Not just one word though. Also hard work and grit. Telling someone interested in escaping the rat race (who is not in the top 10% of income earners) to just stick with a job they despise for 15-25 years is just not going to hit home. They know they can grind out a miserable life. That's the status quo they currently live.
Sure there are the scammer/grifter types who just want a super easy mode get rich quick scheme, but a lot of these folks are somewhere in the middle which is where they get taken by the actual scammers. They get told if they just hustle harder than everyone else for a few years they can achieve escape velocity.
> How many vibe coded projects do you want to maintain?
here comes the next SaaS idea - vibe coded services as a service. You tell what service you want, may be point out a couple examples, and you get that service vibe coded and hosted for you for a small monthly fee!
I don't watch shorts because of the type of content it encourages - short clickbait content for the attention deficit.
I want long form, well researched, well put together content. These types of content takes a long time to produce, unfortunately, and the youtube algorithm doesn't favour it.
That's where off-platform, trust worthy sources are important.
Over the years, i've curated a lot of subscriptions on youtube of such long form content (talking about things like Primitive Technology, Smarter Everyday, etc).
It simply sucks that youtube has gutted the UI for subscriptions - the layout is horrible, i can't scan it as they removed the list view, etc. And sometimes subscribed channel's videos don't even show up there - you have to visit the channel page directly to see the new videos.
it's almost as if they want people to rely only on the home page and the recommended videos from their algo.
Honestly I'd sometimes like a checkbox to ignore any results uploaded after, say 2023. Or else to only see 'verified non-AI' content. There is nothing I'd ever search Youtube for where an AI generated video would be an acceptable answer.
> someone with a heartbeat they can blame when stuff inevitably goes wrong.
if said person can be blamed (and take on the liability), but cannot stop the action or audit the action, take preventative measures (which costs money) etc, then they cannot take responsibility for real and thus whether the blame falls on them on paper is irrelevant - if there's real punishment (like jail time), but no real power to enforce anything, then who would be stupid enough to take on this job? If there's no real punishment, then what does it matter that the blame on paper is there?
Someone who needs to feed their family given that AI CEOs predicting that their technology will either destroy the world, take everyone's jobs or both.
There are several historical examples of this sort of job, and plenty of people who took them. For example, plenty of "editors in name only" of publications when the German government got really interested in censoring press in the 18th century.
why can't the name be 'scape goat'? Since that's what they are - the "real" responsibility rests on the owners, and they happily shed it as limited liability ownership of shares.
jargon are words being used that don't carry the typical laymen definition, but a specific one from the domain of said jargon.
If a written piece is intended for an audience who knows the jargon, then it's fine to use jargon - in fact it's appropriate and succinct. If it was intended for the laymen, then jargon is inappropriate.
But it seems you're lamenting that this jargon is wrong and that it shouldn't be jargon!?
> They see polls that show strong support for policy X
i would imagine those polls are full of selection bias - even if the poller is trying to be as neutral as possible. People who would agree to participate in polls tend to have strong(er) feelings than those who don't.
> referendum process
instead of referendums, there should be a representative vote by the elected politician, but with an option for the voter to submit their own vote (provided they pass a cursory examination that certifies they have read and understood the bill they're voting for).
E.g., a senator or an elected politician has N number of votes for a bill, where N is the number of people he/she represents. If those people don't want to participate in a bill voting process, the politician will vote on behalf of them (like they do now, supposedly).
However, an individual voter who wishes to, can certify their understanding of said bill, and rescind the representative vote for his electorate and vote himself directly on the bill. The politician will now have N-1 votes on that same bill.
This means for issues of importance, the individual can choose to participate. For issues that they don't care about, but have a vague sense of direction, they have their votes delegated to the politician that they elected once every X years.
I wish those PRs made by the bot can have a diff of the source code of those upgraded libraries (right in the PR, because even if in theory you could manually hunt down the diffs in the various tags...in practise nobody does it).
reply