In corporate environments where every task is written down in a ticket, and work each day is determined by story points, success is determined more by organizational skills than by intelligence/subject matter expertise. ADHD in these environments is a weakness.
In a corporate environment the boss is having affairs with a foreign country's spy. Not just one of these guys is at it like that.. Every person has a weakness.. The worse are those that believe that they are above it all.
The focus issues alone would drive managers to have kittens - I would latch onto something interesting, and could not break off to handle the “grey goo” of some essential aspect of work for nothing.
It's a terrible affliction for career advancement however anecdotally it seems like there is always one or two ADHD type developers in any org who seem to bring something valuable to a team (enough to be tolerated and sometimes appreciated).
Also I think it's possible to be almost as productive doing the grey goo work in a supportive environment, good luck finding a supportive environment though!
this. and note that while it is likely true that bots were driving awareness of the anti-flock campaign, that does not mean that the anti-flock campaign is wrong - in his cognitive dissonance, he is affirming the consequent.
"We created an app that displays a new picture of a cat with every click! There's a 1% chance that clicking the button will drain your bank account and deposit it in ours, but we promise thats a bug that will be fixed soon*"
Yes, an AI-assisted invention which paradoxically involves uprooting God only knows how many trees across 300 hectares (which by definition, means destroying entire ecosystems). Yes this AI will save us from ourselves.
Moreover, its nature is societal, we don't need to wait for a technical one - if people were willing to adjust the way they live. I'm not sure we will be able to pull off the timing for an energy transition, depending on how far we overshoot. At a point not far past 1.5c, you enter hothouse earth and amplification.
Sort of. In many cases the solutions are cheaper and easier than the actions that cause climate change, but certain people oppose progress for political reasons -- and those political reasons are no deeper than "my opponents like it so I'm against it."
Isn't that what the goal is, though? we're coding them to close the delta between what currently exists and some nebulous end-state - to me, that sounds like a formal definition of 'desire'.
> but the safety of driving cars is far worse than that and most of us do that daily.
this "whattabout"ism is brought up during every safety discussion. can we please accept that 1/ everyone knows about the car issue, and 2/ the car issue being a problem does not mean we should stop talking about other issues that exist.
I'm not convinced about 1. There are a lot of things we could be doing about a 9/11's worth of dead people every single month that we just don't.
In any case, it's a good barometer for judging personal risk. I don't stress about the danger when I get into my car, so I probably shouldn't stress about the danger from something substantially less likely to take me out. It contextualizes a number by comparing it to something most of us do every day.
I think a lot of people sort of instinctively avoid thinking about or engaging with the dangers posed by cars, at least in part because it creates a sense of dissonance that there’s a non-zero risk of life changing harm to you or your family from such a “normal” activity. For many people today, there is no alternative but to accept the risk if you want to do anything outside your home, other than dramatically upending your life to move somewhere else. Thinking too much about risks that feel outside your control just creates a state of anxiety.
reply