and over again.

Poetry will considerably outlive Plato I think in the long run.

The second part was that the test was being administered by a gatekeeper who was hired before those practices were put in place.

The 3rd was what? Amazon or Netflix burning your ass out because they are anti-human companies?

Opus 4.6 is the last model that's actually useful and can "adjust" its perspective to use the newer & better solution.

Where Opus 4.8-5 has over fit training on worse/older but "dominant" solutions it refuses to adjust.

Not only does this create an existential threat to adopting progress but it also means that if you have a code base that has rare but real world tradeoff the newest versions of Opus 4.7, 4.8 and 5 are worse than useless and become a major dev timesink.

"Tech people" have a lot of lies they believe, about disabilities, about valid addresses, everything.

When he told me that schools for the blind train their student to fact check things like directions and not simply rely on a single source while navigating new terrain it clicked for me that the sighted have no clue and sympathy is more honest and less presumptive/simulative than empathy.

But to be sympathetic you have to listen to actual user feedback and do actual observation, with empathy you just get to use your imagination to put yourself in their shoes.

At least for some definition of sympathy and some definition of empathy.

The analog gets all the real entropy.

Humans are cool because our distribution is exploring the future curve of what is possible in a hostile universe and to do that successfully over time we have to have the humility to always have someone unsure of even our most basic facts.

Sucks for most of those edge distribution humans but good for the species.

But this is why our criteria of reasonable is aligned with the center of distribution and why we have colloquial statements like "if you design for everyone you design for no one".