Can confirm. Went through all of these in sequence. Except for Remote Coding denial. None of our engineers actually hit that when Linear released their Agents implementation. We just offloaded simpler tickets to Copilot.
We're just now learning how to orchestrate agent swarms, and how to monitor our Bedrock bills..
Because talk is cheap, but when pressed, a crackpot like Puthoff cannot provide a single relevant detail. Had he been involved in actual top secret projects, he would shut up about them; instead he fantasizes.
He also has a history of quackery, belief in the paranormal, and being duped by Uri Geller.
I mean, he's the worst kind of crackpot: a sucker who believes magic tricks are real and will evangelize about it.
You didn't answer the question, you just went on another one of your rants. Why is it surprising that he can’t talk about it in concrete terms given “ all these people supposedly worked on things much more exotic”?
I did answer, but I realize arguing with parapsychology believers is a fool's errand.
Puthoff is a crank. Of course he won't provide evidence of participating in top secret projects that produced any results: he doesn't have it. He can only speak in the vaguest terms typical of pseudoscience cranks.
Dude claims “there are documents that indicated it did work”. You didn’t enquire about them, just completely dismissed it. That is indeed typical of narrow minded people.
Dudes claim all kinds of crap online. He already posted a PDF that indicated nothing of the sort.
If you will believe anything that seems true to you, because someone online said so, without any weight of evidence, and which is widely considered pseudoscience (go check)... I have a bridge to sell you.
What's with the wave of anti-intellectualism on HN of all places? Are we really trying to debate whether debunked crap like witchcraft and ESP is real? What's next, that Nigerian prince truly wants to gift you his money if only you can help him with a few dollars?
You're one of the dudes online - never forget that.
Examining something != believing it, it's step 2 in the scientific method, with which I advise you get familiar with before invoking it as much as you have in this thread.
If all you have to contribute to the discussion is thrashing around, maybe stay out of it?
> You're one of the dudes online - never forget that.
I never made any outlandish claims and therefore the onus isn't on me to prove anything.
> Examining something != believing it
But parapschyology has been examined and tested by scientists, and none of it has been verified in independent and controlled conditions. Unlike what the other commenter claimed, there are zero documents indicating RV works. Many of its practitioners have been shown to be frauds, pranksters or cranks (Puthoff thought Uri Geller was a psychic and was fooled by sleight of hand). What new evidence is there? RV isn't a new claim; it's an old debunked claim. Have they won the Amazing Randi prize yet? They could have, if RV was real!
> If all you have to contribute to the discussion is thrashing around, maybe stay out of it?
I'm reminding participants about how the scientific method works, which is important when discussing outlandish claims.
Attributing something to luck sounds like a lazy cop out, sorry.
We just had an article on the front page yesterday about “increasing your luck”.
If you need to be lucky in meeting the right people, you can increase your chances by spending your evenings in the your nearest financial district watering hole. We’ve easily established luck can be controlled for, which puts us back into skill territory.
What specifically must one luck out on? Have you tried?
Exactly, as a multimillion lottery winner, it upsets me so much when people say I won because of luck.
I played every single day, and I played at different locations. I also made sure I performed my pre-ticket rituals which I learned from other lottery winners. Other people could have done the same. It’s absolutely a skill issue.
> Attributing something to luck sounds like a lazy cop out, sorry.
Everyone one of us here has an unbroken line of lucky (lucky enough!) ancestors stretching back a billion years or so. Pretending it's not a thing is silly.
When you're born matters. Where you're born matters. Who you encounter matters. etc. etc. etc.
> What specifically must one luck out on? Have you tried?
I think perhaps we have different definitions of luck.
No, I think we have a similar definition of luck, but I think you’ve succumbed to a defeatist attitude. You have to be pretty unlucky to be permanently locked out of becoming a CEO, and if you’re dealt those cards, moaning about it on an online forum would be way down in your list of priorities.
Then why were you bringing up conditions of ones birth?
Vanishingly unlikely to get one if you try, or vanishingly unlikely to get one if you sit on your ass all day?
I assume you’re talking about the former and yet I don’t think you’ve thought this through. I think you’ve blindly attributed to luck what actually requires time, perseverance, grit, lack of morality. The only way to figure that out is for you to offer up your understanding of what one must luck out on?
> Then why were you bringing up conditions of ones birth?
Because they're a form of luck?
If you're born in the developed world, that's luck. If you're born to supportive parents, that's luck. If you're Steve Jobs and you wind up high school buddies with Woz in Mountain View, CA, that's luck. White? Luck. Male? Luck. Healthy? Luck. A light touching of psychopathy? Luck!
> Vanishingly unlikely to get one if you try, or vanishingly unlikely to get one if you sit on your ass all day?
Both.
> I think you’ve blindly attributed to luck what actually requires time, perseverance, grit, lack of morality.
There are many, many people who devote time, perserverance, and grit to their endeavours without becoming a "hugely expensive" CEO. Hence, luck. Is it the only thing? No. Is it a thing? Yes, absolutely.
None of what you’ve mentioned is a requirement to become a “hugely expensive” CEO. If you’re born into conditions which stop you from becoming self reliant, that’s a different story but we covered that.
Those people who devote time - do they devote time to becoming a hugely expensive CEO or just some “endeavours”?
I think we’re fundamentally disagreeing on whether or not lack of luck can be adequately compensated for by exerting more effort. I have not yet heard of a compelling argument for why that’s not the case.
> None of what you’ve mentioned is a requirement to become a “hugely expensive” CEO.
Again, no one said they're requirements. Just significant factors. You don't have to be white, you don't have to be male, you don't have to be from the developed world… but you do have to have some substantially lucky breaks somewhere.
A quadriplegic orphan of the Gaza War might become the next Elon Musk. But the odds are stacked heavily against them.
God save us from grindset influencers who pedal all this ‘if you didn’t succeed it was down to you not trying hard enough’ m’larky. In some respects I appreciate the call to taking agency but the fact it results in people being unable to acknowledge the sheer extent of external factors in the world is crazy.
No one except the article we're all (theoretically) discussing, titled "CEOs are hugely expensive", citing "the boards of BAE Systems, AstraZeneca, Glencore, Flutter Entertainment and the London Stock Exchange" as examples in the introductory paragraph.
Now read the rest of the article. It talks about CEOs in general, not just megacorp ones, even if it does use megacorp CEOs in the intro. It is asking a general question of whether the role of a CEO should be automated. Articles often start with a hook that is related but does not wholly encompass the entirety of the point of the article.
> Anything that removes the power of CEOs and gives it to the worker should be highly encouraged.
Pretty sure the moment you do this, the workers liquidate the company and distribute the assets among themselves, as evidenced by the acceptance rate of voluntary severance offers in many past downsizings, such as the Twitter one.
Accepting severance isn’t “liquidating the company,” it’s individuals minimizing risk when leadership is downsizing. Explicitly, in the case of Twitter.
“Accept this money and go or be fired” isn’t remotely comparable to the situation and claiming it is reveals a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of the offer?
We're just now learning how to orchestrate agent swarms, and how to monitor our Bedrock bills..