• 0 Posts
  • 1.02K Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: December 6th, 2024

help-circle
  • Because whomever decided which questions are in the test are incompetent as fuck, as are the people who gave them that responsability.

    The whole thing has a massive stink of being the indirect result of some posh cunt giving one of his post cunt mates a top position in the part of the Public Service he’s responsible for.

    In the UK at the level of the so-called “Public School” educated (in a perfect illustration of the level of deceit in that society, what they call “Public Schools” are in fact expensive Private schools) Cronyism is standard and Merit is at best secondary to Knowing The Right People.





  • UL certification is a requirement for an electric or electronic product to be licensed for sale to consumers in the US. This is enforced on US manufacturers of a product and on importers.

    Whilst people buying something from AliExpress for personal use and importing it themselves don’t have to obbey such requirements, those importing them or making them for sale in the US do.

    The CE mark does the same thing in the EU.

    No idea if in the US there are further licensing requirements for things to be connected to the grid that would close the importing for personal use loophole.







  • Exactly.

    The best way to learn is to have done the work yourself with all the mistakes that come from not knowing certain things, having wrong expectations or forgetting to account for certain situations, and then get feedback on your mistakes, especially if those giving the feedback know enough to understand the reasons behind the mistakes of the other person.

    Another good way to learn is by looking through good quality work from somebody else, though it’s much less effective.

    I suspect that getting feedback on work of “somebody” else (the AI) which isn’t even especially good, yields very little learning.

    So linking back to my previous post, even though the AI process wastes a lot of time from a more senior person, not only will the AI (which did most of the implementation) not learn at all, but the junior dev that’s supposed to oversee and correct the AI will learn very little thus will improve very little. Meanwhile with the process that did not involve an AI, the same senior dev time expenditure will have taught the junior dev a lot more and since that’s the person doing most of the work yielded a lot more improvement next time around, reducing future expenditure of senior dev time.


  • Just to add to this:

    • When a senior dev reviews code from a more junior dev and gives feedback the more junior person (generally) learns from it.
    • When a senior dev reviews code from an AI, the AI does not learn from it.

    So beyond the first order effects you pointed out - the using of more time from more experience and hence expensive people - there is a second order effect due of loss of improvement in the making of code which is both persistent and cumulative with time: every review and feedback of the code from a junior dev reduces forever the future need for that, whilst every review and feedback of the code from an AI has no impact at all in need for it in the future.

    Given enough time, the total time wasted in reviews and feedback for code from junior devs is limited - because they eventually learn enough not to do such mistakes - but the total time wasted in reviews and feedback for code from an AI is unlimited - because it will never improve.



  • I think merelly “spends more per-person” is nowhere strong enough to really illustrate how bad things are.

    For example, the United States spends more than TWICE per-person in Healthcare than the United Kingdom.

    In fact judging by this it spends almost twice as much as the European country which has a 69% higher GDP per-capita - Luxembourg.

    And even with such much higher spending levels, based on this healthcare outcomes are actually worse.

    Healthcare in the US is world-beating by a large marge in how spectacularly inneficient it is.



  • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.comtoProgressive Politics@lemmy.worldI ain't no Senator's son
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    In a Universal healtcare system, there is a monetary incentive for the autorities to make laws and regulations to prevent disease - prevention is a lot cheaper than fixing things after the damage is done.

    In a pure for profit healthcare system there is no such incentive for the autorities - in some ways, there might even be the opposite incentive, depending on the levels of Corruption and how much more profit the Healthcare sector can make if people are more sick: after all, when a country spends twice as much as a percentage of the GDP in Healthcare, that means there’s a lot more money to be made in Healthcare, and private interests have an incentive to buy politicians and regulators to help them profit as much as possible.

    Beyond this there is also the whole “doing what’s best for our people” incentive, which is the US is so weak that it doesn’t even apply to some obviously bad things (for example, easy availability of guns, which is definitelly bad for people’s health) much less to more subtle pathways to damage people’s health such as unhealthy food.


  • Two wrongs don’t make a right.

    If nothing happens that society and its practices will never change and the pain will continue.

    If the whole castle of cards collapses due to this, whilst it’s a small consolation for the current slaves given the pain they’ll endure, it’s way more pain spared for would be future slaves.

    Further, the scumbags will definitelly lose if the whole slave-using realestate-bubble empire whose value supports their wealth collapses back to nomads camel fucking in the desert.