Or, worse, they don’t even understand it. I definitely have people in my life who know about the idea of cybersecurity and are terrified of getting hacked, but constantly do things the wrong way or worry about the wrong things. Because it’s just too confusing for them, and it’s always changing.

There are lots of awesome things that help me with my job but still require me to be there. But you were saying the help it gives with the job is more limited than it seems to be at first. And I’m just saying in my line of work it’s actually a huge help.

It’s not like Clippy or templates. I have to spend time setting up templates and following a specific structure and syntax, remembering to use them. With Copilot I turned it on one day and it was instantly helping me with whatever I was working on, and continues to do so no matter what comes up.

I wasn’t making any assertion that it could do my job without me, but it seems far more useful in what I do than what you had described.

It’s comments like this that make me think of the old adage: “Never wrestle with a pig because you’ll both get dirty and the pig likes it.”

I agree with what you’re saying about your line of work. I code for a living, and Copilot is genuinely useful all day long. I use it now and again to generate a script from scratch, but most of the time it functions as either an incredible autocomplete of whatever I am coding, or it converts a chunk of code from one format to another, with just a description of what I’m trying to do, instead of me having to write a complex regular expression or do it by hand. So I’d say in my line of work it’s gotten past the “neat” phase.

It would be like me telling you “just start having more human empathy”. You can’t just tell someone to do something that doesn’t come naturally.

That is just so frigging reductive. It was a Democratic bill, worked on and championed by Democrats. Just because it had some aspects in common with things the GOP also wanted to do way back when they actually wanted to improve some things, and just because the publicly conducted hearings allowed input from anyone in Congress, that doesn’t mean it was a “Republican bill”, nor does it change the fact that it made meaningful improvements to some aspects of healthcare that were really screwed up. I already explained before about how they actively tried to do more. The public option was dropped a few months before passing the ACA because they couldn’t get 60 votes for it.

As to the rest — Republicans accomplish big things? What the fuck have they accomplished? Many of their goals are to prevent the government from functioning, which is much easier to do, because you can filibuster or if you have control of congress you don’t have to even bring a bill to a vote. When it comes to actually producing anything… what have they done?

The only thing the GOP did of substance is fucking up the SCOTUS, which was a combo of luck and a unilateral move on the part of Mitch McConnell. Scalia died close enough to the end of a term to run out the clock by Mitch, and RBG died while the GOP controlled the Senate and presidency.

They couldn’t even replace or shut down the ACA when finally given the opportunity after talking about it for years and years, with control of both houses and the presidency. The House currently has barely been able to even choose a leader. Almost everything they do is performative. Otherwise, they just stand in the way of creating, improving, and funding things. Thats easier to do, but unfortunately that’s not an option for the Democrats who actually want to make things.

Having enough is a spectrum: the more there are, the bolder the legislation and the more likely it is to pass. So however many you get, you always fall short of doing even better with more.

Single payer healthcare had been discussed in the early stages — and it was clear they wouldn’t have 60 votes for it, so it was a non-starter. Because there were exactly 60 D/Is, there was no wiggle room. And the GOP held up the 60th Senator in the courts as long as they could because they had no wiggle room. And then Ted Kennedy had to vote for the ACA on his virtual deathbed, and after that their 60 votes were gone, so they couldn’t spend more time on healthcare or move on to other tough issues. Lieberman forced them to remove the public option from the bill.

But you are just overlooking that they did pass a major, consequential healthcare reform bill that solved some very important problems, which couldn’t be accomplished for decades before then, even though people tried.

And this all touches on my original point: a couple more Senators would have changed things significantly at that time, but a more progressive president would not have.

Please tell me you’re not talking about the two month window in 2010 where they had a filibuster-proof majority, and passed a major healthcare reform bill, but it was kneecapped because it relied on Joe Lieberman to pass. Because that’s a case where a couple more Democrats would have made a huge difference in what we would have gotten, and also turned 2 months and some change into two years. That’s my point that there’s no exact number.

There is no exact number. The more there are, the bolder they can be.

I wonder when this magical time was where voting for the president had great choices. What many young voters fail to understand is that it’s not all about the president. Get enough Democrats into Congress, and they will be able to vote for progressive legislation, and if you send that to your far-from-ideal president’s desk, they’ll sign it.

It’s certainly a much easier task than having an awesome progressive president who begs a near 50-50 Congress to pass good bills, and it just doesn’t happen.

Actually, at school parents do get notified if someone in their child’s class has a peanut allergy, in which case the children aren’t allowed to have PB&J at lunch.

And the iPhone screen size didn’t change until the App Store had been around for 4 years, during which time it became huge. I am not sure why this person is trying to discount what you’re saying.

I was responding to purely hypothetical odds that someone just made up, in which case things can be as complicated or simple as one wants them to be.

But even if I were making an actual prediction based on real statistical data, I am not sure why you would think that having an expectation of the approximate distribution of something given what we know about its statistical likelihood is “mistaking statistics for actual reality”.

If something has a 1 in 100M chance of happening to someone, you’d expect that about 80 people in the world now have had that thing happen to them.

What would you prefer people use to refer to “Reddit-like” ActivityPub clients, and what would you prefer for “Twitter-like” ones?

Great, can you explain what you mean? I did not follow.

Are you saying to start calling all of it ActivityPub? In which case, I would think that’d be extra confusing since lemmy and mastodon don’t cross-interface very well and you really need one client for each type.

When Steve Jobs died, social media was already around. Steve Jobs was 56 when he died. We saw what Steve Jobs became already. And I just do not see any meaningful similarities in their personalities.

He certainly had issues, but Musks issues absolutely eclipse Jobs by a large margin.

You succeeded. Your audience failed to have a sense of humor.