I suspect a subpopulation of software development is going to become a bit religious, for a short while, split into "morally pure anti AI" and those who are busy using software as a means to an end to solve some real world problem. I think the tools will eventually be embraced, out of necessity, as they become more practically useful (being somewhere around "somewhat useful" right now).
As a result, I think we'll eventually see a mean shift from rewarding those that are "technically competent" more towards those that are "practically creative" (I assume the high end technical competence will always be safe).
if you think your code is art like mozarts music, then you're probably part of the first group rather than the group trying to simply get something practical done with software as a means to do it.
Should Mozart have constructed the instruments himself? Or plucked the strings himself? No, he had someone else take care of all that so he could compose music. AI can be used the same way: take care of boring stuff so I can compose a solution to a real world problem. No, that doesn't mean AI has to do everything for you, which outright bans don't seem to be able to comprehend.
the stacked changes support, for me, was an absolute game changer. the auto rebasing, etc, is -really- nice.
i found it especially useful for Gitops type stuff where you have to make lots of little PRs
The iPhones autocorrect is one of my biggest frustrations coming from Android a few years ago. The biggest frustration for me is the tendency to correct the _second to last word_. I have never gotten used to this. I know i can stop it by "clicking" on the word instead of hitting space - but that feels slow and bad.
There is a podcast, Memory Hole, about the recovered memory movement. There is a lengthy section about this book and the people behind it (not positive)
Was this a new committee? there is a quote about this being a coup, but it is also noted that the previous administration selected the entire existing committee
From the way it is written it feels more like "Under Biden enough openings occurred that he selected the entire existing committee," where as under Trump they are being pushed out "“Without removing the current members, the current Trump administration would not have been able to appoint a majority of new members until 2028,” Kennedy wrote in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece. “A clean sweep is needed to re-establish public confidence in vaccine science. ”"
If one goes by the ACIP Membership Rooster this seem to be the case: https://www.cdc.gov/acip/membership/roster.html Likely, the compensation scientists receive for being a committee member is not great so the committee has to be constantly refilled. Appointees to such committees are de facto apolitical because there aren't enough world-class specialists available for the executive to choose between. So the Trump team will have to choose, actual experts in immunology or loyal MAGA goons...
A clean sweep of RFK and his ilk out of power and the media is the bare minimum of what is necessary to re-establish public confidence in vaccine science.
That trust was undermined by habitual liars in an effort to score political points at the expense of public health. None of the batshit-insane things they claimed were just around the corner have actually materialized.
Unfortunately, this isn't even the top five most egregious thing these people are doing this week.
I think it should fairly clear why I'm curious, as the article mentions
> Although it’s typically not viewed as a partisan board, the Biden administration had installed the entire committee.
After some degree of googling the history of ACIP I had not found any explanation and thought maybe someone here(who is actually American and maybe follows this kind of thing more closely?) would just know
Looks like there are actually some comments now that are more clarifying.
> Are you just asking questions to smokescreen for this executive power grab?
I’m just trying to understand the background. I get that this is a sensitive topic, but I’d ask that we keep things civil and give people the benefit of the doubt when they’re asking honest questions.
What I read elsewhere is that members of the committee serve a 4 year term. Since Biden's term was 4 years this means that all members' terms ran out sometime during Biden's term--so either new members were appointed by him or existing members were re-appointed by him.
One story said the members were appointed for 4-year terms. That would work out that Biden would have appointed them all if there was no confirmation process.
It's an open secret that most nutrition research is of extremely low quality - almost all relying on decades old self reported nutritional questionnaires.
Sometimes dozens of these studies get wrapped up and analyzed together, and we headlines that THING IS BAD with a hazard ratio of like 1.05 (we figured out smoking was bad with a hazard ratio that was like 3! - you need a really good signal when you are analyzing such low quality data)
