the best managers are chosen to be strong performers in the task that they are managing other people to do.
The opposite is true in most situations, for example a great salespeople will often make a bad sales manager. This is Very Common. Eg https://www.library.hbs.edu/working-knowledge/micromanagers-in-the-making-why-salespeople-struggle-to-lead.
Doing the task and managing the people doing the task are separate skills, and the existence of one doesn't imply the existence of the other.
I have the opposite experience. It delights me and I enjoy digging in deeper.
People are different!
4I can just make it look pretty and put commas and periods inside the quotation marks
Maybe it's from growing up with British English, but I think this looks much worse. Like unclosed or incorrectly closed parentheses.
This acquisition isn’t just about a license; it’s Polymarket’s homecoming, returning stronger and ready to serve American users once again.
Aahh... smell the AI.
16CO2
...6O2?
Suppose these parties do certain things destructive to the country but effective for gaining power, for example, populism.
I don't understand this, and the use of 'populism bad' in general.
I understand populism to consist of appealing to the mass of ordinary people and promising them things they want, in exchange for votes - even if those things run counter to the interests of established institutions and agencies.
How is this different to any other rational action taken by politicians seeking to be elected in a democratic society?
In a democracy, you need votes, and lots of them. People will give you their vote if they feel you will do good things for them. You hear what they say and promise to enact it if you are elected. Other people are unhappy about that, but you do it anyway.
Is that populism, or is it describing every election ever?
I know this is overly simplistic! I don't understand it enough to steelman 'populism bad'.
What are the most compelling arguments for 'populism bad, and populism different to normal political activity'?
Anecdotal, but GPT-5 (mini, I guess? free plan with no thinking) is the first model to succeed at a poetry-based prompt I've tested on a lot of models.
I don't want to mention it publicly, but it involves a fairly complex rhyming scheme and meter.
All other models misunderstand entirely, but GPT-5 got it straight away.
Interestingly, when thinking mode kicked in after a few prompts, it performed a lot worse.
I don't think the coach analogy is apt. While they may have played the sport, their role is getting the best out of a team of people - a manager, rather than a technical contributor.
A better analogy may be an editor. Many editors are failures as authors, but are very good at critiquing starts, seeing where the flow and pacing needs improvement, and improving the overall work.
However in a world where many editors come to you and submit feedback with varying and contradicting messages, you need to quickly filter by something, so you can focus your limited time and resources on the most valuable submissions.
This is relative to the time and attention that each author has available. Someone with nothing to do will be happier to accept comments than someone who for whatever reasons just doesn't have time right now to engage.
Prior experience with creating the subject matter may not be the best filter, as you've pointed out in the post.
I'm curious what you think might be a better filter for assessing credibility and quality, quickly.
Or do you disagree with the notion that people need a filter?
I'm not sure how a bet could be formulated, and it's possible that the process of formulating it would show we aren't in disagreement.
However, I wonder if you are looking at the successful outcomes without considering the unsuccessful outcomes?
A great engineering manager is likely great at engineering. However a great engineer is unlikely to be a great engineering manager - dealing with code all day is different to dealing with people all day. Of course, some can do both (and here you see a great engineering manager who is also a great engineer). My contention is that a minority of engineers (main focus is code) are suited to be engineering managers (main focus is people).
This is essentially the Peter principle. Peter is great at something, and keeps getting promoted until he reaches the level of mediocrity, where he stops getting promoted. Peter is clearly great at position n-1, but not great at position n.