The problem is that you can't undo millennia of evolution that has pushed us towards the situation where people are obsessed with food and struggle to limit themselves. We also shouldn't forget that not more than a century ago famine and rationing was still commonplace. Certainly my parents were still raised in an environment that hadn't gotten used to food being plentiful and were always forced to eat everything they had at all times and rewarded with food, this has been engrained in myself since I was young as well. I'm lucky that I managed to move away and isolate myself and lose a lot of weight but the important thing to note is that once I got down to a lower weight, everything was easier, getting up in the morning, walking, jogging, working out, talking to people, going outside. Now I've probably gained back 30% of what I lost and if I could take Ozempic to lose 5kg the rest would come a lot quicker because I'd be able to run further and have more energy generally.
All that is to say, these two are not mutually exclusive and if people receive this drug everything we already do to promote a healthy lifestyle will become much more realistic for many people, as far as I understand Ozempic removes the desire of hunger, it's not like people can continue their bad habits and take the drug and lose weight. Furthermore once they assume these habits, the generational cycle of raising children and over indulging will likely come to an end and we will probably not need the drugs as much.
TL;DR, people want to be healthy, they just don't have the tools or motivation to do it. Losing weight will likely be a gateway to many health improvements and benefits for future generations
I prefer a hybrid work model, currently I spend two days per week in the office but it only has to be a half day as long as I'm available for meetings and sharing sessions. This schedule allows me to avoid peak traffic, enhance team relationships, and still enjoy ample time at home with my wife. Prolonged remote work tends to feel isolating and somewhat depressing. Despite the higher cost of living in these areas, businesses often thrive in such locations due to the close proximity to industry resources and collaborative opportunities. It's expensive but beneficial.
Isn't the general mantra around leetcode that you should be spending a few hours after work in the lead up to joining the interview process to get into the swing of it?
What would be different from spending that time making a few PRs to an open source project or just building something from scratch to demonstrate your skills?
A lot of engineers that I've worked with have never spent time on leetcode and struggle to answer the common interview questions that aren't easy or low medium, so personally I don't see it as that much different, there's time required either way. One is productive, one isn't.
No other fields work like that. Computer science hiring managers need to figure it out. You have engineers in other fields who have long careers working multiple companies not even allowed to talk about what even occurred and its just routine.
Actually they do work like that. Engineers can be asked to solve problems in interviews. But the pressure doesn't seem like in software, where many people complain. There's no LeetCode equivalent for other kinds of engineering I think. But some of them do have licensing to deal with.
Ok. Replace engineering with just a business executive bound by NDA or security clearance into silence and my point still stands: no leetcode, no tests, no certifications, no gods, and people have long winded highly compensated careers and the sky doesn’t fall.
Software engineering is too easily self-taught for certifications to become the norm. The moment you have a cohort of people with demonstrable skills without such certifications, the value of the cert is undermined.
> What would be different from spending that time making a few PRs to an open source project or just building something from scratch to demonstrate your sk
The fact my employer specifically forbids me from doing so.
Most people would rather spend hours of their time to build a workaround.
Although, even on the minimum wage of my country, four hours of work is around half a year of youtube premium. based on the average salary for a developer it's probably around three years of youtube premium.
I will say, if I start to get ads on youtube premium then I'll start building workarounds but until that day, it makes sense to just pay the fee.
I'm just curious how you envision ai helping people in the future? There are countless technologies that are amazing in scope but never get any traction due to not being able to market, sustain and promote themselves properly.
Additionally, how do we get there and who funds it in the long term? When you actually consider how much compute power is required to get us to this point of a "pretty decent chat bot/text generator". It doesn't really seem like we are even 20% of the way to agi. If that's true then no amount of crowdfunding is going to get it even remotely close to providing the resources to power something truly revolutionary.
Don't get me wrong I agree with some of the points you've made and Microsoft are certainly in it for themselves but I also believe that they would like to avoid owning Openai as they'd not want to position themselves clearly as the sole caretaker of ai due to the amount of scrutiny they'd be under.
All that is to say, whether you like him or not, he has taken interest in ai and Openai as well as being a leader on discussing the ethics of developing ai to stratospheric levels that has made many industries and governments take notice.
Sam definitely discussed about ethics and stuff (at stratospheric level) but when it comes to actually implementing those ethic or when someone tried to implement it in product, he was instrumental in getting rid of respective scientists (whom inturn went on to create claude). And currently was trying to get rid off another director who is trying to voice out opinion in this regard. That is exactly what I am pointing out, he gave such impressions to the rest of the world.
Microsoft never intended or assumed OpenAI will turnout like this great. It just did a small hedge of $1B to a promising tech and will very much like to takeover OpenAI if given a chance and they can afford all the lawyers needed to keep up with govt regulations.
Anthropic was able to create a comparable product to openai with out all the fuss that sam has created. I agree Sam might have had some significant contributions but they are not as much as it seem to be. I am sure OpenAI will keep on progressing as it does now with or without Sam.
All that is to say, these two are not mutually exclusive and if people receive this drug everything we already do to promote a healthy lifestyle will become much more realistic for many people, as far as I understand Ozempic removes the desire of hunger, it's not like people can continue their bad habits and take the drug and lose weight. Furthermore once they assume these habits, the generational cycle of raising children and over indulging will likely come to an end and we will probably not need the drugs as much.
TL;DR, people want to be healthy, they just don't have the tools or motivation to do it. Losing weight will likely be a gateway to many health improvements and benefits for future generations