Nothing in this article made me think they even understand the problem. I don't know what I expecting, though. I mean, the first thing they mention is the ability to move the taskbar around? Oh wow. Yeah, they have no idea what's wrong.
If I do something faster by pairing with AI, why should my employer reap the benefit? Why would I pass the savings on to my employer?
Could it be that employers are not seeing the difference because most employees are doing something else with the time they've saved by using AI?
There's been massive wage stagnation, benefits are crap, they play games with PTO. Most people I talk to who use AI as a part of their workflow are taking advantage of something nice that has come their way for a change.
Not realizing the implications of an oligarch who bought his way into the federal government with apparent conflicts of interest is equally reaching and dogmatic. This article asks the right questions. We should be concerned about this and keep a watchful eye on it.
Aside from the debate, 600k seems insanely high for this intersection. No wonder this country's infrastructure is crumbling when it takes over half a million dollars to put in a few lights.
You've got the capital costs of having the several lights, built for 24/7 operation, plus the traffic controller. Then you've got to wire that up, and get an electrical connection for the controller box. Plus all the cuts in the pavement for vehicle detectors. Additionally the pedestrian intend to cross buttons and accessibility indicators for pedestrians. And you may need to resurface before or after, and redraw the lines. Likely you'll need signs. Possibly any other curb work that had been neglected, but needs to be done on a new project.
Plus it costs money to do the traffic survey and analysis to decide if you wanted to build the thing in the first place, and to determine the cycle timings. If you need to run an environmental impact report, that's more money on analysis.
Minimum wage in California seems to be $16 an hour. I doubt this intersection took 37 500 man-hours to finish, so I don't think the cost is explained by wages. Also, $200K would still seem like a gigantic amount of money for adding stop lights to a single intersection.
You probably need an engineer. A couple. They might have to run traffic studies beforehand to estimate the design requirements and light timing. They might have to consider other network nodes beyond this in their modeling. They might have to also run studies afterward to retime the lights to meet realized demand.
It's a nice playground design for sure, but it's kind of amazing to consider what could be built privately for the same amount. You could literally build a palace on a giant estate with fancy landscaping, a swimming pool, tennis courts, movie theater, etc.
Of course there are reasons why public projects are more expensive, but it does seem pretty crazy on the surface.
Fortunately for the workers, paying below minimum wage is illegal. (And for what it’s worth, it’s really hard to hire even at minimum wage these days. McDonald’s pays well above $15 in most metro areas - including in states which use the federal minimum.)
The actual scenario at hand is paying 3x wages "just because".
You said 1/3 minimum wage as a strawman. Not to mention minimum wages aren't necessary anyway - like you said "it’s really hard to hire even at minimum wage these days".
Pay market wages, without external forces driving wages higher. Because, higher wages means higher costs, and if you are government that's essentially theft from your taxpayers.
NY Times also reports that the driver's BAC was below the legal limit, but does not give a figure.
I feel it is also significant that the vehicle suddenly swerved off the road for no apparent reason. As far as I know, this is not the sort of thing that usually happens when drunk drivers cause crashes, at least unless they are completely shitfaced. More typically they create dangerous situations through poor judgement and/or fail to react to a situation requiring action.
> NY Times also reports that the driver's BAC was below the legal limit, but does not give a figure.
Many US jurisdictions you can still be charged for DUI/DD while being under the legal limit if you're judged to be impaired, which I don't think nearly enough people realize.
This trend is absolutely ridiculous. I'm currently in "Round 3" and have FIVE interviews this week, four of which are technical. I already passed the technical in Round 2.
As someone with 10+ years experience in the industry, I've about had it with these technicals. I'm just going to start refusing. I'm happy to have a long technical discussion on my work experience and to provide you with portfolio examples. Take your hacker rank problems and get out of here.
I am a simulation/game engine systems engineer with 7+ years experience. I'm currently a Senior Software Engineer and Engineering Lead with direct reports. Looking to help create a new simulation or game engine or take an existing one to the next level.
"The software industry makes amazing tools for itself, while doctors and scientists are stuck with old code. Tech needs to quit hacking and start listening."
Then pay for better software? Take your money elsewhere? I don't understand what we're supposed to do here. I get it, your industry has old software. Maybe hire us to make it better? Not my problem you're still using Windows XP and Fortran though. Sounds to me like corners were cut and budgets were not set appropriately.
There's a lot of money in the medical industry (private or public) but it seems that everywhere and everyone is constantly getting their budget slashed. Yet the amount of money that's poured into this industry keeps balooning!
I have this rule that any organization that treats software as a cost center will systematically get bad software AND overpay for it. Because by under-funding (with compensation, tittle and power in the organization) engineering they end-up pushing talent elsewhere, mostly to organizations where tech is considered a profit center.
Software, it seems, is treated as a cost center by the medical industry and by a lot of research labs (things like not granting authorship to software contributors).
The tone of the article is rather typical of the medical industry. Very condescending to say the least.
Pay isn't the issue for hospitals buying software, they are already paying big money to vendors. And they often can't take their money elsewhere because of contracts. I heard 10 years lock-in for an EHR solution.
Lots of software churn is probably bad for medical workers too if they are constantly retraining in high stress environments - they might be technical but may not be comfortable with computers.
Building your own software is do-able for some aspects (to avoid paying millions for a simple web app), but most hospitals are not going to want to build their own EHR software or other large pieces.
While not EHRs, I have experience working in the EMR field, and it absolutely was a race to the bottom, vendors undercutting each other, and physicians being surprised that the cheapest vendor or product they went with turned out to be total trash.
