In fairness it wasn’t just adding bike lines in Paris that did it, as per the byline

Air pollution fell substantially as the city restricted car traffic

Which just means in addition to adding more bike lines (rather than removing the ones we already have), we should also restrict car traffic in this city of Toronto to get ahold of the local air pollution problem here.

In a working paper released earlier this month, economists Anders Humlum and Emilie Vestergaard looked at the labor market impact of AI chatbots on 11 occupations, covering 25,000 workers and 7,000 workplaces in Denmark in 2023 and 2024.

Hmm, Denmark you say?

Also Denmark,

Denmark doesn’t have at-will employment. Employers may only terminate an employee with just cause and sufficient notice. Just cause can include financial reasons or employee misconduct.

https://www.rippling.com/country-hiring/denmark-employees

Actually, perhaps this points at a way forward… we should employment laws in the US that match those of Denmark.

Not following how his inability to find a job has any connection to AI?

It’s in the fortune article:

some of those few interviews have been with an AI agent instead of a human.
“I feel super invisible,” K tells Fortune. “I feel unseen. I feel like I’m filtered out before a human is even in the chain.”

That is, he’s getting fewer chances to establish a human-to-human connection to an interviewer, which is hurting his ability to get hired.

The bigger picture is that folks are indeed losing jobs to AI, have had their jobs cut because of AI, see

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/klarna-ceo-says-ai-helped-company-shrink-workforce-by-40/ar-AA1EMHG6

Software engineer here - I make more than this guy did and I have roughly the same amount of experience in the industry that he does (perhaps a smidge more, going off of his linkedin profile).

For folks who are saying that there’s something off about this guy - that would not have mattered two or three years ago. At most he would have just been seen as a highly talented dev who was also slightly quirky.

For those who say it’s not about AI and more about the economy - well, maybe. We do have a couple of major ongoing wars right now and moves over the last couple of months by the recent administration of the US haven’t helped.

But I was around during the crash back in 2008, and this still feels different. Harder. Before, I had recruiters just banging on my door. Now, it’s tough to past the automated screenings unless I have a contact at the company who can refer me there.

Meanwhile, I’m hearing from my co-workers about how great AI is - how they ran their code through it and it came up with a bunch of unit tests for them and some boilerplate code. Vibe coding is already a thing. So is using AI to write your resume and cover letters and applying to jobs.

Likewise, I look upon tools like Devin.ai with increasing trepidation. Today, LLMs aren’t good enough to replace a single senior dev, despite a lot of investment happening to move things in exactly this direction. It probably won’t happen tomorrow, or even next year. But in 25?

Let’s just say that this article really hit home for me.

The other point here is - the day that a person with no coding ability can ask an LLM to create and deploy an entire website, write and manage a brand new app from scratch, is going to be a day that’s a win for the people. We want to lower the barriers to entry here, to give this highly elite power to others. Actually, there shouldn’t be an elite at all - there should just be a democracy where everyone is equally empowered to create and build great things.

Working in tech will not remain this vaulted, lofty place for much longer. If we aren’t content creators, or controlling company owners, then ultimately tech workers like myself are in the same position as any other kind of worker - we work for someone else and serve only at their sufferance.

It will have to go to court at this point but EC has done nothing wrong in terms of the recount.

Agreed. This isn’t the step where the EC did wrong - it was earlier in putting the wrong postal code on the envelope that caused it to be returned.

You make it sound like a conspiracy that they counted more votes for the Liberals.

Not the OP but - I’d agree that this is definitely not the case. It seems to instead be a clear and accidental mistake on the part of whoever handled the printing of the envelope.

Now, while it’s definitely troubling if the overall vote can be swung by an “administrative error” of some sort, there’s no evidence that this happened more than in this one case. And thus it only matters because the final call was done to having a single vote more for the Liberal candidate.

If it was down to even just two votes for the Liberal candidate instead, getting this lost vote counted would not have changed the results. So definitely not a conspiracy.

They’re doing everything by the book.

I guess the point here is - laws can be changed. Perhaps not retroactively this specific case, but going forward the laws can be updated to better handle situations like this in the future where EC made a mistake.

This is a totally different situation, but when I went to exchange my expired driver’s license at Service Ontario, one of the first workers that I saw there made a mistake and incorrectly refused my abstract.

I had to return after a weekend, and spoke with someone else who acknowledged the issue. At this point I was technically outside the 1-year window by a couple of days to be able to perform the exchange - but I wouldn’t have been if not for their mistake. Luckily for me, they were empowered to correct it and accept the exchange.

So - is there a compelling reason to avoid granting EC the ability to correct their own mistakes, particularly in a clear-cut situation like this one?

They’re following the law.

Never stated otherwise.

They never saw the vote. They can’t count it,

I get what you’re saying, but it’s still disturbing that EC can cause a mistake of this nature and not have the ability to rectify it.

Certainly this isn’t the worst case of disenfranchisement by Elections Canada (see for example https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/this-is-unacceptable-polling-station-problems-prompt-calls-for-investigation/ )

it has to go to court.

Thinking it over, there’s a good counterargument here. Even if EC could directly order a by-election in this case (or even was given the power to just outright count the vote), someone would contest this and it’d likely end up before a judge at some point anyways. So might as well just go direct.

Then make an application to a judge to challenge the result and they will have to count it.

I’m not sure that I’m eligible to do this…

Truly, it should be the BQ that does it. I’m guessing they will in the coming days.

Agreed. This isn’t so bad, at least there’s a way forward.

Agreed. What an unfortunate finding by EC. As a matter of principle I believe every vote should have a chance to get counted.

Very cool. Can’t wait to see this go live.

Right? It’s not a difficult concept to understand, not at all.

What’s extra unfortunate about this is that in a slightly different set of circumstances (if she had been able to stay in Italy this whole time) she’d now be near the time where she’d qualify for permanent residence

https://italianvisa.it/residence-permits-italy/

Which would have allowed her the ability to live and work in another EU country legally (such as Germany)

https://www.mazzeschi.it/mobility-rights-of-third-country-nationals-in-the-european-union/

I’m not here to second guess her choices, it’s just sad to see that she’s being deported from a place that she should have been close to obtaining legitimate status in. But I believe that there’s a silver lining - correct me if I’m wrong but I believe she’s still able to use this pathway.

In other words, she’ll be back.

Not AI related, but reminds me of what happened at X when Musk let a bunch of folks quit and then had to beg for some of them to return. This is another example of a poorly thought out boomerang.

That’s a really good UX suggestion. Can definitely see how it could be confusing.

So I think the reason it’s like that is because the create post page extends the edit post page, which uses the same side panel as everything else.

But looking at it I think we can update the side panel itself at https://codeberg.org/rimu/pyfedi/src/branch/main/app/templates//_side/_pane.html#L9 so it checks something like prev_url or next_url and then dynamically replaces the ‘Create post’ button with a ‘Submit’ button instead.

When we did drivers ed in Ontario, our class instructor introduced us to ratehub.ca for this sort of thing - that was for auto but it looks like they let you compare home insurance rates.

Agree 100%

I was having a discussion the other day with someone and it was pointed out that pp grew the number of seats for the CPC and strengthened their position in winning the next election. Thus, unlike Jagmeet Singh of the NDP or Peter Dutton of the centre-right Liberal Party of Australia (who oversaw massive losses in their party) Dutton deserves to win a seat back and remain the leader of the CPC as well as the opposition leader.

Actually, I’m looking for a good, well reasoned counterargument to this (for when I bring it up again tomorrow).

Makes me wonder how they started with Liberal in their name. Perhaps they were liberal from when they formed a hundred years ago and just never updated any of their positions or stances?

Love this idea. Yes, everyone should have a say and have representation of their choice!

This is another reason why proportional representation is a better system. One vote wouldn’t matter because one vote wouldn’t flip a riding or change the number and type of representatives who become MPs. After all, the percentage of MPs elected in the riding wouldn’t change significantly enough with one vote.

Agree 100%, we definitely need to move to PR ASAP.

With proportional representation, we would have the same or fewer elections than we have now.

Elsewhere on the piefediverse I’ve seen the argument made that PR also generally leads to other benefits like better cooperation between candidates and less mudslinging.

The money and resources used for this one vote, along with court time and a potential byelection, make a mockery of our democratic process.

I mean it does have it’s uses. The byelection for the two Georgia Senate seats back in 2020 (technically a pair of runoff elections) is what ensured the Dems senate majority back then.

Just going off the article alone, I’m not 100% sure if that’s the rule. But it sounds reasonable enough…

Yep. But in Japan there is no such thing as a family doctor or GP. Closest is a doctor of internal medicine naika

Interesting. In fact there’s quite a bit of difference between the two, https://mana.md/whats-the-difference-between-a-general-practitioner-and-an-internist/

But there’s also already concern that we’re running out of GPs in other countries, e.g. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/oma-declining-number-medical-school-students-family-medicine-1.7182901 - so perhaps this is just a glimpse of the future.

Were it so serious, you would be identified and put on leave or whatever was deemed appropriate for the circumstances. It would not be anonymous but compartmentalised.

That’s not as bad, but it’s still a case of an employer knowing far more about my medical health than I’m used to.

In more populous areas, mobile clinics (think RV buses) will be brought to offices to conduct the exams.

Interesting idea. Would certainly make it easier to get it done when the clinic is brought to you.

As it so happens I just got the email from my company about the medical check. It needs to be conducted by the end of October.

Good luck!

All employees no matter their nationality are to take yearly medicals. The results are shared only with a company appointed doctor. One reason is so that the company can implement changes if there is a pattern of bad health. Like if their workers are unfit, they might start a fitness program, or education program etc.

So far this sounds reasonable and makes a lot of sense.

If a diagnosis from the examination comes back as needing more attention, you will be directed to do so (but you can ignore these, too if it is not severe).

Ah, so basically the same as if just seeing my own personal family doctor.

If there is something majorly wrong that would affect your work, the company doctor would have to notify the company.

Ah, so the exact opposite of seeing my own personal family doctor. And I assume it’s not an anonymous report (you have X people working for you who have Y disease which will affect your business) but an identifying one (abff08f4813c has Y disease which you need to know about). Which leads to why someone might attend but refuse one or a few specific tests…

Some are very basic like height and weight, hearing and so on.

Well, even this - if I have that job which requires me to be under a certain weight, and I know that I just recently gained a few above. So I refuse that part to avoid getting it reported to my company. Or if I know my hearing has gotten worse (say due to a checkup I had with an overseas doctor) where excellent and superior hearing is a requirement for the job, same deal.

As for everyone attending and refusing all tests, I doubt that would happen.

Agreed. I didn’t mean all, but just some. Perhaps like the one specific test involving needles to check blood (maybe this would happen due to a fear of contaminated needles based on a hypothetical recent incident?). But you answered below - if it’s just attendance that’s being counted, then the specific nature of this kind of refusal wouldn’t matter so much.

But I …[doubly]… believe that attendance is what is counted, not what tests were or were not taken.

That makes sense. It’s probably hard in practice to require a company get N number of employees to take a specific test (and prove it was done) while attendance is easier to count, so attendance is used as a proxy that enough employees are getting checked for the necessary things and being found in good health.

Again, opinion only.

Well, these are facts - meaning that they’re fact-checkable. We might not be entirely sure of the answers to some of these and perhaps have to make guesses or speculate, but unlike opinions a fact like “(In Japan) attendance is what is counted” for example can in principle be checked and confirmed as right or wrong, which is not the case for a true opinion.