Roma or Romani people, commonly known in Europe as gypsies, are not the same as Romanian people, although there is a large population there. You'll have to reference Wikipedia for a deeper dive.
Is your opinion about the latter because the self-taught may not stay on task?
As a self-taught person on a lot of different matters, I find myself exploring rabbit holes that expand my knowledge, but don't progress the task I originally started doing.
My reading is that the statement wasn't an opinion either way, rather it was questioning whether survivorship bias needs to be accounted for.
To your point though, I think it doesn't matter so long as you've learned to deliver business value. Application of broad and diverse skills may deliver value at a start-up for example, but wouldn't get too far at a ticket shop.
The point I was raising is that I don't think it's the self taught angle itself that is the causal factor. As an example, there's lots of things I'm self taught at but also terrible.
However, someone who already has the talent to be really good at something and who has the inner drive and motivation to push themselves is someone who is likely to excel. So if you find someone who is excellent at something and self taught, it's not a surprise. They probably combined natural talent with a strong work ethic, and lots of exploration of the entire search space.
I like the Battlestar Galactica theory for this - a group of humans and human-Cylon hybrids bred with the early Neanderthals in different regions of the world.
"do not work for me", I believe, is the key message here. I think a lot of AI companies have crafted their tools such that adoption has increased as the tools and the output got better. But there will always be a few stragglers, non-normative types, or situations where the AI agent is just not suitable.
Maybe, but there's also some evidence that AI coding tools aren't making anyone more productive. One study from last year found that there was no increase in developer velocity but a dramatic increase in bugs.[1] Granted, the technology has advanced since this study, but many of the fundamental issues of LLM unreliability remain. Additionally, a recent study has highlighted the significant cognitive costs associated with offloading problem-solving onto LLMs, revealing that individuals who do so develop significantly weaker neural connectivity than those who don't [2].
It's very possible that AI is literally making us less productive and dumber. Yet they are being pushed by subscription-peddling companies as if it is impossible to operate without them. I'm glad some people are calling it out.
Does somebody have a breakdown of an analyst's tasks and the percentage of time or money spent on each? Was it 50% data gathering, analysis, and projections, and 50% on making PowerPoints?
And anyone seen a McKinsey slide? How information dense are these things?
No interactivity! The email must be printable as-is. Not even CSS code to change styles when you hover over links. That's what I would for a minimum HTML for emails standard that's widely supported.
It’s actually a bummer: you can’t use a <style> tag because some email clients don’t like them. Instead, you have to inline your styles in every element. the lack of :hover is just a side effect of that I think (although it plays out nicely here).
(While on it, can we also ban loading images from third-party servers?)
Hmm, that might not be a bad idea! We could ban CSS altogether: just leave some markup tags, maybe whatever you can do in Markdown + tables. No colors, no small print, no images. (We could even use something like gemtext as the format instead of HTML, but that wouldn’t be backward compatible with clients.)
But I don’t see any email clients with somewhat significant market share going through with this :(
I'm confused, we're talking about browsers, and comment I replied to suggested 'email + interactivity' as a standard for minimal browsers. I wasn't suggesting adding JS execution to emails. (I don't even allow remote images personally.)
reply