That depends on what you think jobs and the economy are for, generally.
If you think the purpose of the economy is for the economy to be good then it doesn't matter. If you think it exists to serve humanity then... You really wouldn't need to ask the question, I imagine.
Money isn't the only thing a job provides. Those are all professions that provide a sense of meaning, so monetary compensation doesn't need to be as high to attract and keep people.
Yeah that’s part of the gaslighting. It takes 2 seconds to realize it’s wrong, but people parrot it like Fox News talking points.
Every profession attracts people who enjoy it, eg lawyers tend to enjoy adversarial debate. Lots of countries don’t treat their teachers like shit. It’s a choice.
Yeah I'm sure that felt good to say but it's fucking bullshit. I'm not a software dev because it's my calling, I'm a software dev because I'm pretty sure I wouldn't make any money doing anything else. I only briefly considered teaching as a profession (knowing I'd be functionally poor as a result) despite being quite sure I'd enjoy it (I tutored and instructed all through high school and college) because the desire to make money combined with the current state of schools ultimately won out. Other people who are more passionate about teaching and/or don't have the same skills as me would have gone the other way.
There will always be fucking teachers, pilots, etc, because people WANT to be those things, and it's gonna take more than "nuh uh, Fox News" to dislodge that belief.
That said, I didn't say it isn't a public policy choice, I'm saying the "passion factor" is the reason they are ABLE to offer these jobs at low wages.
I always thought intentionally applying an emotional distance was a strategy to help us see what's really happening, since allowing emotions to creep in causes us reach conclusions we want (motivated reasoning) instead of conclusions that reflect reality. I find it a valuable way to think. Then there's always the fact that the people who control the world have no emotional attachment to you either. They see you as something closer to a horse than their kin. I imagine a healthy dose of self-dehumanization actually helps us understand the current trajectory of our future. And people tend to vastly overvalue our "humanity" anyway. I'm guessing the ones that displaced horses didn't give much of a fuck about what happened to horses.
I wish I knew what you were so I could say "one of the many terrible things about __" about you. Anyway, I think you have an unhealthy emotional attachment to your emotions.
> I wish I knew what you were so I could say "one of the many terrible things about __" about you.
I'm a software engineer, so I beat you to it.
> I always thought intentionally applying an emotional distance was a strategy to help us see what's really happening, since allowing emotions to creep in causes us reach conclusions we want (motivated reasoning) instead of conclusions that reflect reality. I find it a valuable way to think.
And the problem is taking that too far, and doing it too much. It's a tactic "to help us see what's really happening," but it's wrong to stop there and forget things like values, interests, and morality.
> And people tend to vastly overvalue our "humanity" anyway.
WTF, man.
> I'm guessing the ones that displaced horses didn't give much of a fuck about what happened to horses.
Who cares what "the ones that displaced horses" thought? You're the horse in that scenario,and the horse cares. Another obnoxious software engineer problem is taking the wrong, often self-negating, perspective.
Yes, the robber who killed you to steal your stuff probably didn't mind you died. So I guess everything's good, then? No.
> Anyway, I think you have an unhealthy emotional attachment to your emotions.
Emotions aren't bad, they're healthy. But a rejection of them is probably a core screwed-up belief that leads to "aloof galaxy-brain, passively observing humanity from afar" syndrome.
There's probably parallel to the kind of obliviousness that gets you the behavior in the Torment Nexus meme ("Tech Company: "At long last, we have created the Torment Nexus from the classic sci-fi novel Don't Create The Torment Nexus.'") i.e. "Software Engineer: 'At long last, I've purged myself of emotion and become perfectly logical like Lt. Cmdr. Data from the classic sci-fi Logical Robot Data Wants to Be Human and Feel Emotions."
The original point, that LLMs are plagiarising inputs, is a very common and common sense opinion.
There are court cases where this is being addressed currently, and if you think about how LLMs operate, a reasonable person typically sees that it looks an awful lot like plagiarism.
If you want to claim it is not plagiarism, that requires a good argument, because it is unclear that LLMs can produce novelty, since they're literally trying to recreate the input data as faithfully as possible.
I need you to prove to me that it's not plagiarism when you write code that uses a library after reading documentation, I guess.
> since they're literally trying to recreate the input data as faithfully as possible.
Is that how they are able to produce unique code based on libraries that didn't exist in their training set? Or that they themselves wrote? Is that how you can give them the documentation for an API and it writes code that uses it? Your desire to make LLMs "not special" has made you completely blind to reality. Come back to us.
The LLM is trained on a corpus of text, and when it is given a sequence of tokens, it finds a set of token that, when one of them is appended, make the resulting sequence most like the text in that corpus.
If it is given a sequence of tokens that is unlike anything in its corpus, all bets are off and it produces garbage, just like machine learning models in general: if the input is outside the learned distribution, quality goes downhill fast.
The fact that they've added a Monte Carlo feature to the sequence generation, which makes it sometimes select a token that is slightly less like the most exact match in the corpus does not change this.
LLMs are fuzzy lookup tables for existing text, that hallucinate text for out-of-distribution queries.
This is LLM 101.
If the LLM was only trained using documentation, then there would be no problem. If it would generate a design, look at the documentation, understand the semantics of both, and translate the design to code by using the documentation as a guide.
But that's not how it works. It has open source repositories in its corpus that it then recreates by chaining together examples in this stochastic parrot -method I described above.
Oh wild, I was operating under the assumption that the law requires you to prove that a law was broken, but it turns out you need to prove it wasn't. Thanks!
Dollar stores are crowding out grocery stores in areas that only have the clientele to support one grocery store. They sell only higher margin, long shelf-life shit food, whereas real grocery stores have to carry produce which cuts into margins considerably cause it goes bad. So it's easier for them to stay open. And they create food deserts there. They are a fucking scourge for small towns.
Sounds like the grocery stores were not serving their customer base well if they couldn’t compete with “overpriced” dollar stores.
Carrying cost of produce does not add up. If produce is going bad at that spoilage rate the store management fucked up and didn’t order the correct amount of product for the location. You can’t wish your way into a product mix.
Nothing was stopping grocery stores from identifying this need. Pretending your customer base is more affluent than it is sounds like a quick way to go out of business to me.
Explain why rural customers prefer the dollar store to the grocery store? Are they just stupid and don't know what's best for themselves?
Perhaps the rural grocers are not carrying the appropriate product mix for their current (new?) customer base, and are overvaluing customer service?
I don't like it - but I also spend time in rural communities and see why these places beat the local grocers. They offer better value for the dollar. Often they are indeed cheaper on a unit cost basis, much less overall per transaction.
It's sort of like folks screeching about "food deserts" in urban communities I've lived in, thus enacting laws forcing fresh produce be carried by the local convenience stores. That produce simply rotted on the shelves since - surprise! - the local business owners knew their customer base better than a bunch of do-gooder ivory tower academics did.
You can make some strong cases for Walmart putting Main Street rural America out of business using predatory pricing schemes and the like. It's a lot more difficult for dollar stores.
They do not offer better "value on the dollar" they offer units that individually cost less but over a year of buying what you need to survive you pay more. That's how items are generally priced; smaller packages, higher unit price (as in, price per ounce).
You shouldn't say "screeching" if you want to be taken seriously, it makes you sound shallow and dismissive, incapable of understanding how your narrow outlook is not applicable in some situations.
Please, take even the most basic efforts to understand what people are talking about here instead of forcing me to shove information down your throat like you haven't learned how to use an internet search yet. You don't need my help, and nothing I can say will be more convincing than your own personal research.
> They do not offer better "value on the dollar" they offer units that individually cost less but over a year of buying what you need to survive you pay more. That's how items are generally priced; smaller packages, higher unit price (as in, price per ounce).
Does the consumer not have all of the information available to them to make the comparison of the per unit cost between a dollar general and a local grocery?
I don't see anything that says they are "fucking" them. I see plenty that they are out competing them. People get to choose to go to whatever grocery store they like.
Perhaps you you are motivated to believe that it's just "markets" at play. Monopolies and extortionate power don't exist, anyone who wins deserves to win, etc. Here is the top search result when I search for "dollar stores killing grocery stores" in Kagi.
> When dollar store chains open, it almost always cuts into the sales of local businesses. At first glance, it might seem like this is simply the nature of competition. But dollar stores use their hefty market muscle to make it virtually impossible for other businesses to successfully compete. With plenty of cash from shareholders and institutional investors, chain dollar stores have the resources to lose money indefinitely in a community until their competitors have folded.
> For many businesses, losing even a small percentage of sales can put the business at risk of failure. There are many types of businesses whose products overlap with chain dollar stores and that are therefore vulnerable, including hardware, small appliances, toys, reading materials, greeting cards, and health and beauty supplies. With dollar stores averaging around 10,000 square feet in size and sales of around $260/square foot, a typical Dollar General captures over $2 million in sales every year — and those sales are likely coming out of the cash registers of businesses already there.1
> This is an enormous problem for grocery stores in particular, which have razor-thin profit margins. Cutting into a grocery store’s sales even a small bit can endanger its survival. Food is what customers buy most often in dollar stores,2 making dollar stores a clear threat to grocery store survival or creation. And grocery stores’ profit margins are higher on items other than fresh produce — things like processed, prepackaged food and snacks — which is the bulk of the food that dollar stores sell. Peeling off just enough sales of packaged food can send a grocery store into the red.
> There are many examples of grocery stores that closed when a dollar store opened nearby...
I just replied to another comment. I lived in the most exclusive part of Atlanta for awhile where there was a Dollar Store right next to the Publix right next door to our $2500/month apartment.
Source that they are replacing grocery stores? Dollar stores are closing and not expanding
. 99 cents stores went bankrupt, rest have been closing hundreds of stores.
Also dollar stores carry produce just grocery at least largest ones do like dollar general. They are designed to compete against grocery stores and wallmart’s neighborhood markets.
There have been a few articles about this over the past couple of years, usually in reference to one study or another. Here's one that references a USDA study:
reply