> Sycophancy, in which chatbots agree with and excessively praise users, is a trait they’ve manifested partly because their training involves human beings rating their responses. “Users tend to like the models telling them that they’re great and so it’s quite easy to go too far in that direction”

We've already seen the effects of social media algorithms that route people into isolated bubbles. This is going to exaggerate it.

The founder raised $8M on Wefunder and seems too have taken it and run. He hasn't provided any updates for a few years now.

This is factually incorrect and can easily be disproved by looking at the change logs.

Also most states are foregone conclusions so there's really only a handful in doubt.

That only works for desperate people. Sr people or people with other options would not take that risk.

But we've just established in this thread that even senior people are having difficulty findings jobs. This has nothing to do with desperation. Temp contract works both ways, if an employee doesn't like the company or finds another job within the 2-3 months, they are free to leave. This is more than fair.

Ignoring that this seems like a bad way to start a hopefully long-term relationship, this would largely limit your pool to people who don’t already have a job. If a senior candidate already has a job, why would they give it up for a sketchy 2-3 month contract and the vague promise of full employment?

Relationships between an individual and a corporation are fundamentally asymmetrical. They can only be made equal by heavily favouring the single human side.

This is me. I've noticed that I generally shut down after about 90 minutes of being at a social event.

The missing context here is that their company looks to be a very small team - 5 employees according to LinkedIn.

Any process or methodology, or lack of, will work for a small sized company. At that size you get things done by just talking with each other. That doesn't scale to companies with hundreds or thousands of employees where multiple teams that you've never interacted with before may be involved in a project. These "throw out the processes and methodologies" articles are always written by people at small companies. Once they grow, they'll implement the same processes that everyone else uses to solve the problem of becoming too chaotic.

> These "throw out the processes and methodologies" articles are always written by people at small companies.

That's great advice then! HN is mostly comprised of people looking for tips on how to go from 0 to 1, not to 0 to 100.

> why would I restrict someone's freedom to choose to make a poor decision?

Because there's a societal cost that goes beyond just the individual

That's a good point about being easy to externalize the blame. I'd also add on that likely a reason is the emotion of it. People are already emotional about sports and their team. With money on the line, that ramps up even more. The emotional aspect with highs and lows helps people crave more of that excitement.

The last time answered a question on Stack Overflow it got rejected.

I was using an unpopular Google API which was returning an unexpected error with a weird code. There was an unanswered SO question about the exact issue from years ago.

I found the answer to the problem in some open source library and added an answer to the SO question with a couple sentences and a link to the source code. My answer was immediately rejected.

There was a way to flag it to ask for review which I did but got no response. I ended up going to meta.stackexchange to ask for an explanation. Finally, after multiple people discussed about it the answer was approved. When I asked why a valid answer was rejected in the first place the response was "links on old questions are often spam and mods just auto-reject".

I won't bother contributing in the future if it takes that much effort to answer. BTW I had something like 20k karma.

Yes here's the actual proposal. I'm sure it's not coincidence that it's left out of the Forbes article

> The proposal would impose a minimum tax of 25 percent on total income, generally inclusive of unrealized capital gains, for all taxpayers with wealth (that is, the difference obtained by subtracting liabilities from assets) greater than $100 million.

> Minimum tax liability would be reduced to the extent that the sum of minimum tax liability and uncredited prepayments exceeds two times the minimum tax rate times the amount by which the taxpayer’s wealth exceeds $100 million. As a result, the minimum tax would be fully phased in for all taxpayers with wealth greater than $200 million.