Lots of this in hinged on the fact that real estate business will inevitably collapse. Dont expect them to take this hit lightly and "pivot" or "adjust". The whole business is based on "location location location" - which will (already has) become more and more irrelevant.
More fake news and generated AI content there is more people would stop trusting social media. It will saturate to that tipping point that humanity will need to find more genuine ways to communicate. So I say bring it on.
You replied within an hour and now Im seeing it in 20 hours.
We exchange short texts, we both dont have a context, we dont know what each of us feels at that moment and we have absolutely no feedback about each other's mental states.
THIS isnt working! The conversational part of the social media is out of sync with reality and timespan. Evolution never had to optimize for this b/c there was never a need for it.
We struggle to understand, we just throw words at each other in passing and fill in the dots in our own minds - which is terrible b/c those dots are too far apart.
Signal is a needle in a haystack. Its not worth trying to keep fixing and reshaping the haystack so we dont keep loosing the needle. Lets just admit this tool isnt working and move on to better alternatives.
Edit: Clarifications (Need for post-editing also supports my point btw. )
All these mechanisms are not 100%. They are averaged around "an average" person as all these things are. I would argue that anybody that realizes the true intention poses enough intuition to stay away from it.
Its a tool. Use parts of it you need and dont pay attention to the rest. Its not hard.
If it is hard - be thankful it revealed something about you that you want to work on overcoming.
Labeling work remote or non-remote (on-site?) becomes increasingly irrelevant. Need for physical presence in a given geographical location is mitigated by good planing and quality of tools allowing to share information effectively.
Why dont we stop calling things remote or not, but focus more on improving the tool sets needed to better plan and share thing between humans.
All of these tools are needed wether the team is physically on the same geo location or spread out. What changed now is that its much harder to justify not having them anymore.
I wonder if this is in response to Eric Weinstein's Geometric Unity presentation he did on April 1st.
Yesterday, on Lex Fridman's podcast, he mentioned how since he revealed his theory there wasnt any feedback from scientific community. BTW, highly recommend watching Eric's Portal.
I would love to see thorough, detailed analysis and critique of Weinstein's Geometric Unity theory and the latest version of Wolfram's cellular automata-like theory of reality. (Weinstein still needs to put up a formal paper, though.)
At the time of writing this comment, the majority of responses here are just calling the guy a pompous crank, rather than pointing out specific issues with the central claims of the proposal. Funny that this is on the website created by the guy who proposed the Hierarchy of Disagreement [0]. There are many comments with valid critiques, but so far there are more of the other kind.
Yeah, Wolfram and Weinstein have some eccentricities, and the intro section to this is kind of unnecessary and grating and could probably be cut out, but they're also very intelligent people who have discovered and created things which are both "new and true" (and/or new and useful) rather than merely "true or new, mutually exclusively" as people like to snidely parrot.
I'm not saying this theory or Weinstein's theory aren't necessarily irreparably riddled with holes. Just that the nature of the criticism often seems bizarre, poor quality, and directed at their personalities rather than their content, like in this comment section. It'd be much more refreshing to see it be criticized on its merits rather than its tone or the personality traits of its author.
And it should be emphasized that 100% of reported reinfections were just news reports saying "hey this person tested positive after testing negative" - there was never tremendously strong evidence for it.
UPDATE:
Seems like I somehow managed to confuse the readers.
I choose to trust the candidate. Even more so than anybody with traditional approach with technical interviews and endless back and forth. I hire, pay salary after 1 hour of chatting. Only Im direct about my intentions. I specify what is expected of the candidate when hired and Its up to them to live up to what they commit to during the chat.
