That's similar to asking why does everyone need a GP? Most people experience some kind of mental health challenge in their life.
Your 2nd question is much more interesting to me. Why is it so hard to find a good therapist?
It's no surprise to me that people are turning to ChatGPT for therapy. It does a decent enough job and it doesn't have a 2-year waiting list, or cost $300 a session.
Because the original point of it was to distinguish journalists and public figures, so you could tell imposters apart from real people. Now its purpose is to show who has a premium subscription. Totally different feature using the same name.
But not all "journalists and public figures" received the checkmark. It was entirely up to the ultra-woke Twitter management who gets a checkmark and who doesn't. I frankly don't see why the current, deterministic setup is better than the former non-deterministic one.
Now it's ultra-racist ultra-fascist Twitter management. Do you actually think that's better? Why are you whining about "woke" people who have long since been fired, but embracing the racists and fascists who are now running and being platformed and amplified on Twitter?
Yes, "Twitter". If Elon Musk can publicly abuse, humiliate, lie about, deadname, and misgender his own daughter to his millions of followers, than I can deadname Twitter.
He was originally testing the Automatic Emergency Braking feature, but it couldn't stop in time for a single obstacle, so he cut them some slack and used Autopilot instead.
What "potential peace deal" are you talking about? Russia has no interest in peace while they have so many allies in the Whitehouse. Meanwhile they continue to bomb and kill Ukrainians.
This is 100% my experience. I appreciate a manager who can jump into the codebase to fix the small stuff: typos, lint issues, updating minor dependencies, etc., unblocking devs from doing the main work. I like when they have some sense of the reality of the codebase, as you put it, and know who is actually contributing vs bullshitting.
The worst managers I've ever had were the so-called "technical" managers who had never looked at the code. They were often involved in technical decisions, but their opinions were entirely based on vibes. Since they were a manager, people felt obliged to listen to their input, even if it was disconnected from reality.
Either: a) be completely non-technical, and make sure you have a technical leader on the team who you trust, who does know the code or b) get involved in the code, enough to support and unblock your team.
I think this is kinda the best way. If you're a manger who used to code, do the sort of tedious tech debt stuff for your team. Update dependencies. Build small tooling improvements. Do the sort of stuff your devs probably want to do but have higher priority work that will get in the way. That's likely work that doesn't require you to have deep knowledge of how everything works, but still provides value.
If your project is complex enough that's not an option, then write onboarding docs and other technical stuff. IMO, the manager shouldn't be writing code much, but they should always keep a running version of the project. They should be able to run tests, confirm that PRs function locally, just keep a basic attachment to things.
These high-quality music models require pirating many, many terabytes of music. Torrents are the main way to do it, but they likely scraped sites like Bandcamp, Soundcloud and YouTube.
AI music is a weird business model. They hope that there's enough money peddling music slop after paying off the labels (and maybe eventually the independent music platforms) whose music you stole. Meanwhile, not even Spotify can figure out how to be reliably profitable, serving music people want to hear.
There's a difference between "not politically-loaded decades ago" and "not politically-loaded now".
We still let people use the Swastika if they had a harmless tradition of using it beforetime. But if anybody new uses it, we assume it's because of the murder.
To the absolute contrary. They do it because of the contempt they have for the average US citizen. These people now in power believe their interests come first because, in their minds, they are inherently superior to most people by birthright.
I have a very close friend who works for VA. Her patients are veterans, many far poorer and with no higher-education. She cares about them deeply. She has a husband, kids, and two parents that depend on her paycheck, and her first thought post-election when rumors of furlough and mass layoffs started circulating were about how she can make sure her patients are taken care of if they lose access to her care.
There are good people in every org. I'm sure there are people with similar values on the DOGE team. I responded to a generalisation with a generalisation.
What good does any comment here do? The person I was responding to argued their side, I argued mine, hopefully readers can synthesise something that comes closer to the truth than if no-one was saying anything.
If you think people shouldn't make that kind of generalisation, why didn't you call out the person I replied to? What good does calling me out do that calling them out wouldn't do?
>the PMC bureaucrats who worked for federal agencies absolutely did think they were wiser and better educated and had better judgement and were simply better people than the people their agencies were meant to serve
Do you have any evidence for this at all, or are you just projecting your own beliefs?
Your 2nd question is much more interesting to me. Why is it so hard to find a good therapist?
It's no surprise to me that people are turning to ChatGPT for therapy. It does a decent enough job and it doesn't have a 2-year waiting list, or cost $300 a session.
reply