So what?

What changed?

I bet on “we learned to diagnose skin cancer”.

Yes, but it would break many pages and it wouldn’t protect you from many attacks.

It’s like wearing a gas mask: you can still be hit by a car or bitten by a dog, it ruins your walk in the park, but it makes you immune to some toxins.

Custom made with Ollama.

Ours is LLM based. It makes mistakes, but nothing terrible.

As a first low-bar filter to eliminate candidates that are less likely to succeed.

It’s pretty normal to look for someone with a personality in line with the team to avoid personal conflicts (eg “no jerks rule”). Some places also avoid people with a spine fearing a conflict with the management.

I see it as a compliment when it happens to me.

Make it socially unacceptable to adopt and maintain some behaviours.

It will take generations, but it’s the only way to have the political support to reject certain things.

I’ve been doing interviews for lots of years and in several companies. I give feedback to the hiring manager who is supposed to sugarcoat it a bit and forward it, but most of times there’s not much to say beyond “that’s not the right guy”.

I rejected good candidates just because I knew that the final interview would reject them anyway for some secondary aspect that happens to be valued a lot by a manager. I also rejected good candidates because I was convinced they would not like the job and leave in a year.

It’s not always a matter of skills and it’s not always something you can put in a formal reply.

HR departments also don’t use AI.

Mine does.

I’ll test it with the filter I implemented, but you would be rejected by a human anyway if your CV isn’t good enough + people like me always check for tricks in the CVs and reject based on that alone.

Basically: bad idea.

Without wealth or the possibility to enter into a business that can better deal with inflation, I don’t see many options.

Small investments may be done with as little as €100, but you can do much with small amounts even if you nail something amazing.

You may move abroad maybe.

There are funds indexed on inflation, and national bonds tend to follow the inflation, but if you go into double digits there’s nothing safe or easy. You can also invest abroad or in a different currency playing on the exchange rate.

However, if you need to ask here, you’d better stick to something simpler.

Make debts as long as they have a fixed interest rate. Invest in something linked to inflation.

Ideally, have a primary source of income that lets you follow the inflation (eg own a shop where you can increase prices).

It will be increasingly important to have access to buildings able to withstand extreme climate events and have access to climatisation. Maybe our diet will change a bit. Surely there will be an impact on the vegetation, animals, and diseases.

For some parts of the world the future will be mass emigration and conflicts around resources.

Have you actually read the short story?

Yes I did, probably 10 years before that 2007 movie. Let me recommend you to check an encyclopaedia if you want precision instead of reading a random forum online.

He is then executed.

No he wasn’t. He committed suicide.

For what I remember he was in a jail cell ready to be executed and they offered him a pill. Anyway, that was not the point of the story.

Everything is possible, but it would be a much more complex solution than running a blockchain that is designed for that use case.

It’s also a problem of ownership. For exchanges between banks, a blockchain is better because no bank would be the owner of the database.

Plus it’s safer because altering a database is usually trivial while altering a blockchain is virtually impossible.

If the political vote is public, voters are exposed to blackmail or they may sell their vote. It’s a bad idea unfortunately.

Any application where you want to record something publicly without the possibility to alter it and in absence of a central authority.

A database requires a central authority so it doesn’t cover the same use cases.