Buglefingers

A small rock!

Rusted root is

Oh thank goodness, I just do that with people so we’re good whew

/J

As someone who’s also in the USA, I’ve been called “sweetie” by family members as well as strangers and SOs. Context determines meaning, this comes across as a sarcastic endearment because “I’m (OP) a little upset”

Drink a full glass of water before bed, eventually you’ll learn how much to drink to wake you at about the correct time. I used to be absolutely dead to the world while sleeping, I even needed a shock bracelet to wake me. Drinking water was one method I used though.

Many trades pay big money just for having the knowledge more than doing work. Being capable =/= Doing lots of work necessarily. I know people being paid big bucks to do nothing until a specific job comes up that requires their niche knowledge. That knowledge can be so hard to find or capable people so sparse that it’s worth paying a lot to have that value on retainer.

Maybe that Dr. Is a specialist? Maybe there’s shortage? There’s plenty of possible reasons, including that person just being a bad worker. Regardless, they definitely spent near a decade to gain enough knowledge and skill to aquire that position. That’s gonna come with a larger salary.

I had always assumed that Hunter-Gatherer societies were very loosely sex divided and strongly necessity based. Meaning, sure men could be the typical hunter and women the typical gatherer but if necessity dictates, any person would do any job, and, given the times, that was probably frequently.

Furthermore they also likely didn’t have societal structures the way modern societies did, meaning people likely weren’t barred from any job or forced into any job, it was a community effort for survival, if you meet a criteria that can help, you do that.

These are not factual statements, these are just my assumptions on how I figured they reasonably existed.

In all new flavors like SHOCKLATE and GUN

IIRC When ChatGPT was first announced I believe the hype was because it was the first real usable interface a layman could interact with using normal language and have an intelligible response from the software. Normally to talk with computers we use their language (programming) but this allowed plain language speakers to interact and get it to do things with simple language in a more pervasive way than something like Siri for instance.

This then got over hyped and over promised to people with dollars in their eyes at the thought of large savings from labor reduction and capabilities far greater than it had. They were sold a product that has no real “product” as it’s something most people would prefer to interact with on their own terms when needed, like any tool. That’s really hard to sell and make people believe they need it. So they doubled down with the promise it would be so much better down the road. And, having spent an ungodly amount into it already, they have that sunken cost fallacy and keep doubling down.

This is my personal take and understanding of what’s happening. Though there’s probably more nuances, like staying ahead of the competition that also fell for the same promises.

Nutella?

Sure, you can absolutely do that. That being said, you can literally buy degrees, you can also scrape by and learn nothing and still wind up with a degree. If an adult cant perform their job unsupervised than they aren’t a good candidate regardless.

If someone maintains a job it shows that they can at least do what is required to not get fired which means some kind of work performance is done. You can’t just show up with a tie and do nothing, if you can than the business itself has problems. My whole point is only that degrees are way overvalued over other means, and you made my exact point. Discounting hundreds of people who could have more direct knowledge on what you’re doing over someone who could have never touched a live process because of a piece of paper.

You’re just cheating yourself out of good candidates because you feel the process is too hard, which overall hurts the business.

So can a resume, or work history

Aye, you aren’t wrong, that’s my whole point though, in the end, it’s just one entity vouching for the other. While school can have some standardization I’ve met enough people from schools with paper in hand that I would never have thought competent enough to weild that paper. So why is this one entity have so much more sway than others? I’m simply saying all the options should be considered and not hard locked off because that paper doesn’t exist.

For instance, I have an older family member who’s an OG senior program engineer with a resume that is just astoundingly impressive. No doubt most people who’ve had a computer would recognize their work. Like, sincerely impressive. They struggled to find a job for 4-5 years because they lacked a programming degree.

I don’t disagree with degrees as a method, I disagree with using them as a universal, only way method. I, myself, am not a degree weilding graduate but I did work my way up through sheer knowledge. It was a heck of a struggle that took a long, long time. I feel others should be able to do what I did with lower thresholds to jobs if they know their work. Trial periods, internships, contract work, and job competency testing should be reasonable options when hiring, regardless of what entity backs them.

That’s just, people doing zombies? Or zombies doing zombies?

Either way, gotta be related to necrophilia right?

I’m a firm believer that as long as you can show you knowledge and can accomplish the job, the piece of paper is unnecessary. It’s also why I think apprentiships should be more of a thing again. Degrees are a very modern thing that while a very useful tool, isn’t being used right.

This is why I like what I do, although not impossible to have robots/AGI do it, it definitely won’t be first in line due to the mix of labor, thinking/workarounds, and custom work/fixes needed. You’d need a sufficiently high functioning robot with good AGI and stellar fine motor controls.

I do agree though. It’ll likely make upperclass society way more luxury and less effort while the lower class wouldn’t see much to ease their way of life but might get some neat stuff to play with. There’d be a good argument for never developing fully automated systems to remove work from the people. Keeping people working gives the ruling class more power and takes away the lower class’s time and energy. Very beneficial for them if their intent is to keep power. It also allows them to control scarcity and ensure fiat money continues to exist. Keeping money around as an idea in a technically possible post scarcity world ensures a way to divide who is better off and how able you are to control others.

I would like to add that it is beneficial for us as a species to lose men over women. Losing all but a few woman can mean the death of that society, whereas that’s not true for men, as men have a much higher capacity to generate multiple offspring. I.E. If you have 50 men and 2 women the capacity to bulk the population is greatly limited, if it were 50 women and 2 men, you could effectively double the population within a year. This means it makes way more sense to let men die off over women from a species survival standpoint.

That sounds like inequality! We should create programs to help introduce them into this male dominated field. /S

Plot twist: Pooh and his pals found his family first

Aye, so do I friend. Fingers crossed