There's been a lot of talk about "toxic masculinity" over the years but I've heard of and would worry about the female equivalent if I were considering a role in nursing as a man. Many stories where the only man in the room is expected to be, simultaneously, a punching bag, a mediator for drama, and a willing recipient of sexual advances. Seems awful

> Many stories where the only man in the room is expected to be, simultaneously, a punching bag, a mediator for drama, and a willing recipient of sexual advances.

In other words, men in nursing are treated to the same indignities that women experience in most jobs?

Or it might simply be that there is a lot of unreported or unacknowledged mistreatment of men. I recall reading a study about harassment in the restaurant industry. Both genders were harassed but harassment towards men was largely ignored in the analysis because it didn't fit the focus or narrative of the authors.

As a man who has worked in a predominantly female workplace, my experience has taught me that harassment is less about gender and more about power. Those in power will always feel entitled to behave poorly, regardless of gender.

> Or it might simply be that there is a lot of unreported or unacknowledged mistreatment of men.

I am sure that there's a lot of unreported mistreatment of anyone who represents a minority in a given profession.

Are you saying this should be acceptable behavior? Am eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying.

Rather, I am pointing out that irony in the hope that men, dismayed by the treatment of men in certain professions, but find within themselves the empathy to appreciate what women go through and to adjust their behavior accordingly.

You seem to be assuming that the men who exhibit toxic behavior toward women are the same people as those who find such behavior appaling when it’s toward men. Do you have any evidence for that?

Yes, I know many such people personally.

I feel that you are deliberately misinterpreting what I said in an effort to fit your own agenda. I never said anyone should put up with toxic behavior. What I said is that men should stop being toxic. That's what "adjust their behavior" means.

To be fair your message sounded provocative and it came through as suggesting that to me too. But i guess this is the problem with text, not easy to deliver the tone

Out of that list only sexual advances apply to men. So no its not the same. Having worked in mostly female workplace i can confirm the pissing matches there are on a whole new level.

What you're doing here is part of the problem. "Suck it up, buttercup!"

Many men would rather not work and deal with the financial and social consequences of that than deal with the toxicity both in the workplace and later on if they talk about it.

> What you're doing here is part of the problem. "Suck it up, buttercup!"

I literally have no idea how you could have extracted that interpretation from my comment.

Yes, the main difference being we have no systems in place to deal with that for men. Or, the broader societal context: men have never had a progressive movement.

Or also being the only male hire in something like HR department.

sarcasm? most of the people i hang with are nurses and instances of female bullying at the workplace is annoying at worst where their more sinister stories are about men stalking and making sexual advances. both male and female nurses telling me these stories at parties

I've been doing this with my kids, at least to some extent. It offers first rung on a ladder to understanding that complex things can be understood as cooperation among simpler parts. We'll see how it works out but so far it seems to be working.

It's actually great since a lot of older technology is cheap and still readily available. My little ones love listening to old records, control the playback speed and hear the music go up in pitch if the RPMs are set too high. We look at the tracks on the vinyl under a microscope at talk about how the music is written on it that way. VHS an audio cassettes offer their own talking points.

For computers, we don't literally use a Commodore 64 but we run simpler, old software on new hardware. Mostly because a lot of newer education software is somehow also funded by injecting ads into the games (awful). But there is also some good "modern" educations software worth checking out. I highly recommend gcompris.net.

Didn't random companies add block chain to their names only just a few years ago and get 30+% jumps in stock price immediately?

That’s quite different, BlockChain was a buzzword label for existing tech. AGI is a label for something we famously haven’t achieved, and which would be revolutionary if we had.

This seems more like calling your spaceship company, I dunno, “Interplanetary Passengers” or something.

AGI is a buzzword too, it's just differently applied.

In this case it's a word that means the thing we're all developing towards apparently, but that no one actually knows how to get or even how to measure whether or not we've already gotten it , and no one really knows what will happen when it's achieeved, if it hasn't already been.

It's a bit like an even wackier more-corporate version of The Quest for the Holy Grail.

And the honest one true test for "is it a buzzword?" : Did a corporate group brand a flagship with it?

"RISC architecture is going to change everything!"

Or naming one of your launch vehicles “Starship”.

Wouldn’t those second order effects be downstream of the first order effect of people being tricked?

Run trading bot looking for news feeds with specific terms. Buy stocks based on this. Understand your fellow humans are lazy and stupid. If you can’t read past the first word of a news article maybe that person shouldn’t be allowed to trade stocks.

What you describe is more or less exactly algorithmic information theory. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_information_theory:

"Informally, from the point of view of algorithmic information theory, the information content of a string is equivalent to the length of the most-compressed possible self-contained representation of that string. A self-contained representation is essentially a program—in some fixed but otherwise irrelevant universal programming language—that, when run, outputs the original string."

Where it gets tricky is the "self-contained" bit. It's only true with the model weights as a code book, e.g. to allow the LLM to "know about" Slack.

"[T]here is an entire cohort of people who can think about specifying systems but lack the training to sdo so so using the current methods and see a lower barrier to entry in the natural language."

"Specifying" is the load-bearing term there. They are describing what they want to some degree, how how specifically?

That sounds more like mimicry without understanding, like playing the glass bead game.

"mimicry without understanding" is pretty much the entire field of LLMs.

It's a South Park reference. It very much is equating the accent with stupidity and backwardness.

In their defense, they make fun of nearly everyone. But they definitely were mocking White Southerners there.

In the episode, it's not what I'd call a southern accent.

I subscribe to the second point of view. Several companies fall in that bucket. Oracle comes to mind.

That's what it was like when you started out, but did you eventually learn that code? Imagine constantly getting out back into square one on understanding a legacy code base you just inherited, forever. This is what it's be like with constant LLM-induced churn on code repositories.

Why can't they?

because the incentive structure is broken. if my performance review rewards me for using AI more, im going to use AI more even when i shouldn't. engineers will rubber stamp AI suggestions to hit their metrics instead of actually reviewing the code. you cant optimize for quantity of AI usage and quality of output at the same time IMO