Most of the comments here are focusing on crimes in urban areas. The town I live in has a population of about 6,000. It also has low crime. But the municipal government has installed several flock cameras. I struggle to understand how these benefit me, as a citizen of the town. They definitely make me feel uncomfortable whenever I drive past, knowing that someone, somewhere is likely tracking and cataloguing my movements.
Every bad change here, that has been merged in the last 6 months, correlated with a lack of human review. Sure, someone hit the approve button, but it was done within 30 seconds of the PR creation time, clearly no review was performed. This is in repos that have deterministic as well as ai driven review CI checks.
And that doesn't even get into the "features" that were implemented without reviewing the design or requirements were actually hit (they were not).
I would love to replace all of these useless meat bags with more ai. But I would absolutely still want to be in the loop to review things.
The lesson I've learned about AI is that lazy/bad engineers without AI are still lazy/bad engineers with AI.
Okay, sorry, I don't know what I'm arguing anymore, this turned into a rant.
Moving the check online doesn't remove the unreliable human, it just switches it from a stock person to an it person, or whoever receives the email in their inbox.
We do this as well. There are some downsides of course, but overall it has worked out well for years. Funny we were told the use of stored procedures is a problem and the reason the product should be retired. You should see the dependency graph of the replacement.
Hmm, Except most chat applications have an indicator that already answers all those questions in the basic sense. When I set myself as "in a meeting" or "busy", it means... just that. "hey I see you are busy, are you available?" doesn't make a lot of sense.
Furthermore, I can't actually answer in the shorthand, because I don't know anything about it. "can you talk?" - for how long? about what? with who? I have no idea how to respond to you.
Please, just tell me what you want - "Hi, wondering if you have 5 minutes to chat about <topic>?".
Your comment implies the youth refs are the exception, but the VAST majority of play are at these lower competitive levels, and it is FAR more common to have youth or inexperienced refs than otherwise.
I’m saying that when you get to have games involving kids older than 10, that having teenage refs is more uncommon.
In my area, there are a number of leagues. Only one has a large number of teenagers in the ref pool and they only are center refs for the youngest players. For the more competitive leagues, you almost never have a ref crew made up of only teenagers. Here, young refs are generally protected by having older refs as part of the crew. There is a whole system behind referee scheduling that most people don’t know about.
(Also, this about soccer in the US, I have no idea how other sports schedule their officials)
When you say “teenage” refs I assume you are meaning kids 16or younger. A lot of adult-sized college-age teenagers ref games and you probably don’t realize it.
You’re right about the scheduling aspect. If you’re in a healthy area and the leagues are playing according to US Soccer rules (using the IFAB bible plus approved grassroots modifications), the scheduling system is good and makes sure to keep refs assigned to appropriate matches (pro-tip: they keep track of the worst teams for abuse and only schedule the most grizzled refs. If none are available, then “sorry no refs are available for your match”).
Also, I don’t know if it’s US-only thing or a worldwide FIFA thing, but for the past few years refs with less than 2 or 3 years of experience are supposed to be wearing a special armband that coaches are supposed to recognize - if the ref gets abuse from fans they tell the coaches and the coaches have to go deal with it. If it’s not dealt with, the match is abandoned.
