The ability to assess the user's goal and tune the inference accordingly is there. So, what methods are there to tell if a provider has their thumb on the scale?

Plodding along a longer path to the same goal would burn more tokens without necessarily a decrease in solution quality. Maybe a few more docs.

The builders believe that the machine you describe will judge them positively, purely because they are building the system according to their judgment and beliefs.

Without direct workforce or policymaker representation on the boards of private entities, the private sector will seek to maximize shareholder value even if that means workforce reductions.

It's not clear that any country could realistically ensure that incredibly powerful industries/private sector entities operate perfectly aligned with national interests, short of nationalization.

Large tech companies are already quasi-state actors. In theory, international law and regulations can be binding and enforceable. We see how well that works in practice.

Before the leak there was already data-driven analysis about coverage that, in aggregate, shows imbalance. [2]

1 - https://archive.ph/eEwi0

2 - https://archive.ph/fp4vQ

For a worker with credit card debt, or one who already struggles to afford public transit, the real wage growth is illusory.

Some companies even ask for the specific high school.

The criticisms seem pedantic, given that many job postings might fail the writing bar suggested by the post. How would applicants know that the writing style in a posting is unacceptable in their submission?

Re:business jargon — the example of “actionable insights” that was derided as meaningless merely lacks specificity. It provides more information about a candidate’s prior role. Are they building dashboards with summary stats, or expected to propose strategy based on research? Not knowing business jargon doesn't prove that the jargon itself has no meaning.

What do people think of the language in the job below, evaluated using the criteria in the post?

https://canonical.com/careers/4348076

Quote from the following article:

“But the gap between optimism and reality is far greater for white teachers and white students than for other teachers and black students, meaning white teachers' high expectations of white students could be giving them an edge.

Finally, the study looked at whether teacher expectations matter. And the study found that they do. White or black, students with similar preparation are more likely to graduate from college if their high school teachers believe that they will. This is why teacher expectations, and any racial bias, matter so much, the authors say.”

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/10/24/study-finds-h...

It doesn't. It's crucial to understand how the socioeconomic landscape was shaped in context. Policies and historical movements are relevant to the analysis. Social factors such as racism/sexism are considered in "socioeconomic" analysis.

> Is that what you believe

No, I don't follow your reasoning. From an analysis perspective, you claimed that society would benefit from ignoring racism/sexism (social factors) in evaluating "amenities" associated with socioeconomic status. I think this provides lower resolution into issues plaguing society, not higher resolution.

> So while in the 50's, the advantages to being more high status seemed almost cosmetic, today, they're anything but.

The “deal” you are referring to was largely codified racism. [1]

And only cosmetic inasmuch as being granted pollution-free, affordable housing based on skin color would be considered “cosmetic.”

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-02/how-the-f...

There is such a thing as missing the forest for the trees. Socioeconomic status is intersectional.

Wanting a basic quality of life isn't a "level up," it's part of the human condition. It's not inherently greedy to seek a comfortable and secure existence for oneself and one's family. Usually, attaining that also benefits society by compound gains with education and productivity.

An insurance company allegedly defrauding the US [1] and not even reading claims [2] before rejecting them is pretty clearly greedy IMO.

I agree that there should be competition and less corruption, but the focus should be on accessible, high-quality care.

[1] https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/united-states-files-civ... [2] https://www.propublica.org/article/cigna-pxdx-medical-health...

This is an incredibly sexist framing. No person “enjoys” industrial pollution.

IMO — this will impact prospective students’ opinions towards the university for a longer time period than the strike.