Quite literally we are. I know it may not feel like it if you are accustomed to sitting back and letting the world crumble around you, but you are electing someone to work for you. What would the voting process be for if you didn't need anyone to do your bidding? Most importantly, why are you putting the elected on the payroll if you don't need them to work for you? Were you under the impression that they work for free?

> I think we have enough evidence at this point to know that this is just not going to do it.

If you don't like being called the boss, there's another word we use to describe participating in democracy: Lobbying. I think we can reasonably conclude that it does work because those who push a dictatorial agenda always cry about how the lobbyists (i.e. those who take time to talk to the workers) actually get things done — just not the things they imagine would get done if there was one all knowing, all powerful supreme dictator. Plus we know it works because we can see it in every other walk of life. The people don't become space aliens when the word government is thrown into the mix. People are people are people.

I get this desire for magic, but magic doesn't exist.

Keep in mind that Trump was hired by the slate of electors you chose to hire. You did not choose him yourself. While ultimately all employees in your business are your responsibility, it is best for you to focus on the high ranking individuals, not the low-rung peons that are doing the busywork. First step is to call up the middle manager electors you hired directly and ask "What the hell?" They can worry about pushing things forward after that. Your role is to lead, not do everything.

In addition, you also directly hired a representative and a senator, tasked with keeping the rank and file employee in line. If they are not doing that, you also need to call them up and ask "What the hell?" If the phone is not your thing, visit their office. You are paying good money as their employer to give them an office. Don't be afraid to step foot in it. Your company directory gives the office location and phone number, in case your memory happens to be short and you've forgotten how to contact the person you hired already.

From there, it is a case by case basis. Every employee is going to have their own quirks and you have to learn how to work with them. But, I mean, they're just regular humans. You treat them like you would any other employee. If you owned a McDonalds location, you'd have to deal with imperfect humans just the same. This is no different.

If all this still is beyond your grasp, community colleges typically have management courses you can enrol in. Jumping straight in and doing it is usually the best way to learn, however. You might look like a fool the first time you engage with your employees, but who cares? By next year you'll be a seasoned pro. Best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, but the second best time is now.

Been there, but then I soon learned to reduce dependencies to essentially none. Those that do make the cut need to be of high quality such that the authors of those libraries are also as perfect as you are. There is absolutely no need to depend on code written by those with <=10 years under their belt. The world is full of developers with 20+ years of experience.

> After 10+ years, you've got to have run into something.

Sure. And after 10+ years of flipping burgers, there will have been some pretty sweet lands. Who is going to remember, though? It is fine if you do. Everyone has their thing. But I'd say it is not exactly among the most memorable of events. It is not like time spent with your child, or something that actually has some kind of meaning. You even say you are semi-retired, so you must agree that things on the job don't really matter. If it did, why not dedicate every possible moment to it?

Whereas with directing my attention to looking forward to the future I don't see the same issues turn up ever again. I learn from my mistakes. Now that I am multiple decades into my career, I see almost no bugs turn up at all. That doesn't mean I will never encounter a bug again. It is inevitable that I will. But they will be novel when I do. Novel still doesn't mean particularly interesting, however. The burger flip landing a new way never seen before still isn't likely to register.

> it does seem concerning to me if someone has 5-10 years of software experience

Is that where you are at in your software career? I can attest that I saw a lot more bugs when in I was in that stage. One is still quite green and learning a tremendous amount even 5-10 years in. However, that was a long time ago. I've forgotten the details by now. This tune might change for you as well as you progress further.

Or maybe not. Everyone is different. You do seem passionate about bugs. I, on the other hand, hate them, so I lean heavily into processes to avoid them to the greatest extent possible.

No, being the boss is your superpower. Selecting an employee to hire isn't all that important. There will never be a magical genie that grants all your wishes to choose from, just simple, imperfect humans that require constant management. Like, maybe don't pick a 'vegetable' that you cannot talk to if one shows up in the applicant pool, because you will need to talk to your employee regularly to convey what you expect of them and scold them when they screw up. It is still worth some of your time to flip through the resumes. But the reality is that of the average people who generally apply for the job, any will do as well as any other. None of them will be the ideal candidate.

> voting isn't enough?

Has hiring an employee and then cutting them loose ever been enough? Have you never had a job before? If you have, did your employer, after telling you that you got the job, disappear into the night, never to be heard from again? For those who have had jobs, the answer is an obvious: No, of course not. Why would this job somehow be different? It wouldn't be, obviously. You haven't hired a magical genie. Magic doesn't exist.

> I also need to dedicate my life to this?

No, you don't have to. The employees are generally willing to dutifully show up and do something. But if you don't stay in regular communication with them as to communicate what it is you want and expect out of them they'll be left to guess. They are certainly not mind readers. How could they know what you are thinking if you don't tell them? So, no, you don't have to, but you are not going to like the results if you don't get involved.

> Wait does this HN post count?

Do you mean count as a distraction that is taking you away from your duties as an employer? Sure. If you owned a McDonalds, would posting on HN complaining that the burgers at your establishment are coming out raw fix anything? Stranger things have happened, but I expect the odds are exceedingly low. Why would you come to HN to vent your frustrations instead of talking to the employees that aren't doing their job properly?

It is not fundamentally broken. It is fixable by the people stepping up and doing what an employer needs to do. The reluctance to want to roll up sleeves is understandable, but magic doesn't exist. It is either let the employees run wild or stand up and manage them. Your choice.

The headline, which I do understand is in question, talks about training, not using the scans as a database. It is likely that you are right that the scans are not being used to provide localization data, but that is also not what the headline is pointing to.

The headline specifically speaks to using the scans for training. While I do not have any inside baseball, the problem space is often solved using neural nets and other machine learning algorithms. On the surface it seems likely that they would benefit from training data that doesn't necessarily need to be from where the conflict is actually taking place. A base world model, for example, can be developed from data collected anywhere in the world. Its is not an entirely different universe when you step into another country.

But you are suggesting that the algorithms used are entirely classical (i.e. no AI/ML)?

It is not fundamentally broken. The model proves to work perfectly fine in other contexts regularly. The trouble is that you, along with a lot of other people, are looking for magic so that you don't have to get your hands dirty. The harsh reality is that magic doesn't exist, I'm afraid.

It works fine to accomplish what it is intended to do: Pick a worker to hire.

The problem is that many assume it ends there and the employee will magically go off and do great things. That is not how it works. If you've ever worked with employees before, you'll know full well that you have to regularly communicate with them to keep them on track. Even if the most stellar employee in the world trying to do everything right will never be a mind reader.

When was the last time you spoke to the person you hired for the job of representative? I expect for most reading this, the answer will be never. That is what doesn't work.

First place to start is to determine what value the other party is deriving from the meeting. Zero in on exactly why they want to have the meeting. From there, you can put your problem solving skills in action to determine if there is a better way to deliver equivalent value.

However, keep in mind that it is likely that the value you are delivering is your company during that time. A lot of hiring happens because the people involved want to have 'friends' around them.

Perhaps what you are trying to get at is that those who identify as students in a university are generally already open to learning? It is unlikely they would be there otherwise. Whereas of the people on the assembly line, only some will accept you trying to teach them something. Fair to say that the reality is also that not everyone wants to learn.

It is also viable for a sales pitch competition to take place at the same time as a hackathon. When we look past the early hackathon days, we can observe a trend towards events hosting both. Similar to marathon/races, appealing to a wider audience helps with logistics. Maybe that is where things get confusing?

Perhaps this is easier for you to reason about with a telethon? Rarely do we find a competitive element show up as being an objective of the event in that setting. Only the endurance component, where telephone operators push themselves to answer phones for periods of time beyond what would be considered normal.

I wouldn't have a clue how to recall any details about the bugs I've seen. I don't put much emphasis on past events. Looking forward is what I find to be a far more valuable use of my mental energy. I have vague recollections of debugging some doozies, but that is where the recall ends. It is clearly something you are passionate about, which no doubt keeps it something front of mind for you, but for many of it is just part of the job; like asking someone at McDonald's how their favourite burger flip landed.

You could say that I'm not the one of the for the job, which is a fair take, but if we reason through this some more, would we not conclude that there is no such thing as a good canned interview question? Given that no two people are the same, good interview questions can only be established in the context of who is being interviewed.

Because you cannot afford to join the ranks of the investment class, so what else are you going to do with your time?

You are quite right that you are not going to build your business in London, though. You are going to take your business to places where starting a new business makes sense.

For the American audience, Detroit lived what you describe. What started as a vibrant manufacturing centre turned to property investment and soon it could no longer sustain itself. The people not benefiting from those investments there didn't throw in the towel, though. They packed their bags for what we now know as Silicon Valley and started new businesses developing the transistor. The economy wasn't killed, it moved.

> We should absolutely punish rampant speculation by heavily taxing land hoarding.

The law is to the will of the people, so this can happen on a whim, but you have to convince the people that piling everyone into a giant heap is desirable. Most people don't want to live in one giant heap. A Kowloon Walled City-esq world is a thing of nightmares for the population at large. Most people want people to move around, to make use of the entire world, not all settle in one place. These economic factors are the engine that pushes people to spread out.

Steak is objectively more valuable in the traditional sense, as evidenced by the price, and also quite arguably more valuable than ground beef in the "benefit" sense, but that doesn't matter. Ground beef is just as good in the basket as CPI only needs to see relative change in price. It is not measuring benefit.

The CPI basket is definitely not fixed. It is constantly evolving to ensure that the metric is useful. Consumption habits are not fixed.

> The price of a dollar is one dollar.

Technically true, just like the price of one iPhone is the price of one iPhone (assuming equivalent specs), but in the real world price is used to compare the value of different things. Currently, the price of an iPhone 17 Pro is 238 bushels of corn.