It's a shit economy and job market, what are you going to do with a shit raise, quit? IMO this is all part of the larger trends with layoffs and RTO to head count, especially for the more "costly" ICs.
True, but... I get the feeling the job market is bimodal.
Anecdotal, but I see people out of a job for years on end, saying they applied for 2000 jobs in the meantime, while others still keep getting recruiter messages on LinkedIn and can get a new position in a matter of weeks.
Granted, people who quit because of a low raise are probably having other problems as well, which maybe is beneficial for companies. But I still feel like this is companies investing in mediocrity.
The attention economy requires sacrificial likes, lest you lose followers. People can't just enjoy themselves, they need to generate FOMO or do/show something outrageous in front of a camera 24/7.
I feel like the things I've built have gotten better since ChatGPT, but I don't use LLMs, just iterating and realizing how naive/terrible my old code is. Maybe I should write a blog post on How I (Don't) Use LLMs for Coding.
Sounds like a concept of a plan. I was always an Xbox person instead of PlayStation, I was part of the Xbox Live beta and had so many great memories from that era. After the lack of exclusives on the Xbox Series X, their game pass shenanigans, and the horrible UX decisions over the years, the Xbox brand is trash to me. Same with Halo, what a freaking waste of an IP.
It's safe to assume that her first e-mail to staff is not going to include a comprehensive breakdown of every action she plans to take.
Not saying she does or doesn't know what she's doing, but it would be weird if she went into much more detail at this point before she's even ramped up.
Using something like npm-better-audit in your linting/CI allows you exclude devDependencies which cut down a ton of noise for us. IDGAF about vite server vulnerabilities.
I believe there have been other studies that prove this for not just the synthetic. Yet we are all supposed to accept the "facts" that psilocybin (and cannabis) are considered schedule 1 illicit substances (high potential for abuse and no currently accepted medical use).
At that point it’s not "other studies", it’s more "tons of studies". It’s truly an exponential number of studies that had the same conclusions in the last 5-10 years.
And N=1 but I can say without any doubt that LSD (and a pretty low dose at that, 50ug at once plus some microdosing) played an immense role at recovering from burnout. It was like night and day even after such a low dose that I _knew_ I recovered.
Those are amazing and powerful but also potentially dangerous substances and it’s a crime that we don’t allow everyone to get the benefits by, if not freely legalize it, at least adding those in the medical toolbox.
"I believe with the advent of acid we discovered a new way to think, and it had to do with piecing together new thoughts in your mind. …
Why is it that people think it's so evil? What is it about it that—that is—scares people so deeply? Even the guy that invented it. What is it? Because they're afraid that there's more to reality than they have confronted. That there are doors that they're afraid to go in, and they don't want us to go in there either, because if we go in, we might learn somethin' that they don't know. And that makes us a little out of their control"
and the worse is (contemporany) research on these drugs being slowed down by the field getting the rare licenses to study something broad as "depression cure"... some types of pyschodelics are really effective to treat specific stuff like post-traumatic anxiety of unexpected events like the 9/11. with rates of prognosis improvement beyond 80%. Katherine MacLean has a nice critic on what are the politics/dynamics of this field
I'll raise you one better. Cannabis is Schedule I, that means per the DEA there are no known safe medical uses for the drug. But if you synthesize out the primary active ingredient and bundle it in capsule, the DEA happily recognizes that as a mere Schedule III drug, and you get get a prescription for it even in states where cannabis remains illegal at the state level. It goes by the brand name Marinol.
> and also completely legal to buy in certain locales
I'm not trying to be pedantic, but it's important to understand that according to federal law it's not actual legal to possess them regardless of which state you're in.
They're still illegal under federal law. A person could technically be prosecuted at the federal level even in a state that doesn't have state-level laws against it, though that's unlikely in practice.
> Yet we are all supposed to accept the "facts" that psilocybin (and cannabis) are considered schedule 1 illicit substances (high potential for abuse and no currently accepted medical use).
To be clear, this compound they're testing is also a Schedule 1 drug. COMP360 is their name for their psilocybin formulation. It's not a separate chemical, it is literally psilocybin.
Schedule 1 drugs can be used in clinical trials. Positive results in a clinical trial does not automatically remove the Schedule 1 designation. The medication is not approved yet and the clinical trial results are preliminary.
> "Researchers have called attention to the ways that the hype promoting psychedelics as miracle cures
replicates preceding claims about the efficacy of SSRIs and other antidepressants in prior decades.
As the drug historian David Herzberg articulated in conversation with UC Berkeley's The Microdose:
There’s been an enormous amount of money invested in psychedelics as people hope that they
can be the real Prozac in the same way that Prozac hoped it would be the real Valium and
Valium would be the real barbiturates, which would be the real morphine.
There’s a long history of hoping that maybe this time, it’s not so complicated;
maybe there is a simple switch to change people without having to change any [other] aspect of their [lives].
While others have noted similarities between the earlier SSRI hype and the ongoing hype for psychedelic medications,
the rhetoric of psychedelic hype is tinged with utopian and magico-religious aspirations that have no parallel
in the discourse surrounding SSRIs or other antidepressants. I argue that this utopian discourse provides insight
into the ways that global financial and tech elites are instrumentalizing psychedelics as one tool
in a broader world-building project that justifies increasing material inequality.
This elite project reveals how medicalized psychedelics can potentially undermine the very prosocial and
pro-environmental outcomes that the field's funders insist psychedelics will promote.
To understand the envisioned role of psychedelics within this elite project, this paper analyzes a different
parallel hype, revealing correspondences between the psychedelic industry hype and the concurrent
hype surrounding artificial intelligence (AI), including the Large Language Models (LLMs) that power ChatGPT.
The presence of these parallels is understandable when one considers their underlying affinities,
like two blooms from one plant: the same Silicon Valley and venture capital forces are investing
enormous amounts of capital to develop both as cultivars in their own image,
selecting for desired traits that further the existing socioeconomic order.
We've been building https://homechart.app for years (without GenAI...) and folks just don't realize that home managers exist as an app. They're too used to single purpose solutions, so they don't think to look for more comprehensive options.
There's also the inherit struggle of being everything for everyone with an app like this, and focusing on features 80% of your users want and leaving the other 20% niche features on the backlog upsets people, mostly the power users.
Thank you for ironically proving my point, I guess. The main value add here is everything is integrated into one app. I always wonder if folks said the same thing when Salesforce or SAP were created.
Kindly -- I think this is a symptom of the larger issue, right?
You shouldn't need a document to help persuade the consumer (or the more technically inclined ones anyway). That magic should just be self evident. We don't need a document to understand why the iPhone was a hit, right?
Doesn't matter if you have the greatest app in the world. If it overwhelms the user on first use, it's simply not going to be used.
I agree at first glance it is overwhelming unfortunately.
> You shouldn't need a document to help persuade the consumer
For the most part we don't. They get it, they have the frustration with duplication, and they see the value of our pricing being the same or cheaper than one or two of the apps their paying for.
The harder part as I said in the original comment is no one is searching for a household data solution. It's not a thing that exists to people, and we don't advertise (mostly) as "a budgeting app" or "a to-do app", so the persuading if you want to call it that comes from catching these buyers and showing them that yea, we do that, and so much more.
reply