Same. I also code up about 50% of stuff so all the structure is there, effectively as guardrails, before using AI. Then prompting it instructions that are effectively the solution, so it doesn't come up with its own.
Then, read through it all, replace things that could've been done better, and test.
On average it's maybe 15-20% quicker than manually coding the whole lot. Try skip any of those steps and the chances of it blowing out increase to the point I just end up doing it all anyway and it's taken twice as long because of it.
You see them on SmarTube. But I imagine, like most voting on the internet, it snowballs from whatever tilt it initially showed. People be herds like that. They'll dislike or disagree with something, but change that opinion once they see what "most" others think at that time. Even if it's 2 Likes and 1 Dislike.
And that is a fantastic pathway for engagement and ad revenue. "Markets" or market segmentation, are just our fancy terms for herds.
the 30-49 year olds and the 50-and-up brackets are more closely aligned, at 39 percent and 37 percent respectively viewing it as negative.
I'm really surprised at the 30–49 bracket being at 39%. But, keep in mind there's a huge gap in tech savviness and tech lifestyle between someone born in 1977 to someone born in 1996. Their impressionable years kicked off literally at opposite ends of the Digital/Tech revolution, so I guess that makes sense that way...
I'm the same. I still read the opening sentences of them, but if it's the usual "cover letter template" shit, it's pointless and I go straight to the CV.
We've hired plenty of people with lacking CVs that had genuine cover letters, though. It's clear when someone is trying to say they're really into their shit, but all they got on the CV is McDonald's.
But as you become more advanced in your field, they're useless. At the end of the day, you don't want to be stuck working for someone that ignores all the skill and experience, declining an interview because no cover letter.
Yeah, that's the usual. It just regurgitated the job description and none of the experience matches up.
Had one linking two years as a florist to advance skills in SQL databases and project leading. Look, it could be true, but there's dozens of applicants with resumes with data science qualifications or over a half decade experience, so the florist won't be winning if all they say is what the ad said.
I imagine if any of them get an interview, it's sorted out within seconds. "So, we're hiring a mechanic. We're an auto shop. You seem to be someone that owns a car and that's the extent of it..."
I deal with job applications. It's incredibly obvious when a CV and cover letter is just AI. There's no need to even confirm it with software. Everyone bins them straight away.
It's not so much a surge in using AI on genuine job applications—and honestly, that wouldn't even be an issue—its the sheer amount of slop spam coming in. They'll apply for half a dozen jobs with different resumes catered for them, from anything from entry level data analyst to director of marketing, not realising it's the same company.
A friend won tickets to a local one and it was a lot of fun. It was like a huge group of LARPers and everyone got to participate in the spectacle in their own way. Definitely not a gender thing, either.
I guess it was like one of those themed restaurants with actors and events through the evening, where the whole point is everyone can get into it and have fun on a pirate ship or in Dracula's castle or whatever the theme is.
But, I struggle to see how it could go to the scale and detail of what's in the US. Watching it on TV seems more concerning than entertaining too. I had a housemate that played a White Mage in FFXI, and Pineapple Juice was how the class restored mana points. Dude started drinking nothing but pineapple juice IRL. That's probably the only way I can explain "Pro Wrestling" in the US. It must be targeted at that guy.
They don't make them up. They only do that with absolute power or desparation.
Imagine you have no political influence or are directly involved in politics. But you want to ultimately be in a position of authority for personal boon. What's your first move? What moves do you continue to make to get there?
Would making shit up work for you prior to established influence? Or would you pull out the historical playbook and chip away like it's always worked?
At this phase, you're already in sociopolitical influence. You got there by exploiting failed defences of the people already. Murder went from 1 to 2 in your town and you used that for your campaign. You're a mayornow; do whatever you want so long as murder goes back to 1.
Everyone's unhappy with the governor ignoring a single on-topic issue. You hyperfocus on that in your campaign, get the spot. Job done; do whatever again.
You now have influence over topics and the feed people see. Shape that for you by creating issues that aren't really there—just like the murders—but now you can make them issues. Boom, you're in the next phase.
So how to influence next and how to control next? Well, a kid did this horrendous one-off thing, or education performances are falling for many reasons, but the two can be linked through social media and poor parenting of it. Done. Push that one...
At this point you're already so deep in there by just using the same tactic. "Where is there turmoil that I can use to my advantage?" You've beaten democracy, you've beaten narrative, you need to control the next frontier, and there's an in. Hell, in 2026 you're also using the same tactics to get richer and widen the class gap.
So now go back to being a normal person again, how do you make sure that foothold doesn't exist? You just do be better at it to ensure it can't be exploited by the instances of one-off.
You don't have to be a sociopath to beat one, a community and a society just needs to be aware of how they work. They don't have to work hard either, they just need to close up like a herd and do things better to close the gaps. Done long enough, they win through fatiguing those imposing authority AND there's no downside. But it shouldn't need to be said that better parenting shouldy be something that only happens when the parent is unhappy with a state exploiting it.
Yes, that's a long message, but I'm trying to—very simply—makenaware of the much bigger picture of the play and variables. Just saying "This isn't right!" never works and they know that attrition of foot holds at a controlled pace would never result in immediate violence or revolution. History is just available to you as it is to them. Use it.
Point is, it doesn't have to be bad parenting, that's just the narrative. But if not, what is it then? What's the foothold? As far as I can tell, it's to protect children since that's the narrative. How was that foothold given to them? They don't need much to work with. If it were evident there were no foothold, there wouldn't be one.
And, you're exactly right, they would look for another if we had this one defended well. It is evident what the end goal is, but a defence is by minimising chinks in armour. If there were strong contrasting evidence to the very few bad parents, it wouldn't be a foothold—they couldn't use that narrative. But they seem to think there's just enough of a chink for pressing fallacious generalisation.
Everyone knows kids just get around it all anyway, so that's not the point, but they're in because there was enough to make use of secundum quid. That's almost always how authoritarian shifts worked in social history if not outright oppression through violence. We know it's bullshit, but it works like that, unfortunately.
That's not a joke. This is a stupid government's way of trying to halt generational harm and decline due to low quality parents. Everything listed is a "if they won't, we'll have to" solution. Unfortunately this means every child gets a Nanny State out of it and it'll fail to work and likely backfire long-term, leading to more nannying.
The install counts for ad block extensions is surprisingly lower than you'd think.
uBlock only peaked just shy of 30M users, so much less than 1% of general users. Obviously it's not that cut and dry, but you get the idea. It's unlikely they have much influence no matter where they go.
Same. I also code up about 50% of stuff so all the structure is there, effectively as guardrails, before using AI. Then prompting it instructions that are effectively the solution, so it doesn't come up with its own.
Then, read through it all, replace things that could've been done better, and test.
On average it's maybe 15-20% quicker than manually coding the whole lot. Try skip any of those steps and the chances of it blowing out increase to the point I just end up doing it all anyway and it's taken twice as long because of it.
It's alarming when people don't even check.