The problem here is the usage of "no-fault". It can be interpreted differently by everyone.
Does fault only include cheating? Can the fault be on the same one who initiated the divorce? What if the fault is simply someone has changed so much that they're no longer compatible with person they fell in love with before? The fault could be on oneself without any inkling of infidelity.
Til death do us part has been ironically dead for decades now since people have been divorcing at high rates for long enough that it doesn't really mean much anymore, and that's okay. Things change.
>The problem here is the usage of "no-fault". It can be interpreted differently by everyone.
No, it's a legal term. From wikipedia:
>No-fault divorce is the dissolution of a marriage that does not require a showing of wrongdoing by either party.[1][2] Laws providing for no-fault divorce allow a family court to grant a divorce in response to a petition by either party of the marriage without requiring the petitioner to provide evidence that the defendant has committed a breach of the marital contract.
It quite literally means that people can request divorce for any reason.
How are you guys even doing long tasks with plain Codex or Claude code?
I use Claude code and I get hit with a permissions prompt every 2 seconds for anything I try to do.
Sure I can turn off all dangerous permissions but it'd probably honestly stop and claim it's finished well before it actually is in most cases from my experience.
To be fair I haven't tried codex so maybe it's better at this but I'm my experience almost every model stops at some point and claims victory or stops and tells me something like "next we'll continue on with XYZ" at which point I have to prompt it to continue.
You have to use --yolo or --dangerously-skip-permissions options.
Thankfully the cloud versions (Claude Code for web, Codex Cloud) run like that already, and are relatively safe in that if anything goes wrong it happens on someone else's computer.
Codex (at least 5 and 5.1) is bad at asking for permission. Whenever it wants to run pre-commit or platformio, it tries to do that, that fails because of the sandbox, and then Codex decides something is wrong with the cache directory and keeps asking for permission to sudo chown ~/.cache, every time.
I have to specifically tell it to request permission for the command it wants to run, and then it works. Very annoying, and very annoying that it can't persist the permission, like Claude Code can, so it doesn't have to ask again every single time.
Its lies all the way up the chain and its just part of the game.
The hiring manager is lying to you
Your boss is lying to you
The CEO is lying to you
All everyone cares about is money 99% of the time. Anything else is just a lie. We are not family, and most people give a rats ass about any companies "goal". We just want a paycheck and most of us want a bigger paycheck than last time all the way up the chain.
The vast majority of the world population, and the vast majority of all people throughout history have not made their choices of job based on the same criteria some of us who are more privileged do today such as wanting to work on something they value.
A job is and always has been a means to live for the majority of people on this Earth. Feigning a mentality of always wanting to grow is part of the act when it comes to corporate life. But even that in itself (corporate life) is a privilege compared to the grueling work most people throughout history have done.
Why the hell does a large portion of this country give a rats ass about tradition, but also larp as caring about progress and effectiveness. These two are logically inconsistent.
If anything we should be removing more traditions than ever.
Word meanings are determined purely by tradition. There isn't an objective reality about what words do or don't mean apart from how people use them. If you make up your own definitions for words instead of using the traditional ones, you sacrifice the possibility of communication with people who don't know your definitions. That's glory for you!
Words change meaning and definitions drift all the time. Language isn't static and adapts to modern times.
Besides, this bizarre tangent about tradition ignores that this has some very practical downsides for nurses, it's not just about preserving tradition or whatnot.
We knew it would be a big jump and while it certainly is in many areas - its definitely not "groundbreaking/huge leap" worthy like some were thinking from looking at these numbers.
I feel like many will be pretty disappointed by their self created expectations for this model when they end up actually using it and it turns out to be fairly similar to other frontier models.
Personally I'm very interested in how they end up pricing it.
Because for the average person there isn't really that much they get out of todays agentic ai. This is all project managers can think of that applies to the average layperson.
It's just shitware being added to everything at very few people's benefit just so they can score some points on the stock market AI hype leaderboard.
Because they can't push their finger down a new grads throat if they push back.
Someone who's families very presence in this country depends on their employer will rarely find a reason to complain about being overworked to the bone or told to do questionable things.
H1B and other programs have a noble purpose that is often (but not always) abused to create loyal servants.
The allure for companies of exploiting H1Bs for cheaper and more effective labor I understand. But it is not companies who (at least officially) set the rules and laws regarding immigration.
So the questions is why the government is not turning off the outside supply when there is an internal oversupply.
Immigrants are one thing, but opening the floodgates to 20 million non-citizens by abusing an asylum law meant to grant relief to tens or hundreds was a huge problem.
'Annual reports of immigration statistics for FY1995 through FY2003 published by the former
INS and then DHS contained “Parolee” sections with data on parole grants.88 DHS’s 2003
Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, the last to include such data, contained annual data for
FY1998 through FY2003 on several categories of parolees.89 During this six-year period, the
annual total number of persons paroled into the United States ranged from about 235,000 to about
300,000, with port-of-entry parolees accounting for more than half of each annual total.90
Only limited data on DHS’s use of parole since then are publicly available. Among the available
data are statistics covering FY2022 and FY2023 that were published by DHS in response to
congressional mandates.91 The DHS reports for FY202292 and FY202393 included quarterly data
on parole grants by CBP, the DHS component responsible for determining whether or not to grant
parole in the majority of cases. The FY2023 reports also included parole grant data for ICE and USCIS as well as data on parole requests received and approved by ICE and USCIS. As DHS
explained in its FY2023 report for the fourth quarter with respect to ICE and USCIS parole data,
requests, approvals, and grants each represent a “stage in the parole process,” with requests being
“the number of applications and petitions for parole submitted,” approvals being “the number of
parole requests authorized,” and grants being “the number of paroles given.”94
The parole grant data in the FY2022 and FY2023 DHS reports reflect numbers of grants, not
unique individuals. For FY2022, DHS reported 795,561 parole grants by CBP (417,326 by OFO
and 378,235 by USBP).95 For FY2023, DHS reported 1,244,348 parole grants by CBP (940,348
by OFO and 304,000 by USBP) as well as 85,608 parole grants by ICE and 10,046 parole grants
by USCIS.
96 For both years, the quarterly OFO data were reported by what DHS termed “parole
classes of admission.”
97
In addition, from October 2022 to November 2024, DHS’s Office of Homeland Security Statistics
(OHSS) published monthly tables on CHNV parole. It reported a total of 532,110 parole grants
during the October 2022-November 2024 period.98'
Bilingual English and Spanish here and I absolutely hate this.
I can read both just fine. Platforms defaulting to always showing one or things like youtube auto-translating titles all to English or all to Spanish is frustrating because I always have to do the math in my head as to "Why does this thing I'm reading sound weird as hell" and realize its because it was lost in translation.
Hell, I watch creators/consume content where the creator or writer themself speaks/writes interchangeably in both languages often within the same sentence because Spanglish is very common, and that just destroys most of these automated generators brains.
While there are points here that I agree with, I do not agree with the premise that they are firing people to fund AI. Funding of AI (keyword funding, not usage) I would say is an adjacent relation, but not the reason people are being let go.
I think it's a combination of factors including:
- Overhiring in the past, most of these companies were/are still employing way above the pre-pandemic numbers when overhiring was the norm. Many of these companies legitimately probably have more people than they need still.
- No matter what you think, AI is certainly already capable of improving productivity enough to make up for many of the jobs lost. Just look at how much AI can do today compared to even just a couple years ago. Practically every engineer who is worth their salt can put out way more than they previously could. Yes there is the question of quality and whether that's going to keep up, but you simply cannot argue at this point that AI is not able to increase productivity enough for the decreased headcount. Theres a reason junior hiring has fallen, they expect senior engineers to both output more using AI and to have the capability of effectively reeling it in and reviewing.
- As much as I hate to say it because it gets people angry and political: offshoring. Every company that I've worked on or worked at in the last few years has increased headcount of offshore employees and contractors.
- And lastly is simply expectations. Executives can see that other companies that have let go of people are able to still effectively run much slimmer.
Does fault only include cheating? Can the fault be on the same one who initiated the divorce? What if the fault is simply someone has changed so much that they're no longer compatible with person they fell in love with before? The fault could be on oneself without any inkling of infidelity.
Til death do us part has been ironically dead for decades now since people have been divorcing at high rates for long enough that it doesn't really mean much anymore, and that's okay. Things change.