Not a physicist, but here is my understanding of the cosmology physics:
High energy can spontaneously form matter antimatter pairs. In the early universe, the heat of the universe was very high, so this was common, constantly happening.
The problem as always if fine tuning. If the early universe was 60-40, that would be understandable. If the early universe was precisely 50-50, that’s fine too. But the universe was 50.0001-49.9999 or something like that, and then all annihilated. It’s too big a difference to easily be random chance, and too small a difference to be easily explained by a starting condition what wasn’t precisely tuned by some mechanism.
Not a physicist either but pair production also occurs in "non extreme" conditions and is still quite common.
If find this question fascinating. Matter can only ever exist with respective anti-matter. Question is where has all the antimatter gone? Are there processes were it does indeed behave different from matter? So where is it? Since a photon and antiphoton are the same and do not absorb each other, we should be able to see it, shouldn't we?
I still want to believe in the antimatter universe where there is some evil twin of mine.
Certainly you won’t be saved in the US, where things like consumer protections are quickly becoming a thing of the past. And the US has traditionally exported its business practices to the world.
I think the collapse might take place in the shape of something like china: self interested elites, self sabotaging economic policy, a hollowing out economically by outside powers, numerous failed rebellions and devolution of central power due to lack of governability, etc. Aka, a period of somewhat rapid decay.
One thing that could help here is that the compiler is able to offer output in JSON, allowing you to format the messages however you'd like: https://doc.rust-lang.org/rustc/json.html
I'm not aware of an existing tool to produce blind-friendly output, but this would at least be a part of that!
Can I request that they not use AI when evaluating my application, and expect them to respect my wishes? Highly doubtful. Respect is a 2-way street. This is not a collaboration, but a hierarchical mandate in one direction, for protecting themselves from the harms of the very tools they peddle.
The executive branch having the power of selective enforcement and pardon generally seems like it might have an impact on the relevance of any supposed authority.
Facebook is rapidly moving away from effective communication. AI slop, AI posters, and algorithmic preferences for decisiveness over local community with engagement farming algorithms. If the communication medium you use is turning toxic, it’s imperative to find alternatives before communication breaks down and a switch becomes impossible.
I use it for parent stuff and parties. It just does what it supposed to. See pictures of kids (private group). Get birthday invites. Just go to the group. No algorithm or engagement farming. It just works.
And marketplace has been a game changer.
What's better? Simpler to setup and maintain for local businesses or daycares. One daycare used a different app and it was awful. Janky, weird, missing features and the teachers complain about it.
X or Facebook isn’t “us”. If we had any reason to believe there were or were even likely to be strong effective democratic controls over their ability to manipulate public sentiment it might be different. But as it stands, it feels more like local oligarchs kicking out competitors in their market: “the US population is our population to manipulate, go back to your own”.
Punishing people with more work doesn’t make sense in a well run organization. Work is continuous and more work only affects the backlog, not the actual developer’s life or experience.
It was not a punishment. It was more, "You're sure that you know an efficient way to do this? You get a chance to prove that you're right." It made people careful because being wrong had a consequence, but it usually moved work to the person who thought that they had the best approach.
This happened in Sprint Planning. Obviously by the end of the meeting, everyone would have a full sprint. So volunteering for one thing required giving something else up. This was definitely part of the equation.
People wind up with as much work as they think they can reasonably do. They would have done that whether or not they "just volunteered" themselves. You only wind up with too much if you didn't estimate your own work well.
As for being passive aggressive, the word "just" usually is used in a passive aggressive way. Making people careful about saying it was an improvement. And we all agreed that it was.
Per your description, it is used to stop people from saying or doing something by assigning an uncomfortable unwanted consequence. Someone thinking something is easy does not nor should not imply they actually want it. Most people do not want to do easy tasks all the time.
And no, they did not volunteered themselves. That is just manipulative language.
High energy can spontaneously form matter antimatter pairs. In the early universe, the heat of the universe was very high, so this was common, constantly happening.
The problem as always if fine tuning. If the early universe was 60-40, that would be understandable. If the early universe was precisely 50-50, that’s fine too. But the universe was 50.0001-49.9999 or something like that, and then all annihilated. It’s too big a difference to easily be random chance, and too small a difference to be easily explained by a starting condition what wasn’t precisely tuned by some mechanism.