Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts is a not-for-profit health insurance company. I am not sure that it is a full mutual company, but they have no profit incentive. Consequently, they are the best health insurance we have ever had by a wide margin.

Good documentation should, in part, tell people where to click. I have designed software documentation for high performing individuals at leading global companies, and I have designed software and hardware documentation for minimum wage fast food workers with limited English proficiency. In both extremes, I showed them exactly where to click on the screen at each step.

You might not need that level of help, but many people do. Others do not strictly need it, but they prefer the simple instruction set. “Click here then here,” instructions ease the transition into a new system one needs to learn, or it removes the need entirely to learn a system one uses infrequently.

The problem is that making good documentation is difficult and time consuming. It relies on a fundamentally different skill set than coding or even UI design.

I agree that the ideal is for software to not need any documentation. In my experience, I have yet to see software that rises to that task and is used across a variety of experience levels and societal cross sections.

‘Democrats have a plan’

She lost me right there. As a Democrat, I feel confident in stating that we have never had such a thing.

It is a truth so old that Will Rogers was cracking jokes about it 100 years ago.

Daily alcohol: blunts my emotional pain, causes awful feelings in my stomach, does damage to multiple organ systems, is physically addictive, and gives you a hangover the next day.

Daily THC and other cannabinoids consumed via edibles: blunts my emotional pain, blunts my physical pain, has a minor effect on working memory when used over years that does not further inhibit cognitive ability or motivation, is not physically addictive, and has no impact on the next day.

Used to self medicate in vaguely controlled doses, it is a no-brainer. MJ is not perfect by any means, but it is world better than booze for frequent users.

I wanna show you a trick mother showed me when you weren’t around.

This is where AI could legit change the world for the better in the future. Use fewer pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides as the problems can be fixed mechanically on a highly localized level.

This could even help fix problems with invasive species - imagine a drone fleet that could kill kudzu just as it erupts from the soil.

She rolled her eyes and said, "Well, I’m glad that our contract is only for [a limited period of time].”

It was not a vote against the whole shift, but instead a comment on the volatility of this space. The tech and the associated market is changing so fast that there are no real experts, proven business models, or established long term use cases. Everyone is experimenting, and nothing is set in stone. This change means the dust is not yet settling.

“We keep thinking like OpenAI is a company that has a clue what it is doing because they have this amazing product that is getting used everywhere in business. In reality, they are a startup, and startups are going to have startup problems. We cannot treat them or their product like they are established and stable.”

-my wife, who leads work at another company with OpenAI tech

I know the above quote is from someone “unimportant” in the industry, but to me it encapsulates exactly what we have seen from OpenAI in the past couple weeks. She became simultaneously reassured and more worried when Satya Nadella, the highly respected CEO of Microsoft, became directly involved. I wonder what she will think of this development when she wakes up.

Thank you! I was going to make this exact point. Autocatalytic reactions are assumed with good reason to be a necessary step on the way from non-life chemicals to life, but they are only one step. Carbon is the only element that can form the basis of the huge variety of chemicals needed for the simplest of life to evolve.

When I was an undergrad, I had professors who made completing arguments that live on other planets would not only be carbon-based, but that it likely would closely resemble life on Earth on molecular, microscopic, and macroscopic levels. Survival of the fit certainly depends upon the environment, but it also must comply with chemistry and physics. I am no expert in theoretical xenobiology, but it provides a strong and fact-based counter to the idea that alien life would by default be wildly different from life on Earth.