> As my MD friend noted wisely a couple weeks ago: it’s noteworthy how this became a culture after LLMs became ubiquitous and user friendly. It was tons of fun and happy times when we were going to reduce # of radiologists, not software engineers.
You want intellectual argumentation and then make an asinine claim like this.
First, HN was never a place for intellectual argumentation. It's reddit level dunning kruger with the pseudo-intellectual snobbery of a college philosophy courses. If you don't follow the zeitgeist you dont get to argue anything anyway. This is a terrible place for actual debate and those that do enjoy "debate" here are generally on the same side with a marginal (< 1%) difference in their views. The average HNer is a tech enthusiast, mid-to-far-left reddit poster. If you want some good debate turn on flagged/shadowed posts and enjoy the people who generally do not agree with HN's insane take on almost everything and havent been thought policed by Dang. If you were as smart as your smarmy post implies you'd realize any place with le updoots and le downdoots doesnt allow for spirited debate.
Second,
> Now, every day there’s multiple stories where you have to be caught up on this cinematic universe where AI is fake and doesn’t work and no one uses it
"AI" doesn't work well. I've been a professional software engineer for a long time. The best use case for "AI" is mild code review, writing comments, and stubbing out boring work like initial database table schemas. It absolutely hallucinates to hell with any sufficiently complex problem and if you're not aware of context windows you will walk yourself into a trap. The average person is not smart enough to recognize this. Thus, "AI" doesn't only fail to deliver, it is also dangerous due to it's sychophantic nature. I quote AI, particularly, because LLMs are not artificial intelligence. At least, not anymore than least squares analysis is artificial intelligence.
> data centers they build will be a waste and they’re probably not even being built and OpenAI is JUST like pets.com so this is basically the web bubble from 1999
Your rant provides no evidence it is not a bubble. An entirely unprofitable industry attempting to scale to make pennies is not sustainable. The amount of capital pouring into a literal wish is not similar to 1999.
It's similar to the 2008 economic crisis where, when the chickens come home to roost, the government will be bailing out big tech companies with taxpayer money because their infrastructure has parasitically attached itself (via the "cloud") to almost everything we use.
> In this case, X = RAM supply shortage is fake and actually just coordinated price gouging
There have been two DRAM price fixing scandals. If it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck... well it might be a duck. People are right to infer price fixing. The only difference now is it's "legal" because they announced it via a quarterly report. Every 5 or so years there's always something going on with DRAM. One wonders why.
> It was tons of fun and happy times when we were going to reduce # of radiologists, not software engineers.
Your MD friend should stay in his lane and not weigh in on topics he can't hope to understand. His biggest problem is India, not AI. Just like software engineers. Radiology is outsourced at levels similar to software with the only difference he probably made his nut 10 years ago and software engineers aren't paid anywhere near as much as a good non-outsourced radiologist.
I got netflix a looooong time ago when they still had good movies on there and weren't cycling. It kept getting worse and worse. Then I got rid of it a few years back.
Nearly everything on there sucks now. It's all campy politically-undertoned garbage and not anything I would consider fun to watch or a great way to waste my time. The first squid games was neat. A novel concept and interesting. Then Netflix did what they do best and netflix-ify it into a political message rather than a horror film. The latest Ed Gein show had the potential to be amazing but ended up falling into the same campy, political, director had too much creative liberty trash.
They are a tired company that has strayed from their roots. The Warner Bros acquisition makes complete sense because the entire media entertainment apparatus is capable of only producing:
1. Remakes of movies that are themselves remakes
2. An hour and a half movie where they try to inject The Message into as many frames as possible
3. A campy nearly serious movie that needs stupid jokes injected for the squirrel-brained morons that pay for it.
The entertainment industry is in a financial nosedive because no one wants this garbage anymore.
The issue of course is "medical science" has continually lowered what is normal. Men 50 years ago had significantly higher testosterone than today. The blood work normal CI reflects this decrease. In reality, any man lower than 600 should probably be supplementing TRT. However, you're not likely to get it prescribed before you are below 300, and even then, it'll be just enough to get you back over the curve. There's basically no risk to it as long as you keep your total test <= 1000 ng/dL (and probably <= 800 ng/dL tbh).
The median total testosterone for the cohort born after 2000 is 391 ng/dL. 20 years before it was ~550 ng/dL. 20 years before that we were above 600 ng/dL. Men are falling ill with more chronic illness, having more sexual dysfunction, and have more feminized features. We should probably be asking ourselves why this is happening rather than adjusting blood work CI's down.
Technical people have been gleefully eliminating anonymity on the web for the last 20 years. Progressives should be the party on the side of maximal freedom but really in the US we have one neo-liberal party wearing two different disguises.
The problem is normies don't operate under assumed anonymity. So when the hordes of unwashed regular people joined the internet they wanted their face everywhere. People were shamed out of their handles. Some people gave up their anonymity to make yet another faceless bullshit blog-as-a-resume. Look at most of the top karma farmers on HN. Most of them post their personal information in the their bio. Pathetic.
> people will self-censor when knowing they are being watched.
This has been happening both in public and on the internet for over a decade now.
> Not being able to be at least pseudo-anonymous has a real chilling effect on speech and expression.
The normies would argue you have nothing to hide if you aren't doing anything wrong. The average voter, regardless of party, will happily surrender every ounce of freedom for the thought of security. Hell, I remember sometime around 2007 DEFCON became a first-name-basis conference!
> bill of rights
It's more of a bill of privileges given NGOs and PACs are regularly paying to erode the core rights granted to citizens. Either through lawfare by circumventing the courts and suing companies into bankruptcy, or by directly purchasing congressmen via donation.
What I have found in general is people who cry and complain about this kind of thing were, at one point, happy to have it happen to their political enemies. The laws that are paving the way for age-gated deanonymized internet were at one point used as a cudgel to beat their political enemies down. When the tables finally turn after the Nth "protect the children" bill, it's the other people left crying and now suddenly its a "problem".
> Complaining about egg prices comes from the camp of "I tried nothing and nothing worked".
Eggs are one of the highest protein-per-calorie, nutrient dense foods you can purchase. Up until recently it was cheaper than almost any other staple. When I was growing up (admittedly during a time everything was relatively cheap) my family ate a lot of eggs. We had spreads, we had eggs for breakfast, and eggs were incorporated into dinners in one way or another. I'm not the only one. I don't know anyone born in my cohort that didn't eat eggs regularly.
> Oatmeal is very cheap and filling
Also completely devoid of the same level of nutrition as eggs and requires supplementation.
> it's majority cereal or breakfast bars.
While true this is an education issue not a cost issue. We still have at least 3 generations of people having children that were raised in the "eggs are horrible for you" times, including myself.
> Nothing, yeah nothing, because the average person is obese here and nothing is exactly what they need for breakfast.
The average person is obese because of the relative ease of cheap, high calorie, fillers and good options being more expensive. The price of eggs increasing compounds this. However, I would wager most adults are obese because of the high calorie starbucks, fast food, and snacks. Not because of cereal for breakfast.
> A piece of fruit like the perennial classic banana for breakfast.
Demonstrably worse for you than both cereal and eggs. Once again, defeating your point and STILL demonstrating more expensive eggs makes nutritionally worse options the only option.
> Enough so that some phrasing along the lines of "my tism is..." is somewhat commonplace.
In the 1990s we drugged kids (especially young boys) who weren't able to sit still with ADHD medication. Every parent's kid suddenly had ADHD, people would talk about their quirky behavior as "oh its my ADHD".
This generation it's autism, and it's likely over-diagnosed just as much as ADHD. You do it in your own post, attributing a defined, binary, thing as "I am somewhere on the spectrum". If anything, your own post demonstrates the anti-scientific (pop-sci) instagramification of mental illness. You either have some quantity of illness or you don't. You can't just ascribe some quirky, possibly somewhat anti-social, behavior as being on the spectrum. Sadly, this is often used like ADHD self-diagnoses to gain sympathy or social leeway. Much to the disservice of people suffering from the condition.
It comes as no surprise that psychiatry, and medicine in general, is suffering from a massive reproducibility crisis. It's not anti-science to call into question the amount of bunk, p-hacked, corporate funded garbage coming out of even the highest tier of medical grade journals.
Agreed; in short: any monolithic system will have individuals with natural dispositions transverse to that order, those individuals provide resiliance and novelty but also risk driving decoherence and defection. Yay pluralism.
I both agree and disagree with the over-diagnosis claim. Yes, everyone is suddenly autistic, which lessens the meaning or impact of the term. Also, the DSM 5 reclassifies a good portion of human behavior under the umbrella of ASD, so this is in part driven by the diagnostic model itself. We continue to see rising rates of severe autism in children, which are likely attributable to this reclassification as well as better common understanding of the diagnostic criteria. Presumably, just as many adults either qualify now or would have qualified as children.
At the same time, there’s the neurodiversity movement that seeks to destigmatize and depathologize these diagnoses for both high functioning and more profoundly disabled individuals. Just because you don’t conform to the norm - and ASD is heavily defined in relation to deviation from an underspecified norm - does not make you “mentally ill.” So we have autism as an identity additional to a diagnosis, which I think can be really empowering for people, and also cause confusion and frustration for others. It’s a reclaiming of “disability” from the paternalistic and abusive medical and pseudoscientific practitioners that have been harming autistic people for decades.
I also wish you were not being downvoted. You express some common sentiments and I think your comment adds to the conversation.
There's a lot of stuff to unpack in such a discussion, but I only want to add that I see the prevalence of things like autism as a sort of "over correction" to practically all of history. Sure, some kids might relate to it and incorporate it as part of their personality, but 1) I don't think that's as widespread a problem as some people claim, 2) kids do this all the time with various things, and have done forever, and 3) I think that's a small price to pay for society learning about these things and destigmatizing them
> I also wish you were not being downvoted. You express some common sentiments and I think your comment adds to the conversation.
Common or reasonable sentiments or not, the whole "kids these days" overtone is tiring and annoying, and most people - online and in person - don't want to engage with that, because it does not imply a position of good faith.
"You do it in your own post, attributing a defined, binary, thing as "I am somewhere on the spectrum"
"You either have some quantity of illness or you don't."
I'm not sure what kind of argument you are making for (or against?) "binary" symptoms. The DSM-5 clearly lays out the spectrum. There is a conglomerate of effects caused by autism, and where you are on "the spectrum" is determined by how many of the symptoms you have, and their severity.
There is nothing wrong with someone claiming "I'm on the spectrum" if you don't know how or what they were diagnosed with. That language is consistent with the DSM. Unless they admitted to self-diagnosing, it seems wrong to assume someone is lying about their own experience.
"You can't just ascribe some quirky, possibly somewhat anti-social, behavior as being on the spectrum"
Quriky, somewhat anti-social behaviour (in your words) essentially is one of the dialogistic criteria. But nobody would be diagnosed with autism for that alone. Just like how autistic folks usually avoid eye contact. That doesn't mean they ALL avoid eye contact, and it also doesn't mean anyone who avoids eye contact is autistic. It's a wholistic diagnosis. One would need to be experiencing SEVERAL of the symptoms to receive an autism diagnosis. IME, the majority on the spectrum are indeed level 1, and high functioning, even to the point others might question if they are really autistic.
If you take issue with people self-diagnosing, I don't think anyone would disagree. But your combativeness in just discussing the topic kind of looks similar to people who refuse to accept that autism is really a thing ("there were no autisms back in my day" kind of thing).
>In the 1990s we drugged kids (especially young boys) who weren't able to sit still with ADHD medication
This never happened. We did not overprescribe Ritalin.
What actually happened, is uninformed people like you with no actual evidence spread FUD about how giving kids well understood medicine was "bad" and the direct result of that was people like me, my sister, and my brother who all had stereotypical ADHD symptoms that we inherited from our stereotypically ADHD parents were tested and rejected an ADHD diagnosis by untrained school guidance counselors terrified of something that wasn't happening.
Each of us spent the next 30 years utterly failing to thrive due to struggling with these symptoms, and experienced immense suffering from normal life things. We all have finally gotten real diagnosis, and some of us are getting real treatment, and we are so much better off now and able to function, and we are even able to pass those learnings back up the chain to our parents.
A huge part of the "ADHD Epidemic" right now is the fact that a couple million people with clear ADHD symptoms were passed over by people who were supposed to be helping them due to the exact FUD you are spreading now.
>This generation it's autism, and it's likely over-diagnosed just as much as ADHD.
ADHD is not overdiagnosed. Autism is not overdiagnosed. Provide any evidence at all to support your shit claims.
If someone with just a whiff of autism struggle gets diagnosed as autism, that's fine, and they will be explained how they might not even need significant support, and they don't really get any treatment at all. For people with gentle autism like that, it's mostly just about understanding why you are the way you are. "Oh, that's why I <X>". And you suddenly have a framework and vocabulary to better explain the struggles you have and the problems you experience, and a way to bond with people who have similar difficulties, and a way to think about your own brain that can help you lessen the negative impact of being different.
>It comes as no surprise that psychiatry, and medicine in general, is suffering from a massive reproducibility crisis.
There is ZERO reproducibility crisis in ADHD science, and amphetamine based ADHD medications are some of the most well supported, scientifically, medicine we have full stop. You can literally measure physiological brain differences of people with ADHD, and if you give a kid with ADHD a stimulant medication for their life, those measurable differences go away
If you give ADHD people stimulants, all cause mortality decreases. They become statistically better drivers, which is something that ADHD people are statistically worse than average at. You lower all forms of addiction and substance abuse, because ADHD people struggle with self medicating and abusing substances as a rule. Notably, all the good Ritalin does for people who struggle with ADHD is not duplicated in people who do not have ADHD. People who take unprescribed Ritalin as a "study drug" have worse outcomes than people who take it for actual ADHD.
Giving kids with ADHD stimulants reduces bone fractures and STDs!
>You either have some quantity of illness or you don't.
This is stupid. Some people with bad eyesight need glasses to do normal day to day things while others don't, or only need glasses for reading, but both are diagnosed nearsighted
>Much to the disservice of people suffering from the condition.
Stop talking for me, you are doing an atrocious job of it.
>It's not anti-science to call into question the amount of bunk, p-hacked, corporate funded garbage coming out of even the highest tier of medical grade journals.
It is entirely antiscience to demonstrably have no clue what you are talking about and yet claim the experts are wrong. That is literally antiscience. There's no p-hacking in ADHD science. There's no corporate funded garbage for ADHD. Ritalin is old and cheap and no longer patent protected.
>If anything, your own post demonstrates the anti-scientific (pop-sci) instagramification of mental illness.
How dare you thumb your nose at kids self diagnosing on tiktok (not instagram, pay attention) as "pop-sci" when you yourself know only reactionary FUD. Shame on you. Educate yourself.
> This never happened. We did not overprescribe Ritalin.
I think it is important to stress a difference between "over medicated", "over prescribed", and "over dosed" (often also called over medicated, something I have been guilty of).
An example being my partner, apparently when he was a kid and diagnosed with ADHD he was put on a very high (I am only relaying what I was told) dose that he hated being on. That has caused him now as an adult to be very cautious to go back on the medication.
Where as for myself I was not diagnosed until an adult, was able to actually advocate for myself and I started on the lowest dose possible for all of my medications (also treating Anxiety and Depression). While I do take several medications I would not consider myself over medicated because we have identified that at this point in time all of these medications are actually helpful, but I am very cautious of being on too high of a dose for each of these.
I do think there are likely people that were put on too high of a dose too quickly to expedite treatment, but being on the medication in the first place was not the issue. It doesn't mean that the diagnoses was wrong though.
I think your point could be better made with less vitriolic language, and I also think you get a few things wrong: a bunch of my peers were over-medicated to the point of being senseless during the late 80s and early 90s. These drugs were pushed on kids by many well meaning but exasperated parents whose children - mostly boys - could not sit still and behave in the way demanded of them by school and society. So it's a mixed bag with regard to the intent behind medication, and the effectiveness with which it was applied. Nowadays, if anything it's harder than ever to get amphetamines because of US drug scheduling policies and our patchwork, piecemeal healthcare system.
I just want to say, I wish I could give 100 upvotes, but I'll have to settle for one.
It's definitely the case that there is undue paranoia about stimulants.
One case you only briefly touch on, addiction. Let me elaborate. I have struggled with severe ADHD(largely untreated during childhood, mainting severity into adulthood as a result) for all my life. I've struggled with drug addiction for most of my adult life(mainly cannabis). The amount of hoops addicts are made to jump through to get access to amphetamines is insane. Generally the requirements in my country(Norway) are to deliver weekly clean drug tests for 3 months. In the case of heavy cannabis use, it takes up to 3 months from going cold turkey until tests are negative. So, a 6 month commitment before treatment can even begin. Now, the relationship between ADHD and cannabis is interesting. I know some ADHDers who swear by it as a treatment. These tend to be of the predominantly hyperactive/impulsive type.
For me, it can't really be called a treatment. It actively worsens my condition in terms of executive dysfunction. Although it does improve some of the aspects like hyperactivity and emotional lability and helps make things bearable.
By the time I'm a year into a binge, my life is such a mess that getting myself out of it without meds is completely hopeless. Here I'm talking my apartment being such a mess I'm generally expecting to be woken up by people in biohazard suits any day now, and wondering how the hell I haven't contracted some kinda crazy bacterial disease by now. Cleaning it up is weeks if not months of work even with meds. Without it's inherently impossible. And the cannabis at least numbs me to the horror of it all.
So for 6 months I have to abandon that small comfort and just exist in this hellish life until I can even begin to improve things. Try to imagine how hard that makes going cold turkey in the first place. Not to mention the fact that meds significantly help me manage the addiction in the first place. I've successfully made it through this 6 month purgatory 3 separate times in the last 13 years. I've made more failed attempts than I can count. Wasted most of my 20s hiding from the purgatory inside a bong. I often wonder ehat my life would've been like if the rules weren't so strict. There's no evidence supported medical justification for waiting any longer than about 4 weeks. Out of the bajillion or so failed attempts, I reckon maybe 3/4 made it that far. Go figure.
I'm currently, close to 2 years semi-sober(doing a new moderation based approach to my addiction, very successfully, smoking exactly once every 4 weeks. Bit unrelated to the stimulant thing, it's more about relapse avoidance. But it's worked wonders so far.) and doing better than ever, but I still have a long way to go. And I will fight anyone who sows FUD about amphetamine or methylphenidate. These are wonder drugs. If you want to freak out about psych meds, go read up on neuroleptics. Now there's something truly horrifying. But of course, that only happens to crazy people hidden away in mental wards, so no one cares about them. I've been to those mental wards and I have seen some shit I will never forget. People whose lives were destroyed, reduced to an unbearable living hell for the remainder, by a supposed "treatment". These people are treated like animals. Go talk about that. Shut the fuck up about stimulants and SSRIs already, jesus. And go touch some grass.
> It comes as no surprise that psychiatry, and medicine in general, is suffering from a massive reproducibility crisis.
Psychiatry still hasn't coped with the fact that it spent most of the 20th century taking Freud seriously. More recently, it still hasn't figured out a way to repudiate the Satanic Ritual Abuse panic in the 80s. The people who were involved are literally still working, and have moved on to Facilitated Communication in severe autism, Gender Identity, and are still pushing around the fraud of Multiple Personality Disorder. Literally the same people involved in all of them, and now their children. [edit: forgot about one of the most important, Recovered Memory Syndrome]
There's just no scientific method in most of psychology, it's simply guru-led systemic theories delivered mostly (but often entirely) by a single person who is licensing practitioners. What comes along with that is a complete inability for any of these theories to die. They just eventually become unpopular and unprofitable, and people jump onto the next thing.
The psychopharmacological revolution has complicated this even more, because now there are billions of dollars wrapped up in it. The only advantage to SSRIs and the new generation of knockoffs was that they didn't cause tardive dyskinesia, there was never any statistical evidence that they performed any better than the previous drugs. And in the case of the previous drugs, they weren't ever shown to have much of an effect other than quieting down patients. They were all based on the wackjob theory that people having epileptic seizures suddenly became sane, and were one of the ways of inducing a seizure-like state, along with freezing baths, saline injections, electrocution, etc. All of the pioneers were also enthusiastic lobotomists.
How can we say that these new tactics are medicine or science when the statistics on mental illness keep getting worse?
It's kind of weird how you downplay tardive dyskinesia, as if it was kind of a no big deal, whatever kind of thing. Would you accept having tardive dyskinesia induced by a drug?
Is that really your position?
Your other words seem fine, but that is a standout sentence!
If remote work didn’t actually result in higher productivity the entire industry wouldn’t be trying to ship the labor base to India. Everything is going overseas. Even some doctors offices are employing video check in services.
I’ve heard the same thing since 1999 and yet many of us on HN graduated high school or college in the 2000s/2010s and have been employed for decade(s) with successful careers.
If remote work actually resulted in higher productivity, the first attempt to ship the labor base offshore would have worked. (Not that remote is the only variable there, but you brought it up.) With LLMs they see an opening to try again, now that they view labor as commodity babysitters of LLM output.
Research is not corporate labor. Rarely are there “good problems” to work on. I’d bet dollars to donuts 99.99999% of employed HNers could close their door at work, or work from home, rarely interact with anyone, and know exactly what needs to be worked on. It’s another CRUD app.
Conflating actual productive academic research with the mundane triviality of a day job is crazy.
I prefer heads down time. At my remote workplace, I found several channels where people ask for help. Combined with office hours, it is the main way I keep in touch with what is going on.
We also write up a weekly priorities (by team), and all the leadership put it together into emails. It is a great way for me to read what is going on.
I shift between deep work and collaborative problem solving.
It is not as if you can’t try structure things to have both.
Keep your eyes open for a better job? The work you do should have impact of some kind. In the corporate world there is business impact (increase revenue, decrease direct costs or improve system efficiency), social impact (make a product that directly helps people in some way), or personal impact (work on something that you find intrinsically interesting or helps you grow your skills or understanding).
I don't see any reason to permanently stay in a role filled with mundane triviality .
> I don't see any reason to permanently stay in a role filled with mundane triviality
Well for starters with over a decade of experience I still need to halt my entire life to grind leetcode for months.
What does a top leetcode score give you? The opportunity to build CRUD apps for FAANG. No thanks. What if I go towards working at a university as “retirement”? Well, now I’m just building apps to test hypotheses developed by someone else. Grass still ain’t greener and I still don’t need to be “collaborative”.
I think the modern developer views themselves wrongly as a world changing force. When in reality the majority of software engineering is getting paid a metric shitload of money to glue premade widgets together on a digital assembly line.
The good “deep” jobs are excruciatingly rare, typically vary wildly in pay, and highly competitive. It’s not like the early 80s and 90s when you could get in on some crazy cool world changing stuff like OS dev, networks, and things like it. Most of the highly available “cool” jobs are solved problems.
PMs are an invention of PHBs that sat in too many introductions to agile from management consulting firms.
Actual agile gets rid of them along with all the other cruft. PM as a title is fundamentally a jobs program for people who couldn’t hack it as programmers, or are nepo hires. You could argue a North Star like a product manager performs useful business alignment. But in 12 years across several companies I haven’t met a single project manager that is more than a professional problem manufacturer with selective hearing that miraculously ignores expert engineering opinion.
You want intellectual argumentation and then make an asinine claim like this.
First, HN was never a place for intellectual argumentation. It's reddit level dunning kruger with the pseudo-intellectual snobbery of a college philosophy courses. If you don't follow the zeitgeist you dont get to argue anything anyway. This is a terrible place for actual debate and those that do enjoy "debate" here are generally on the same side with a marginal (< 1%) difference in their views. The average HNer is a tech enthusiast, mid-to-far-left reddit poster. If you want some good debate turn on flagged/shadowed posts and enjoy the people who generally do not agree with HN's insane take on almost everything and havent been thought policed by Dang. If you were as smart as your smarmy post implies you'd realize any place with le updoots and le downdoots doesnt allow for spirited debate.
Second,
> Now, every day there’s multiple stories where you have to be caught up on this cinematic universe where AI is fake and doesn’t work and no one uses it
"AI" doesn't work well. I've been a professional software engineer for a long time. The best use case for "AI" is mild code review, writing comments, and stubbing out boring work like initial database table schemas. It absolutely hallucinates to hell with any sufficiently complex problem and if you're not aware of context windows you will walk yourself into a trap. The average person is not smart enough to recognize this. Thus, "AI" doesn't only fail to deliver, it is also dangerous due to it's sychophantic nature. I quote AI, particularly, because LLMs are not artificial intelligence. At least, not anymore than least squares analysis is artificial intelligence.
> data centers they build will be a waste and they’re probably not even being built and OpenAI is JUST like pets.com so this is basically the web bubble from 1999
Your rant provides no evidence it is not a bubble. An entirely unprofitable industry attempting to scale to make pennies is not sustainable. The amount of capital pouring into a literal wish is not similar to 1999.
It's similar to the 2008 economic crisis where, when the chickens come home to roost, the government will be bailing out big tech companies with taxpayer money because their infrastructure has parasitically attached itself (via the "cloud") to almost everything we use.
> In this case, X = RAM supply shortage is fake and actually just coordinated price gouging
There have been two DRAM price fixing scandals. If it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck... well it might be a duck. People are right to infer price fixing. The only difference now is it's "legal" because they announced it via a quarterly report. Every 5 or so years there's always something going on with DRAM. One wonders why.
> It was tons of fun and happy times when we were going to reduce # of radiologists, not software engineers.
Your MD friend should stay in his lane and not weigh in on topics he can't hope to understand. His biggest problem is India, not AI. Just like software engineers. Radiology is outsourced at levels similar to software with the only difference he probably made his nut 10 years ago and software engineers aren't paid anywhere near as much as a good non-outsourced radiologist.
reply