I personally prefer nushell[0] over PowerShell for similar tasks. My main is still Fish, but I occasionally use nushell when interactively exploring structured data (e.g. JSON files because I always forget the jq syntax) and specific nushell scripts I have (e.g. finding all the available nodes with GPUs on a SLURM managed HPC printed as a pretty table), which I find much easier to write than bash/fish.
I'm also not a fan of the narrow width, but there is an "extended" width version that's more like other mono fonts, which is what I personally use, albeit customized.
Gutted. Poached is a bad word for it which already describes a different thing that is a component of this thing. If you can combine "poach" and acquire in a witty way, go for it.
"Hi-quired," although not sonorous, is at least a new word for a specific thing, instead of a word for a closely related thing that would just confuse anyone who heard it. I might've just gone for "Hire-quired" because it's obvious what it means and it seems a little bit easier to say.
Poaching is when one illegally hunts wildlife. People are not animals, and hiring them is not harming them. It is a terrible term to apply to human beings.
Most people know what poaching means without making that association. It’s a perfectly legitimate term across all forms of employment, in both negative and positive contexts.
Do we also need to retire ‘head hunting’, because it brings to mind cartoonishly outdated notions of savagery?
Within the employment context, is it ever a negative? Only from the perspective of the competitor? But to society as a whole, "poaching" (hiring) employees is clearly a massive win.
There are many thousands of words that mean more than one thing. If you go out of your way to deliberately misapply one meaning to another, in a way that's offensive, that's on you. Nobody's asking or forcing you to do that.
Do you object if someone says, "I adopted a new strategy"? After all, children are adopted, and one could say that using this phrase trivializes a deeply important human relationship.
Do you object if someone says, "She's a fan of my work"? After all, a fan is a machine that blows air. It could be said that referring to a person as a fan reduces them to an appliance whose purpose is to serve someone else.
Do you object if someone says, "I have a date tonight"? After all, a date is a fruit. Someone could say that calling a romantic partner a "date" is to objectify them and reduce them to something consumed for pleasure.
To clarify, what I am objecting to is taking a term for something with a massive negative societal impact, and trying to apply it to something that has a massive societal positive impact, in order to make the positive thing sound like a negative thing. I am all for the evolution of language, especially when it serves society.
> To clarify, what I am objecting to is taking a term for something with a massive negative societal impact, and trying to apply it to something...
No one is "taking a term" and "trying to apply" it to anything. The word has multiple meanings/uses, full stop.
What you are objecting to is one of its meanings (attracting employees from a competitor), because you don't like the negative connotation of another of its meanings (stealing game). And that's because you believe that the latter meaning's negative connotation will make the former also feel more negative. But I submit that that's just in your head, and the heads of a few others, and the vast majority of people are able to keep two definitions quite separate.
I thought the piece sounded like AI as well, so I ran it through Pangram, which reports it as 100% AI. Considering Pangram's extremely low false positive rate, I'm inclined to believe this was AI written.
Didn't have the same feel about the piece. But based on the parent comment, decided to also test it, using Pangram free "credits". For me it reported that only sections of it (30%) have been "touched" by an LLM. There is 60% of human written text.
Pangram does not report this as 100% LLM generated. Why do I use the word "touched" - because there are some specific details that must have come from some existing text and are not elsewhere.
How did I do the check? Please do check my results! I copied just the authored prose from the page, carefully removing any comments and site text that got mixed in. I did not have it analyze the "URL".
In looking at the details, a large part of the story is flagged as all human generated.
I've personally used LLMs when I've been very upset. I used it to rewrite / edit my rant into something with a more balanced tone. The modified text got what I wanted, my original rant would almost certainly not have.
So I do think this was a thought out piece that was largely written by a human who used an LLM as an "editor" to polish the writing. Someone took time to think about this and write it.
Speaking about style choices, I was curious why you sometimes use the 'f' from the Latin Extended-B block, U+0192, in your comments. I've never seen that before! (I'd meant to ignore it but you seem to be soliciting typography discussions...)
It is more about the document containing more than sixty of them. They are a completely legitimate piece of punctuation, but even prolific pre-LLM users did not tend to go that wild with them.
It's actually not em-dashes, they are en-dashes, which is either intentionally to deceive (e.g., swapped) or used incorrectly. Both of which are bad, it's up to everyone to decide on which is worse coming from MITality.
Spaced en dashes – like this – are a correct and accepted typographical choice. Whether to use spaced en dashes or (spaced or unspaced) em dashes is a matter of taste or local convention, and varies from one publication to another. Other than a typo or two where the space was left out on one side of a dash, the dashes in this linked document are just fine. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash#En_dash_versus_em_dash
I was not claiming they are not correct punctuation/syntax. My claim is just no one uses them that frequently... When you see dozens of them in the first few pages of a document it raises suspicion.
This is likely an artifact of writing standards - not especially suspicious, it's like MIT Tech Review or the New Yorker using diaresis when they need to say reëducate.
Do you think LLMs invented the em dash? Pre LLM, em dashes were a sign of pretentiousness. Which is why LLMs learned to use them, and why a document produced by a university has plenty of them.
reply