In fact it's a very sad story about a 20 year old throwing their life away instead of fighting for what he believes is right through non-violent activism and/or regulations.

Last year I wrote an article asking the very question "Who will be the next Luddites?", National Geographics followed-up months later. I'm sure many before, after or in-between covered the same topic. There is truth to it, we will be impacted but let's not forget we went through this during the industial revolution and we should be better equipped than ever to fight using meaningful non-violent acts and operations.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/who-neo-luddites-more-importa...

http://nationalgeographic.com/history/article/luddite-indust...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Luddism

That reaches near the fact that a lot of AI is not ready for the enterprise especially when interconnected with other AI agents since it lacks identity and privileged access management.

Perhaps one could establish the laws of "being able to use AI for what it is", for instance, within the boundary of the general public's web interface, not limiting the instances where it successfully advertises itself as "being unable to provide medical advice" or "is prone to or can make mistake", and such, to validating that the person understands by asking them directly and perhaps somewhat obviously indirectly and judging if they're aware that this is a computer you're talking to.

This isn't Gemini's words, it's many people's words in different contexts.

It's a tragedy. Finding one to blame will be of no help at all.

In this case, your intuition is right, I threw this around as fast I could to find out if little would go a long way.

It went further than I thought and I appreciate the various views this sparks. Though it's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, it's rightly so.

One must learn to walk the walk not merely talk the talk. :-)

If it's of interest to anyone, I have not used any alternative means of advertising this YC post other than posting it here and using 2 alt accounts to write the first two replies and two upvotes.

Which influence tactic or behavioral shift stood out to you the most in this briefing? Drop your profiling observations below—I’ll be analyzing the best ones.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47242152

Points: 31

# Comments: 24

I'm sure the documentation of this featureset highlights what I'm about to say but if you're attracted to the simplicity of writing Python projects who are initialized using this method, do not use this code in staging/prod.

If you don't see why this is not production friendly it's for the simple a good.reaaon that creating deployable artifacts packaging a project or a dependency of a project this uses this method, creating reproducible builds becomes impossible.

This will also lead to builds that pass your CI but fail to run in their destination environment and vice versa due to the fact that they download heir dependencies on the fly.

There may be workarounds and I know nothing of this feature so investigate yourself if you must.

My two cents.

Is it that obvious? Maybe someone else can tell me? I'd like to understand if it can help me improve my online etiquette or the HN rules better.

This is the reason I looked past the rejection argument in my reply below; because there is so much more to gain from sharing than to lose from rejections.

I don't understand why my first reply below is being downvoted. If someone disagrees and downvotes at least drop a note that would make sense. :-)

  - you never know who might be interested in your idea
  - putting your ideas out there helps you to get feedback and improve upon them
  - it's an opportunity to practice articulating your ideas to others
  - sharing your ideas can inspire others, help in creating a community of support around you and your work (culture++)
  - getting your ideas out there can help you to build momentum, gain traction, find allies in your project or business
  - sharing your ideas with others they could lead to new opportunities or connections that you never would have otherwise

However at the end of the day, what's important to me is to feel I've tried doing the right thing.

This means I can't do things conditionally or "only if I trust my manger won't take credit for it". If I want to be credited for my work, I feel that it's mostly my responsibility take credit for it.

It can be very difficult to change people, teams, processes, companies so I understand why we may want to get something out of trying hard to improve things we feel others should want to improve as well. It's not always as obvious as "a salary increase" or "public recognition", but employees who try to improve processes indicates to management they are interested in sharing their input and committed to making things better. This fosters credibility, and creates a more positive work environment.

Job hopping may often be easier but is often seen as a red flag by employers and it can make it difficult to build a strong, long-term career.

What is unfortunate in my opinion is working with developers unwilling to learn more about systems and infrastructure. With the rise of DevOps, it's often the norm that many developers don't know how to do some part of their job. As opposed to your comment this is not on the level of "developer who doesn't know how to code" but "developer who don't know how to work with the underlying systems, builds, deployment processes, and the underlying infrastructure powering their code".

When people are unwilling to learn from others, they are missing out on opportunities to grow and improve. This can lead to a feeling of being stuck in a rut, and can ultimately lead to dissatisfaction with one's job or career; as much for people who lack some expertise and are unwilling to learn, than for those who can help them increase their competence in this closely related field of work, who often end up doing most of the work in this field

    "From the testimony of the captured commander of the 36th Marine Brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Colonel Dmitry  Kormyankov, it turns out that the internet terminals of Elon Musk's Starlink satellite company were delivered to the militants of the Nazi Azov Battalion and the Ukrainian  Marines in Mariupol by military helicopters.

    According to our information, the delivery of the Starlink  Equipment was carried out by the Pentagon.

    Elon Musk, thus, is involved in supplying the fascist forces in Ukraine with military communication equipment. And for this, Elon, you will be held accountable like an adult - no matter how much you'll play the fool."

Source:

1. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1523462998081572864

2. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1523464037048020992