Seriously, you do not. You may know the end-result sometimes (head-crash), but the root-cause is usually not clear.
So get over it. It is a new black-box replacing an older black-box.
It's a pain in the ass when any hardware fails, especially prematurely . Never truly knowing why something fails is very frustrating for anyone who actually gives a shit enough to not want to repeat history. You know, like buying the same "reputable" brand/solution/model again.
The three most important criteria students look for in job opportunities are
I think you will find that this is "interview bullshit". It is the sort of answer that people think the ask-er wants to hear.
The reality is that is you offer a candidate a lower than expected "nice to have" salary, say: 50% less, they'll walk to the next employer who is offering more.
Ever think for a moment that salary is not in the top list of concerns because of the low unemployment and high demand for certain skills?
Not everything is as bullshit-riddled as it may seem. Besides, companies know that a non-competitive salary offer is going to make people walk, so I kind of doubt your "50% less" offer is being thrown out there that often.
OK, sure... video games, er, ''eSports" is a skill.
But, seriously, let's not start pretending like this is on the same level as the lifetime of commitment that actual Olympic athletes have put in to get where they are.
Of all things, you question commitment here? You couldn't be more wrong.
I don't give a shit what your skill is, when you've worked hard enough to master something and are considered one of the best in the entire world to compete at the Olympic level, I'd say you sure as hell demonstrated commitment. You certainly wouldn't question the commitment level of a well-respected history professor simply because they didn't bench press their own body weight while earning three PhDs.
Olympic events require physical activity. Moving your thumbs doesn't count.
Some would argue that hitting a little white ball around a golf course is hardly a sport either, and yet we champion the shit out of that at the Olympic level.
Why the hell would anyone think video games are sporting events?
Obviously you haven't actually looked at an Olympic schedule in a few decades. There's plenty of silly shit we include in the Olympics. Video games, no matter how stupid, are the next natural progression.
When you get to be 40, see of you still believe that.
I'm considerably older than that. I believe exercise is the largest factor in the obesity epidemic because of the obvious facts; most people are obese or got that way due to a horrible lifestyle. And it's basically pointless to try and argue against how lazy society has become. I've gained a lot of flexibility and strength through exercise and eating fairly healthy, so I've seen the benefits later in life.
...I only eat 1 time a day, just to maintain. I work out heavily (extremely motivated!), and am constantly exercising.
My point: not everyone is like you, so stop acting like a butt.
My point is 98% of society isn't like you either. Your motivation alone separates you from the masses, and I congratulate you for that. If society adopted that same level of motivation even when facing the worst challenges, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
As far as your diet and results, I would recommend you consult with a dietitian to maintain a proper diet, and consider changing around your exercise routine until you find what works for you. That's what's great about exercise; it can be infinitely customized to maximize results for you at any age.
"...career success is rarely about finding the right solution to a problem -- it's more about finding the right problem to solve."
Finding the right problem?
The very capitalism that drives careers thrives in pimping materialistic shit products packed full of features we never asked for and didn't want, to fill a need that doesn't really exist.
Consumers buy solutions to non-problems all the damn time. If someone ever did find the "right" problem, they would probably be fired.
If it really was that simple we wouldn't have the problems we have with obesity.
We could argue about where the problem lies, but it's pointless. Even if it is just people with no willpower and too lazy, how does knowing that help? We have tried shaming and berating, it doesn't work.
What does work is surgery, but that's drastic. This looks like a good option.
No, this looks like just another excuse to ignore the fucking lazy problem.
And you think we're "shaming and berating" fat people? We now live in a society that demands we include obese women in the supermodel category because body inclusivity is far more important than anything a doctor may have to say about weight and health backed with decades of evidence. We not only tolerate obesity, but we now embrace and reward it.
Lazy the elephant has been standing in the room shitting on everyone's shoes for years now, and everyone in the room pretends like it's natural and normal. You're right. There's no point in arguing where the problem lies, especially once the ignorance and stupidity reaches a certain level.
Could this new solution ultimately help people? Yeah, maybe. But don't try and call it anything more than a band-aid solution. Millions of humans are prematurely dying because they lack the motivation to include exercise in the equation of maintaining a healthy body and long life. The "drastic" solution to create a cure, is the most obvious one. Stop ignoring the elephant in the room.
It's not ideal for long term use, but as a way to lose weight it's very promising.
The reason why fat people find it so hard to lose weight and keep it off is that the body fights them. When they cut down their calorie intake it goes into starvation mode. They feel tried all the time and it reduces burn to a minimum, which ends up meaning they need to diet extremely aggressively to get anywhere and will likely be unable to keep the weight off. 1500 calories/day is neither healthy nor sustainable, but in starvation mode that's what they need to achieve.
This gene seems to fix that. Say it could be turned on and off at will, or perhaps turned off but then the body regulated with medication instead. People could maintain a healthy 2500 calories/day diet with all the nutrition they need, and still lose weight and then maintain at that level.
The world "exercise" isn't mentioned one time in your entire comment. Not one time.
Because of that glaring omission, I see this gene "tweaking" as just another bullshit attempt to try and solve for the obesity problem without solving for the fucking lazy problem, which is the actual reason fat people are fat 98% of the time. A healthy 2500 calories a day includes diet and exercise, and it kills me when that elephant in the room is blatantly ignored.
The only question arising here is if Amazon should handle such dangerous goods.
Uh, that's not the only question here. First one I would be asking is why a "non-lethal" form of defense would be considered "dangerous goods", and the next question would be where do you stop with the ban. A robot accidentally spilling common household chemicals can create lethal environments, not merely irritating ones. Any chemical under high pressure can present a risk of explosion.
Having more people in the warehouse Ofste instead of robots won't make it any safer, it surely increases the number of affected people.
Yeah, you're right. The only question Greed is asking is why there are any humans in warehouses. From a risk mitigation standpoint, humans are the ones specifically affected.
30k deaths in 2017 from fentanyl overdose, most of it coming from China. And rates are growing exponentially.
Yeah, and heroin usage spiked when we started cracking down on pill mills.
Root-cause analysis points a lot of spiking drug usage back to when we allowed the Medical Industrial Complex to shove opium in a prescription bottle and then lobby to subsidize costs and make opioid addiction as cheap as possible for the masses.
Yeah, we have someone to blame alright. It ain't who you think.
The CNN article does not mention gun deaths - it is a major contributor to unintentional death and suicide.
Highlighting the fact that 65% of all gun deaths are due to suicide would take away from their anti-gun arguments. That is why it was not included. Anti-gun zealots never want to fracture the gun death statistics.
Long working hours, stress due to stupid societal expectations, bullying via social media, poor health care unless you have a cush job... they all have consequences.
Tobacco is still a legal product. And before we dismiss that with "choice", medical error kills almost as many Americans every year.
We allowed the Medical Industrial Complex to put opium in a prescription bottle, CAFO operators to fight for as little regulation as possible, and HFCS infected our food supply.
Every government on the planet has a job to do, and part of that job is resource management. That includes population control. Many of our most deadly-yet-legal products highlight this fact. The US Government ironically sustains their stance against legalizing cannabis not because it's actually fit for Schedule I restrictions, but because it's not deadly enough. Alcohol not only kills tens of thousands every year, but also generates billions treating all of the related diseases.
TL; DR - Death is no longer natural; it is by design.
Someone having more does not mean you automatically have less.
-Econ 101
I can only assume that Econ 101 is a course has been deemed "oppressive" and banned in every college campus across America, since the socialists we're churning out of those institutions believe this is exactly why they are poor.
Yes, Millennials likely have the exact same materialistic cravings as the previous generations. The concept keeping up with the Jonses is so old most Millennials probably wouldn't understand what it means even if it does describe exactly what everyone is doing.
The difference with Millennials vs. previous generations is they've been groomed to expect a lot of shit in life for free. They're electing socialists to Congress based on this very premise.
20 years ago if you wanted a website, you had to buy a domain, pay someone to host it, and design and create your own content. And that was completely acceptable because people understood and accepted the basic premise of capitalism. Generations before recognized there's no such thing as a free lunch, a concept that is almost a century old now.
Today's generation would be appalled if you asked them to pay for a website. That's called "Facebook" now. Same goes for email, image hosting, and even internet access, as not offering free WiFi in your business is now considered some kind of grave attack on basic human rights.
And yes, the younger generation DOES favor "experiences". I've met more people under the age of 30 that I'm completely jealous of because somehow they've managed to travel the world and go on more vacations that I could dream of. I say "somehow", but that's rather obvious too when you look at how absolutely broke they are all the time. This is the FOMO generation that YOLOs worries away. Saving for a rainy day? Budget and spend what you can afford? Fuck that. That's not "fun", no matter how sensible it may be.
And yes, I am generalizing. The sad part is my generalizations for the majority of the demographic I'm targeting, are accurate.
MS-Dos-4.0 and Windows 1,0.... Now those are freak's, that they should have aborted.
Windows ME affected millions. It would be a lot easier to agree with you if MS-DOS/Windows 1.0 had a similar impact. That was hardly the case, as most people have never heard of Windows prior to 3.x
"How much innovation has IBM directly stifled due to an unending desire to grow a patent war chest?" To be double-back-fair, is that really IBM's fault though? Or is it the paradigm that results from the current patent system by default?
Sorry, but it's rather easy to dismiss this inherently greedy mentality when you're a company the size of IBM that hardly needs to thrive and survive solely on their ability to warehouse patents and stifle innovation.
Because of this fact, they cannot hide or dismiss their involvement in this. Bad behavior is bad. I'm not about to reward IBM for acting like every other capitalist.
No doubt the patent system needs change, but sadly it is because of unethical abuse like this.
Hey Rometty, how many patents did your company lock up in the last decade? How much innovation has IBM directly stifled due to an unending desire to grow a patent war chest?
I'm certainly not here defending the likes of Google or Facebook, but I sure as hell don't need IBM to dictate how corporations should act.
Shut the fuck up. You can speak when you're not drowning in your own hypocrisy.
She was told to expect to shell out $50,000 to $70,000 per influencer just to make her company's name known, an insane amount for a new startup. There was no way around it
At that kind of rate, knowing you would need at least a few "influencers", what I would do instead is build up my own cadre on influencers - find some kids just starting out YouTube with some makeup sense and make them offers for recording gear and a lot of makeup and vastly less cash.
The idea that you need to pay a series of influencers $80k each comes off as really seeming like a scam. Sure at the top level the elite of YouTube are truly influencers - but at the mid tier where you would pay $80k? I don't think so.
Let me clarify how this works from the investor standpoint.
Buy a top-tier influencer = Get top-tier results.
Buy a Kardashian = Get Kardashian results.
Buy "some kids just starting out on YouTube" = Get...amateur results. At best.
You really think investors have time to be waiting around for some unknown Narcissist with A Dream to strike it lucky playing the YouTube lottery in order to get a product off the ground, trying to target a consumer attention span that's shorter than a squirrel on crack?
I don't think so.
Bottom line is a 21st Century business prospectus just got a million or two larger for the digital age. And investors shouldn't bitch about those costs given the "gone viral" results they now demand. It's now apparently a part of doing business.
I haven't listened to much of what AOC has to say but she did bring up a valid point...
First off, I agree with you in not giving such massive breaks to mega-corps, taxation or otherwise.
But mainly I wanted to simply say you need to listen to more than 5 minutes of what AOC "has to say". If you still even remember what Common F. Sense looks like, I can assure you that you'll agree with me in that she's as clueless as it comes, and the only reason she got elected is because she promised a upopia of free housing/school/medical to everyone. You know, because history paints a great track record with socialist/communist ideals...
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, you do not. You may know the end-result sometimes (head-crash), but the root-cause is usually not clear.
So get over it. It is a new black-box replacing an older black-box.
It's a pain in the ass when any hardware fails, especially prematurely . Never truly knowing why something fails is very frustrating for anyone who actually gives a shit enough to not want to repeat history. You know, like buying the same "reputable" brand/solution/model again.
The three most important criteria students look for in job opportunities are
I think you will find that this is "interview bullshit". It is the sort of answer that people think the ask-er wants to hear.
The reality is that is you offer a candidate a lower than expected "nice to have" salary, say: 50% less, they'll walk to the next employer who is offering more.
Ever think for a moment that salary is not in the top list of concerns because of the low unemployment and high demand for certain skills?
Not everything is as bullshit-riddled as it may seem. Besides, companies know that a non-competitive salary offer is going to make people walk, so I kind of doubt your "50% less" offer is being thrown out there that often.
OK, sure ... video games, er, ''eSports" is a skill.
But, seriously, let's not start pretending like this is on the same level as the lifetime of commitment that actual Olympic athletes have put in to get where they are.
Of all things, you question commitment here? You couldn't be more wrong.
I don't give a shit what your skill is, when you've worked hard enough to master something and are considered one of the best in the entire world to compete at the Olympic level, I'd say you sure as hell demonstrated commitment. You certainly wouldn't question the commitment level of a well-respected history professor simply because they didn't bench press their own body weight while earning three PhDs.
Olympic events require physical activity. Moving your thumbs doesn't count.
Some would argue that hitting a little white ball around a golf course is hardly a sport either, and yet we champion the shit out of that at the Olympic level.
Why the hell would anyone think video games are sporting events?
Obviously you haven't actually looked at an Olympic schedule in a few decades. There's plenty of silly shit we include in the Olympics. Video games, no matter how stupid, are the next natural progression.
Ever seen a Tesla battery pack go up in flames?
Kind of hard to stop and jump out at 20000 feet.
Ever seen what a shotglass worth of vaporized gasoline can do with regards to explosive power?
Kind of hard to use your argument when the risk factor doesn't really change regardless of fuel source.
You are obviously under 30.
When you get to be 40, see of you still believe that.
I'm considerably older than that. I believe exercise is the largest factor in the obesity epidemic because of the obvious facts; most people are obese or got that way due to a horrible lifestyle. And it's basically pointless to try and argue against how lazy society has become. I've gained a lot of flexibility and strength through exercise and eating fairly healthy, so I've seen the benefits later in life.
...I only eat 1 time a day, just to maintain. I work out heavily (extremely motivated!), and am constantly exercising.
My point: not everyone is like you, so stop acting like a butt.
My point is 98% of society isn't like you either. Your motivation alone separates you from the masses, and I congratulate you for that. If society adopted that same level of motivation even when facing the worst challenges, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
As far as your diet and results, I would recommend you consult with a dietitian to maintain a proper diet, and consider changing around your exercise routine until you find what works for you. That's what's great about exercise; it can be infinitely customized to maximize results for you at any age.
"...career success is rarely about finding the right solution to a problem -- it's more about finding the right problem to solve."
Finding the right problem?
The very capitalism that drives careers thrives in pimping materialistic shit products packed full of features we never asked for and didn't want, to fill a need that doesn't really exist.
Consumers buy solutions to non-problems all the damn time. If someone ever did find the "right" problem, they would probably be fired.
If it really was that simple we wouldn't have the problems we have with obesity.
We could argue about where the problem lies, but it's pointless. Even if it is just people with no willpower and too lazy, how does knowing that help? We have tried shaming and berating, it doesn't work.
What does work is surgery, but that's drastic. This looks like a good option.
No, this looks like just another excuse to ignore the fucking lazy problem.
And you think we're "shaming and berating" fat people? We now live in a society that demands we include obese women in the supermodel category because body inclusivity is far more important than anything a doctor may have to say about weight and health backed with decades of evidence. We not only tolerate obesity, but we now embrace and reward it.
Lazy the elephant has been standing in the room shitting on everyone's shoes for years now, and everyone in the room pretends like it's natural and normal. You're right. There's no point in arguing where the problem lies, especially once the ignorance and stupidity reaches a certain level.
Could this new solution ultimately help people? Yeah, maybe. But don't try and call it anything more than a band-aid solution. Millions of humans are prematurely dying because they lack the motivation to include exercise in the equation of maintaining a healthy body and long life. The "drastic" solution to create a cure, is the most obvious one. Stop ignoring the elephant in the room.
It's not ideal for long term use, but as a way to lose weight it's very promising.
The reason why fat people find it so hard to lose weight and keep it off is that the body fights them. When they cut down their calorie intake it goes into starvation mode. They feel tried all the time and it reduces burn to a minimum, which ends up meaning they need to diet extremely aggressively to get anywhere and will likely be unable to keep the weight off. 1500 calories/day is neither healthy nor sustainable, but in starvation mode that's what they need to achieve.
This gene seems to fix that. Say it could be turned on and off at will, or perhaps turned off but then the body regulated with medication instead. People could maintain a healthy 2500 calories/day diet with all the nutrition they need, and still lose weight and then maintain at that level.
The world "exercise" isn't mentioned one time in your entire comment. Not one time.
Because of that glaring omission, I see this gene "tweaking" as just another bullshit attempt to try and solve for the obesity problem without solving for the fucking lazy problem, which is the actual reason fat people are fat 98% of the time. A healthy 2500 calories a day includes diet and exercise, and it kills me when that elephant in the room is blatantly ignored.
The only question arising here is if Amazon should handle such dangerous goods.
Uh, that's not the only question here. First one I would be asking is why a "non-lethal" form of defense would be considered "dangerous goods", and the next question would be where do you stop with the ban. A robot accidentally spilling common household chemicals can create lethal environments, not merely irritating ones. Any chemical under high pressure can present a risk of explosion.
Having more people in the warehouse Ofste instead of robots won't make it any safer, it surely increases the number of affected people.
Yeah, you're right. The only question Greed is asking is why there are any humans in warehouses. From a risk mitigation standpoint, humans are the ones specifically affected.
"Suicides went up the most among elderly rural males. In other words, Republicans. "
So there's a silver lining in this.
The illusion that socialism is a silver lining and never creates unnecessary death.
Fucking hell. Talk about delusional...
30k deaths in 2017 from fentanyl overdose, most of it coming from China. And rates are growing exponentially.
Yeah, and heroin usage spiked when we started cracking down on pill mills.
Root-cause analysis points a lot of spiking drug usage back to when we allowed the Medical Industrial Complex to shove opium in a prescription bottle and then lobby to subsidize costs and make opioid addiction as cheap as possible for the masses.
Yeah, we have someone to blame alright. It ain't who you think.
The CNN article does not mention gun deaths - it is a major contributor to unintentional death and suicide.
Highlighting the fact that 65% of all gun deaths are due to suicide would take away from their anti-gun arguments. That is why it was not included. Anti-gun zealots never want to fracture the gun death statistics.
Long working hours, stress due to stupid societal expectations, bullying via social media, poor health care unless you have a cush job ... they all have consequences.
Tobacco is still a legal product. And before we dismiss that with "choice", medical error kills almost as many Americans every year.
We allowed the Medical Industrial Complex to put opium in a prescription bottle, CAFO operators to fight for as little regulation as possible, and HFCS infected our food supply.
Every government on the planet has a job to do, and part of that job is resource management. That includes population control. Many of our most deadly-yet-legal products highlight this fact. The US Government ironically sustains their stance against legalizing cannabis not because it's actually fit for Schedule I restrictions, but because it's not deadly enough. Alcohol not only kills tens of thousands every year, but also generates billions treating all of the related diseases.
TL; DR - Death is no longer natural; it is by design.
$100M payout and 100M fine should cover it
Sorry, but that bullshit isn't good enough anymore. It sure as hell isn't a deterrent. Look at the banking industry.
Time to start shutting businesses down and looking at jail time for those who prioritize a "smoother ride" over a human life.
Someone having more does not mean you automatically have less.
-Econ 101
I can only assume that Econ 101 is a course has been deemed "oppressive" and banned in every college campus across America, since the socialists we're churning out of those institutions believe this is exactly why they are poor.
Yes, Millennials likely have the exact same materialistic cravings as the previous generations. The concept keeping up with the Jonses is so old most Millennials probably wouldn't understand what it means even if it does describe exactly what everyone is doing.
The difference with Millennials vs. previous generations is they've been groomed to expect a lot of shit in life for free. They're electing socialists to Congress based on this very premise.
20 years ago if you wanted a website, you had to buy a domain, pay someone to host it, and design and create your own content. And that was completely acceptable because people understood and accepted the basic premise of capitalism. Generations before recognized there's no such thing as a free lunch, a concept that is almost a century old now.
Today's generation would be appalled if you asked them to pay for a website. That's called "Facebook" now. Same goes for email, image hosting, and even internet access, as not offering free WiFi in your business is now considered some kind of grave attack on basic human rights.
And yes, the younger generation DOES favor "experiences". I've met more people under the age of 30 that I'm completely jealous of because somehow they've managed to travel the world and go on more vacations that I could dream of. I say "somehow", but that's rather obvious too when you look at how absolutely broke they are all the time. This is the FOMO generation that YOLOs worries away. Saving for a rainy day? Budget and spend what you can afford? Fuck that. That's not "fun", no matter how sensible it may be.
And yes, I am generalizing. The sad part is my generalizations for the majority of the demographic I'm targeting, are accurate.
...to convince a flat-earther they're wrong?
Apparently 21,376.
MS-Dos-4.0 and Windows 1,0.... Now those are freak's, that they should have aborted.
Windows ME affected millions. It would be a lot easier to agree with you if MS-DOS/Windows 1.0 had a similar impact. That was hardly the case, as most people have never heard of Windows prior to 3.x
"How much innovation has IBM directly stifled due to an unending desire to grow a patent war chest?" To be double-back-fair, is that really IBM's fault though? Or is it the paradigm that results from the current patent system by default?
Sorry, but it's rather easy to dismiss this inherently greedy mentality when you're a company the size of IBM that hardly needs to thrive and survive solely on their ability to warehouse patents and stifle innovation.
Because of this fact, they cannot hide or dismiss their involvement in this. Bad behavior is bad. I'm not about to reward IBM for acting like every other capitalist. No doubt the patent system needs change, but sadly it is because of unethical abuse like this.
Hey Rometty, how many patents did your company lock up in the last decade? How much innovation has IBM directly stifled due to an unending desire to grow a patent war chest?
I'm certainly not here defending the likes of Google or Facebook, but I sure as hell don't need IBM to dictate how corporations should act.
Shut the fuck up. You can speak when you're not drowning in your own hypocrisy.
(Windows ME) "I will remain forever champion as the Worst Microsoft Operating System!"
(Windows 10) "Hold my beer."
The Year of the Linux Desktop; brought to you by Windows Update.
She was told to expect to shell out $50,000 to $70,000 per influencer just to make her company's name known, an insane amount for a new startup. There was no way around it
At that kind of rate, knowing you would need at least a few "influencers", what I would do instead is build up my own cadre on influencers - find some kids just starting out YouTube with some makeup sense and make them offers for recording gear and a lot of makeup and vastly less cash.
The idea that you need to pay a series of influencers $80k each comes off as really seeming like a scam. Sure at the top level the elite of YouTube are truly influencers - but at the mid tier where you would pay $80k? I don't think so.
Let me clarify how this works from the investor standpoint.
Buy a top-tier influencer = Get top-tier results.
Buy a Kardashian = Get Kardashian results.
Buy "some kids just starting out on YouTube" = Get...amateur results. At best.
You really think investors have time to be waiting around for some unknown Narcissist with A Dream to strike it lucky playing the YouTube lottery in order to get a product off the ground, trying to target a consumer attention span that's shorter than a squirrel on crack?
I don't think so.
Bottom line is a 21st Century business prospectus just got a million or two larger for the digital age. And investors shouldn't bitch about those costs given the "gone viral" results they now demand. It's now apparently a part of doing business.
I haven't listened to much of what AOC has to say but she did bring up a valid point...
First off, I agree with you in not giving such massive breaks to mega-corps, taxation or otherwise.
But mainly I wanted to simply say you need to listen to more than 5 minutes of what AOC "has to say". If you still even remember what Common F. Sense looks like, I can assure you that you'll agree with me in that she's as clueless as it comes, and the only reason she got elected is because she promised a upopia of free housing/school/medical to everyone. You know, because history paints a great track record with socialist/communist ideals...