Feeling this at my company.
The amount of time I have spent working with European customers has dropped a lot. They are doing whatever they can to buy European instead.
Crazy compared to how freely things worked out years ago. Early 2000s I worked at a company basically doing stuff with all sorts of folks from USA to Europe to Russia to China.
It is, but unintended consequences.
With this, then we couldn't afford Sam Altman to experience failure because he will drag folks down with him. So the companies invested become too big to fall, and the still private leadership gets to run things however they wish knowing the government will cover for any mistakes.
It's bad enough as the government will panic about retirement accounts when they falter, this exacerbates it.
It's a risky form of private-public partnership, with a lot of ways the company can privatize rewards but socialize the risk.
That's the fun part, in that time, cubicles were seen as terrible, dystopian, cheapass things because folks used to have offices, and how much cheaper could it really get than some flimsy modular furniture for you to sit at?
Then the companies gestured to just some tables in a room and said "figure it out, and no assigned seating, so just figure it out each day" to show how cheap and how little regard they have for the employees.
At this rate, I fully expect in the next few years for the next wave in office space optimization:
The thing is 'AI' is a broad net....
So while you do have for example, utility in code generation, that ranges in usefulness to nearly the whole thing to mild completion, depending on the nature of the task. There's not going to be a full "going back", but maybe we can hope that people who are flooding with shit software they don't understand will get over it.
Which highlights one of the major real problems. AI enables people that have shit ideas to make shit content with unprecedented volume. This applies to code, video, text, music. The people that use it to make quality content might be seeing less than 20% more productivity as they keep it on the rails, the people making shit are now able to spew out 1000% more stuff because they just don't care.
Which in turn drives unreasonable infrastructure demands. So if the former "goes back", so too does the infrastructure build out.
The misinformation angle though...
One, as many point out, insurance is about covering the extremes. Most people won't use as much money as the premium, but others...
For example, a relative of mine got a rare cancer, that is pretty treatable, but the medicine alone would have cost 10k a month, ignoring the frequent oncologist appointments. No amount of savings would have covered that. Even a single visit to an ER could more than wipe out a couple of years of premiums.
The other thing is the discounts are no joke. Now if you are truly uninsured, many of the providers will upon negotiation give you some severe "break", but you have to fight every time and your results are unpredictable. The insurance companies have lots of leverage, and the providers jack up prices to make the negotiated rates look good compared to their alleged list prices.
Why should misgendering be treated with more respect than the respect given?
You imply they intended some disrespect. They used a default pronoun and when asked to do otherwise they obliged, despite being immediately accused of doing a shitty thing. Folks are being offended on behalf of a person that hasn't said anything about how that person feels one way or another.
A "could you use a non-specific pronoun instead of masculine when you don't know" might have gone a long way, but implying some mundane default use of a pronoun is malicious and shitty is just a really excessive amount of vitriol when absolutely nothing was meant by any of it.
I know about singular they, but I don't like it. Perhaps because there was a movement in my childhood education to "correct" the use of singular they, as noted in that wikipedia article there was significant pressure for hundreds of years to make people not use plural pronouns singularly. I for one wish that a singular, human appropriate, non-specific personal pronoun emerged because singular "they" just grates my nerves.
Note that malus.sh is a satire pointing out something that the companies are certainly very happy about, but the real AI companies haven't been that forthcoming with the laundering of copying software through LLM.
"I used to feel guilty about not attributing open source maintainers. Then I remembered that guilt doesn't show up on quarterly reports. Thank you, MalusCorp."
Chad Stockholder Engineering Director, Profit First LLC
I happened to pick up in the article the neutral pronoun and have avoided it, but to accuse a pretty casual use of a prounoun as being a shitty thing to do is.. a shitty thing to do.
Incidentally, I hate the plural pronoun as the stand in for unspecified. Especially when talking about a company versus an individual, it is useful to use the plural to refer to company and a singular for the individual. Otherwise it's a vague mess. It's so confusing when folks are using plural to refer to singular people.
I think it's less being uncertain about the vulnerability and more about being uncertain about all the other drama surrounding it.
This Dormann fellow paints a believable picture of MSRC as an organization ruined by mismanagement and left incompetent and dysfunctional. A very banal scenario of failure that is familiar to anyone with experience with big businesses. Eclipse seems to see a more malicious intent and assumes that MSRC had it out for Eclipse personally from the onset for... some reason.
Eclipse may have found real stuff, but the communication style is a bit unhinged so it's hard to evaluate the surrounding drama. This unhinged communication style combined with a bureaucratic MSRC could lead to them not being able to understand Eclipse's attempt to explain.
The question is whether Eclipse was unhinged from the onset or understandably driven off the deep end by malicious treatment by MSRC. Both scenarios are believable, hence the sensible take away that we have one side of the story and while we should recognize that, we must also consider that an alternate scenario played out.
That was my thought, what a absolute mess of a 'sentence'.
Doesn't really create symmetry for risk/reward, because, for example, the corporate leadership decides how much to pay out to investors versus how much they spend including a lot of their own compensation.
So they can carve out the reward as they see fit, but if things go bad they can lean on the public investment as leverage to get bailouts.