The median income in the UK is currently sitting at £2,627 / week or £31,524 / year [1]. This is advertising more than double that at £64,189, not quite graduate wages!
Due to advancements in calendar technology made in the last couple hundreds of years, the profile for this role has changed and tasks are now different.
Going off on unprompted rambling about 'woke ideology' and the Taliban in response to a random pun makes you appear, to observers, deeply mentally unwell.
Maybe I could have left out the final remark. But I was quite astonished by the large amount of identity-focused language. The English Heritage Stonehenge job description (and the website) should use more neutral language.
This is what neutral language sounds like. It sounds to me like you'd prefer to pretend these people don't exist. I'd like to remind you that male homosexuality was illegal in UK as recently as 1967. Section 28 was in force up until 2003. Same sex marriage was illegal until 2014. The ideology you are seeing in this job ad is liberal democracy. The ideology you are defending is something else entirely, and very much not a form of neutrality.
I disagree with the neutral language, this is what some people (including me) would call "woke agenda".
Not all LGB people support the expansion to include TQ+ issues. Nor some of the side-effects e.g. women athletes forced to compete against men. Or a women-owned gym in Germany that was fined because the owner didn't want to allow males in the women-only space.
There is no disdain for "these people" (or groups, as a poster above suggested) and some of this people exist in my own live too, but disagreement about what is appropriate and neutral in a job ad, particularly of a charity which receives?/received public funding.
Genuinely curious: what makes you think the moral panic around trans people is structurally different to the moral panic around gay people decades ago? All the arguments you've made here are more or less identical to arguments made to keep homosexuality illegal previously.
For me it's not about morality, anything goes afaic.
My arguments were that biological men can enter women spaces, even though some women are not ok with that. Or compete in women's sports, violating fairness as male/female bodies are different. Or cases like the female gym-owner who was fined.
I don't think such laws existed or were being pushed for with homosexuality previously? That debate was more about what adults do in their private live.
Drag queens, yes, but no legal system which allowed a man to almost instantly become a lawful women (Germany had a "famous" such case..). I like simple, friendly programming languages. The same goes for law and common sense (~trans violates this somewaht).
"Common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down in the mind before age eighteen." Attributed to Einstein 1948.
I realise this is the Internet, and it's not for me to convince you of anything. But you've formed an opinion on what is normal and "neutral" strong enough to bring it to a thread about something else online. Is that opinion informed, or received?
For example, you say: trans women can compete in sport with cis women, and that is unfair. Is it? I don't see an a priori answer either way. I certainly don't think banning the "promotion" of trans people in public is a viable solution.
While my common sense may be a collection of old prejudices, some have surely changed over time. I suspect that my opinions are informed and received. Reading newspapers, discussing things with friends, HN, books. A lot of influences. And then I muse on what makes sense, who is compassionate and what is important atm. Perhaps common sense a bit like Treebeard: deeply rooted but able to walk.
> I don't see an a priori answer either way
Fair enough. But my common, naive sense would say, cis/trans bodies are objectively different (and this settles it in my favour ;-)). -- I'll stop here, public hn for this subjects is too demanding for me, I might fall over Queers for Palestine or Druids for Israel and become unwell...
Michael Sheen is apparently such a fan of TRON, that he might have been lucky to not negotiated himself down to a $0 pay packet - just in case someone else might have gotten the role :D
The US version (the DM250US) is now $549, alas. I was looking at these briefly, but can’t justify the expense — might as well get a MacBook Neo if I were in the market.
Yeah I think that's substantially more than I paid for my JP market version.
I will say it is a really nice device, probably the all-around best of the dedicated writing devices I've owned and/or researched over the years. But on a typical value scale, it's not worth that.
The first paragraph, and the one directly above the one about knowing more about furniture:
> There is a theory, popular among certain very old and very tired philosophers, that all memories take up a kind of furniture in the head. The good ones are armchairs. The painful ones are filing cabinets, usually full. And then there are the memories that are neither: the ones that arrive uninvited, settle in, and start terrorising the other occupants by kicking over the chairs.
Because the objective truth is that what the LLM or author outputted was CLEARLY only using furniture as a metaphor. The metaphor wasn't good but HNers are taking it completely out of context. There's nothing mean here. Just objective facts.
This is exactly what I was trying to say, but kindly. The metaphor wasn't great, and I dodnt want to he unkind to the author. Enough people were doing that.
I found the fact that people couldn't identify it as a metaphor was much more alarming.
Because they don’t believe it is slop. They believe you are unable to comprehend a not too advanced literary device and based on that accusing that the text is slop.
On the topic of kindness: You might be right and it is AI generated slop. You might be wrong. If you are wrong what you are doing is deeply and utterly unkind. Not calling out the other commenter, but calling the writing slop.
It has happened with me before. I wrote a comment on reddit with my own hands and own mind and commenters accused me of being a bot. There is nothing more rage inducing. How can one respond to that? Have you thought that maybe that is what you just did? Are you 100% sure that it is slop?
The thing is that whether it's AI-assisted or not doesn't really matter. It's still clearly a metaphor.
Maybe I was being mean - I don't know if the person I replied to has English as their first language, and if not, then perhaps I'm railing against the wrong comment. If so, I guess I should apologise.
If English is their first language, though, well I would expect my 13-year-old son to be able to tell me that was a metaphor instantly, and I tend to expect better-than-teenager-level reading comprehension from people in general. It's kind of disconcerting just how many people on HN seemed to be flummoxed by the prose.
Given climatic effects from the industrial revolution onward (and perhaps with a pro-lunar bias), it would make more sense to get rid of humans to reduce the frequency of catastrophes! ;)
reply