Kobo has a similar problem. I have a Kobo mini I can no longer use.

While I’m less hostile to the idea (actually, I kind of like it), ultimately it doesn’t make sense. Our geographic difference makes our situation very different from EU member states. Our resources and outputs are very different, our location and geography makes transport needs very different. Deals that make sense for us among the Americas would make no sense for the EU. And the EU isn’t just trade, free flow of citizens makes no sense in this context, either.

Brexit was dumb for them, but it doesn’t mean joining would be smart for us. We should be just be allies with the EU and have lots of friendly policies, yes.

To put it another way, just because you break up with a long time partner who became abusive, it doesn’t mean you should start dating the (long distance) friend who supported you through it. Sometimes you should just be friends, for the better.

In Canada, a court ruled that Air Canada was liable for its AI chatbot. Air Canada’s lawyer(s) attempted to argue that the chat bot was a separate entity responsible for itself, an astonished judge said, “lol no” (not an exact quote). https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/air-canada-chatbot-lawsuit-1.7116416

But that’s Canada, and Target is not here (anymore), so…
Not relevant to the company at hand, but there is some precedence somewhere.

Your choice of wording is telling. You compare child commitments to leisure commitments, as though people without children only have leisure to think of. While the comparison is children and no children, making one side obvious and the other side highly variable, but, for example, many people care for other family members and extended networks who are not biological children. It is definitely not leisurely to care for a parent with dementia.

The problem isn’t that parents should get special understanding and special treatment, the problem is that capitalist society (distilled into the work scenario) values productivity over humanity. Automation, and now AI, were supposed to let us work less and still sustain the same output, but instead, we’re demanded to produce more and more, and we’re pushed to work even more than before.

Its the classic strategy of making the poor blame and fight each other instead of fighting the ruling class together.

Hey, thanks. I wrote that response to be jokey, and I didn’t expect an actual, useful reply in return. I will check that out, thank you.

Oh, I can recognize good code from code that works… I’m just not skilled enough to produce the former. (Does that put me ahead of most people by default?)

Thanks for articulating it this way for me. It’s the hypocrisy that gets me, at least in my situation. I reported my boss to the directors. He was (still is) planning to cut a guy from our team, claiming he costs too much. But when I did the math, I found that my boss’ personal expenses on food, gas, phone, vehicle, etc. (with increasingly unaccounted-for amounts) are more than that guy’s pay.

My boss isn’t worried about the financial health of the organization, he’s worried he won’t be able to keep spending it on himself if he has to pay the workers.

Truly, I don’t understand why, but there are fully grown adults who believe that anything an LLM says is true. Maybe they think computers are unbiased (which is only as true as programmers and data are unbiased); maybe its the confidence with which LLMs deliver information; maybe they believe the program actually searches and verified information; maybe it’s all of the above and more.

I know a guy who routinely says, “I asked ChatGPT…”, and even after having explained how LLMs are complex word predictors and are not programmed for factual truth, he still goes to ChatGPT for everything. It’s a total refusal to believe otherwise, but I can’t fathom why.