I listen to radio in one of four cases: 1. I am at work. I want some music as background, do not want to spend any time choosing the songs and am not really annoyed by the commercials. The radio is free, does not require internet connection, and my favorite station plays some good music. 2. I am driving a short distance. I want music as background, but, since I am driving a short distance (to a store etc) I do not want to spend time choosing the music, bringing tapes, connecting a minidisc player etc. Also, they sometimes warn about a traffic jam. 3. It's weekend and I am doing something overnight - at night the radio stations I listen to have no commercials and I sometimes hear some good music (which I may sometimes record to a tape, depending on what I am doing at the time). 4. I am doing something at home for 5 - 20 minutes, want some music as background, but do not really want to choose (because I might end up spending more time choosing than listening in this case), so I just turn on the radio.
This is what I say about using good quality components (like capacitors) in products. Sadly, most people will buy a TV for $499.99 instead of a TV for $504.99 even if the more expensive TV had high quality capacitors or the company offered better tech support.
I personally would buy the more reliable option, especially if the prices were so close, but a lot of people just see the price and not care about anything else other than the primary feature (it would be size for a TV, no matter the picture or sound quality etc).
And yet, for every one caller who knows exactly what to say, there are probably 1000 who don't. Different types of calls (for an ISP: calling about a problem with the service, asking about prices and ordering a new service etc) usually are answered by different people (sales vs troubleshooting for example), so it would be best if the company had multiple phone numbers where you can call. However, people will routinely call the wrong number and then bitch that the sales guy cannot tell them to reboot their router. Also, having one number is better, because it is easier to remember. Thus, the automated menu was born, hopefully routing most of the callers to the correct employees. Of course, there will be some who have some weird problem and the none of the menu options are correct, but they can choose a random option and the employee who answers will transfer them. The idea is to make these transfers infrequent.
Although, I know of one company where no matter which menu option you choose (there are three), you will be routed to the same employee (the company is small, they only have one employee answering phones).
I was using physical strength as a more obvious example of differences between men and women.
But, since women are on average physically weaker than men, it may result in fewer women choosing professions that require a lot of physical strength (women just may be not interested in working in construction or oil rigs, at least on average, that is why you may see fewer (but not zero) women working there).
Actually, if women, on average, are physically weaker than men and there is a minimum strength requirement for the job, then fewer women will be able to do the job, assuming the strength distribution curve is the same for women and men..
If it is true that women, on average, cannot handle stress as well as men (on average), and if the programming jobs are stressful then it may result in fewer women choosing programming as their profession and instead choosing something else.
I have seen a Youtube video (did not save the link), where someone tried to explain why there are fewer women in top positions than men. He said that women, on average, are less willing to work long hours after they start earning enough money. That is, a male lawyer will work 80 hours a week or more to earn as much money as possible, where a woman who has equal skill with the man, will work fewer hours once her hour salary is high enough (and instead spend more time with the kids etc). I guess women are not insane enough to just live for their job. This is something that I (as a man) agree with - money for the sake of money do not bring happiness - once I have enough skill to earn an adequate salary I would rather work fewer hours, that would give me time to actually enjoy the money. What is the point of being able to afford an awesome car if you do not have the time to go for a drive?
I do not know the statistics, but I wonder that is the percentage of women working in ATC - that is a very stressful job.
Or do you believe that both women and men have the exact same interests with exactly the same distribution? That is, if 5% of men are interested in something, then exactly 5% of women are also interested in it?
Further, the "randomly chosen individual" is ludicrous, as that isn't the situation in *any* work environment.
Yes, companies select individuals out of a larger pool based on their abilities (or also gender, if the company wants to appear non-sexist). We can be reasonably certain that every programmer working for Google is interested in programming and is reasonably competent.
The "randomly chosen" or "average" part comes when determining the pool size. If women are, on average, not interested in programming then there will be fewer women candidates to choose from. This does not mean that the candidates will be worse, just that there will be fewer of them. If you hire people based on their abilities, you will end up with both men and women working for you, but it won't be 50/50 split.
This is because if you assume that men and women programmers are, on average, the same in their ability, then it result is that there are fewer great women programmers just by the fact that there are fewer women programmers period. If your company wants people with great programming ability (let's say top 10% of all programmers) then you will end up with fewer women, because top 10% of women programmers is a smaller number than top 10% of men programmers.
The problem is that when the candidate pool consists of 90% men, but the company wants to hire at least 80% women because there are too many men working in that department.already.
Why there is no outrage at the lack of women working in construction? Or that there are too few women working in remote oil rigs? Or that the army does not consist of 50% women?
Did it say anything about women being inferior to men and that they should stay in the kitchen?
No. What it did say was that it may be biological differences that women ON AVERAGE have different interests than men and that it is unwise to try to get 50% of employees be women.
Do women ON AVERAGE have different interests than men? Yes. Does this mean that all women are inferior to men at "men fields"? NO. This is the same as with physical strength. There are lots and lots of women who are stronger than me and could kick my ass in a fight. But, if I was forced to choose between fighting a randomly selected man or a randomly selected woman, I would choose to fight the woman, because on average, my odds would be better.
But no, men and women are equal in all things, including their interests and if only 5% (made up number) of girls are interested in fighting each other with fists when 30% (made up number) boys do the same it is only because of discrimination in our culture not encouraging girls to settle their differences with a good fistfight. Right?
So, in an effort to not discriminate people based on their gender or race we... discriminate people based on their gender or race. Girl-only programming classes are celebrated, where if one made a boys-only programming class it would be chaos. White-only dormitories are bad and racist, but black-only dormitories are an awesome symbol of non-racism. Right?
So now we have gender quotas. There is an open position in a company. 10 candidates apply - 9 men and one woman. The woman is average qualified for the position - out of the 9 men there are better and worse ones. But she gets hired anyway, because the company does not have enough women in that department.
Then again, the government of my country is incredibly sexist. Men are forced to serve in the army after school (not all of them, there is a lottery), but women only get to serve if they volunteer. So far I have not seen any feminist protest against this obviously sexist policy though. Actually, I remember feminists speaking out against forcing women to serve in the army. Weird, isn't it?
This year, X children died from [preventable disease] (picture of a child in hospital, picture of people carrying a small coffin). If only they were vaccinated, they would still run round and play instead of laying dead. (interview with a crying parent who says he has killed his child by not vaccinating him). (interview with another crying parent who says that his child was unable to be vaccinated, contracted the disease from some intenionally-unvaccinated child and died).
Another way you could do this would be to compare anti-vaxxers with Nazis. Interview some anti-vaxxer who says that if his child is not immune to diseases, then he should die. Or someone who says that he would rather his child died than became autistic. And if his child is ever diagnosed with autism, then the parent will kill him to preserve the intellectual and racial purity.
People respond to emotion better than facts. Just like infrequent-but-big tragic events like plane crashes may make people consider aircraft to be less safe than cars, even though, if you reported every fatal car crash in every country (like they do with airplane crashes), you would need multiple channels to be doing that 24/7, just to keep up.
I think it's quite clear that men are biologically disposed to, on average, spend more time decrying efforts to increase diversity.
Does this apply only to gender diversity or any diversity? Do black men spend more time decrying efforts to increase diversity in a predominantly-white field?
Take the example of nurses. Male nurses are quite rare, hell, in my native language the commonly used word for nurse literally means "medicine/medical sister", though the official name is one that can be made male of female (all nouns in my native language are either male or female, for example, a table is "he" and a chair is "she", but an armchair or bench is "he").
I am quite certain that there is no discrimination against men in that field, but for some reason mostly women choose this profession. The opposite is true for construction. I am sure there are some women who work there, but when I see a building being built or a road being repaired, I pretty much always only see men doing the job. Again, since my country has "equal rights" laws, I think that if a woman wanted to work there and could do the job as well as a man, then she would be welcome (especially since there is a shortage of workers in some fields).
Now, if a company wanted to have women as 50% of construction workers, the company would probably have to offer higher salaries for the women to work there (and that would be against the equal opportunities law).
One place where there is discrimination against women is the army. Men have to serve in the army after finishing school (not everyone, the list is chosen randomly), women volunteers are allowed, but but only men can be lucky winners of the lottery that forces you to serve. I do nto know why this is, but I also do not see feminists protesting this completely sexist law.
that somehow his male brain gives him at least a statistical edge over them?
Actually, no. What he wrote was not that men on average are better at tech than women, but that it may be due to biological differences that more men are interested in tech and choose it as their career.
If that is true, then it may be bad for the company to force arbitrary quotas (I personally love how "equal rights and equal opportunities" to some mean that they have to choose who to hire based on their gender because the company has too few women in it) since they may have to choose not to hire a better qualified candidate based solely on their gender.
I do see few women builders or repairing roads or lorry drivers or security. It may be in part due to biological differences that a women is less likely to want to be a lorry driver or a programmer. But I also see more women cashiers for example (or rather, it is rare to see a man cashier in a supermarket, but it is the opposite for an electronics part store). So, I guess men would rather do something else than be cashiers.
I'd think that jamming the frequency would be difficult since the transmitters are most likely many kW in power and if it is a component of the Dead Hand then the receiver is in Russia. I would also assume that the frequency is closely monitored and if you try to jam it, you get a visit from the FSB. It is also probably not the only trigger (random faults also happen, you wouldn't want to have nuclear war if the transmitter fails at the wrong time), but part of it.
I agree that it's an opt-in. All you need to do is continue using the old version and upgrade only when your logs show two consecutive months with no visits from users using browsers that do not support TLSv1.2.
Chrome has it, use the command line parameter --ignore-certificate-errors
But be careful, this will ignore ssl errors for all sites - it will still display the red "https" in the address bar, but it will not display the error.
When a discussion about genetically modified food comes up, I always say that the technology itself is great, but also, the management and some stock holders of Monsanto need to get a one way ticket to Siberia.
*EVERY* technology obsoletes some job that used to be done by human beings.
Yes. However, for most of history, the "obsolete" people could easily find another job they could do and earn money.
Nobody needs bows anymore? OK, you are good at woodwork, here, make stocks for rifles. A new textile mill opened and nobody is buying your home-produced cloth? Go work at that factory, now that cloth is cheaper, more people want it and the factory can barely keep up with demand. Also, I hear that those new factories are burning huge amounts of coal - if there is a coal mine near you, it probably needs some more workers. The new railroads need huge numbers of people to maintain and drive the trains, lay/maintain the track, control the signals etc. All this manufacturing needs a lot of raw materials - iron, copper etc - maybe there is a mine near you?
See? In the past there were a lot of jobs for people with little to no formal education, so, if your particular product is now obsolete, you can easily find a similar job (probably making the alternative to your product).
However, today is a bit different. So the coal mine is closing down because there is not enough demand. OK, maybe you can find a job at a factory? The are all either automated or in China. Well, maybe a taxi driver? Self-driving cars.
Not every taxi driver or coal miner can be a programmer.
The difference today is that instead of requiring the "obsolete" people to do a bit different jobs (like it was in the past - less jobs in one place meant increased demand of people somewhere else), we offer no alternatives to them. Self driving cars do not need drivers, but they also do not need anything more than regular cars. In comparison, a old-time factory reduces the number of people required to produce a certain amount of product, but increases the need of coal for its steam engines, requiring more coal miners to keep up with demand.
If you're for job for the sake of jobs, then you should pay people for digging holes, and a second set of people for filling them in.
There are quite a few unemployed people in my country - they get welfare, buy alcohol and drink it. I would prefer if the government, instead of paying them welfare for nothing, made them dig holes and fill them back in for that money. Yes, the job is useless, however, the person then would have less time for alcohol (and if you show up drunk, you don't get paid for that day). Also, this way the person would get used to actually working (instead of drinking all day) and maybe one day would choose a better paying (and actually useful) job.
It was similar in the USSR - there were no welfare payments for healthy people, but everyone was provided with a job (I think it was even illegal to be unemployed).
CNN also provided a statement to me in its defense: âoeCNN decided not to publish the name of the Reddit user out of concern for his safety...."
And the way you changed my example, in my opinion, that is still blackmail. "Him no longer seeing that girl" may be as valuable to you as some amount of money and you get that value by threatening somebody with an action, that, while legal on its own, would cause damage to him. For all I know, you want to see that girl yourself and the pictures are just a way to make your competition go away. So, in my opinion, demanding that he stop seeing the girl (or stopped posting pro-Trump messages) is the same as demanding money or services.
The way I see it, this is wrong whether the initial action is legal or not. If you saw somebody commit a crime, you have to report it to the authorities (or not, if you consider the law to be wrong), not blackmail him. If what you saw was legal, then it is none of your business and using evidence of it to extract money, services or anything of value to you and him (including stopping some action) is wrong. After all, otherwise where would the line be? Stop posting pro-Trump videos? Stop driving an inefficient car? Stop owning a gun?
I also wonder if CNN would have done the same, if the Reddit user had made an anti-Trump video or used Fox News logo instead of CNN logo.
"Hi, I have pictures that prove you have a "girl on the side", do you want me to show them to your wife? No? OK, then please stop writing or saying anything negative about Russia or your wife will receive the pictures."
Demanding not to do (or stop doing) something is the same as demanding to do something.
CNN acknowledged that identifying the guy may put him in danger (or rather said that they did not identify him because he apologized and out of concern for his safety). Then saying that they may still choose to identify him if he behaves in a way that CNN does not like. So, they pretty much threatened him with bodily and/or financial harm if he stops being sorry or misbehaves.
All because he put a CNN logo on a pro wrestling video. Then again, maybe CNN really liked that video so much that they wanted more videos like it. In that case, they succeeded.
When somebody needs something urgently (say, a production server went down) outside office hours, they have to call me (or my co-worker), because I will not check work email when not working. I may not even be at home (in which case I will try to get internet access or call a co-worker who is hopefully closer to a PC than I am).
I had a conversation once with a client who had a habit of notifying about urgent problems over skype (during office hours). That worked relatively OK, until one day I was away from my office PC (doing work) for half a day and he called angry that I did not do anything about the problem he wrote about. I then explained to him that I am not always at my office PC and even when I am at my office PC I may not notice the Skype message for some time. So, if he had an urgent problem, he should call.
Occasionally you do get a situation where your work is stalled until you get an answer from someone else - those warrant a phone call.
This happens to me a lot. Or rather I am on the receiving end of the phonecalls. Let's say internet conenction stopped working for some client of an ISP. The lower level worker went there, checked the cables etc and found no problems. He has to call me to check the system and would not want to wait an hour until I checked my email (at least if I or my co-worker cannot help him right away, he knows that and can go to another client at the time).
Or some important server goes down.
I would rather receive a phonecall that interrupts me when somebody urgently needs my help than have to interrupt myself to check my email more than a few times per day.
Slashdot Mirror
I listen to radio in one of four cases:
1. I am at work. I want some music as background, do not want to spend any time choosing the songs and am not really annoyed by the commercials. The radio is free, does not require internet connection, and my favorite station plays some good music.
2. I am driving a short distance. I want music as background, but, since I am driving a short distance (to a store etc) I do not want to spend time choosing the music, bringing tapes, connecting a minidisc player etc. Also, they sometimes warn about a traffic jam.
3. It's weekend and I am doing something overnight - at night the radio stations I listen to have no commercials and I sometimes hear some good music (which I may sometimes record to a tape, depending on what I am doing at the time).
4. I am doing something at home for 5 - 20 minutes, want some music as background, but do not really want to choose (because I might end up spending more time choosing than listening in this case), so I just turn on the radio.
This is what I say about using good quality components (like capacitors) in products. Sadly, most people will buy a TV for $499.99 instead of a TV for $504.99 even if the more expensive TV had high quality capacitors or the company offered better tech support.
I personally would buy the more reliable option, especially if the prices were so close, but a lot of people just see the price and not care about anything else other than the primary feature (it would be size for a TV, no matter the picture or sound quality etc).
And yet, for every one caller who knows exactly what to say, there are probably 1000 who don't. Different types of calls (for an ISP: calling about a problem with the service, asking about prices and ordering a new service etc) usually are answered by different people (sales vs troubleshooting for example), so it would be best if the company had multiple phone numbers where you can call. However, people will routinely call the wrong number and then bitch that the sales guy cannot tell them to reboot their router. Also, having one number is better, because it is easier to remember. Thus, the automated menu was born, hopefully routing most of the callers to the correct employees. Of course, there will be some who have some weird problem and the none of the menu options are correct, but they can choose a random option and the employee who answers will transfer them. The idea is to make these transfers infrequent.
Although, I know of one company where no matter which menu option you choose (there are three), you will be routed to the same employee (the company is small, they only have one employee answering phones).
I was using physical strength as a more obvious example of differences between men and women.
But, since women are on average physically weaker than men, it may result in fewer women choosing professions that require a lot of physical strength (women just may be not interested in working in construction or oil rigs, at least on average, that is why you may see fewer (but not zero) women working there).
Actually, if women, on average, are physically weaker than men and there is a minimum strength requirement for the job, then fewer women will be able to do the job, assuming the strength distribution curve is the same for women and men..
If it is true that women, on average, cannot handle stress as well as men (on average), and if the programming jobs are stressful then it may result in fewer women choosing programming as their profession and instead choosing something else.
I have seen a Youtube video (did not save the link), where someone tried to explain why there are fewer women in top positions than men. He said that women, on average, are less willing to work long hours after they start earning enough money. That is, a male lawyer will work 80 hours a week or more to earn as much money as possible, where a woman who has equal skill with the man, will work fewer hours once her hour salary is high enough (and instead spend more time with the kids etc). I guess women are not insane enough to just live for their job. This is something that I (as a man) agree with - money for the sake of money do not bring happiness - once I have enough skill to earn an adequate salary I would rather work fewer hours, that would give me time to actually enjoy the money. What is the point of being able to afford an awesome car if you do not have the time to go for a drive?
I do not know the statistics, but I wonder that is the percentage of women working in ATC - that is a very stressful job.
Or do you believe that both women and men have the exact same interests with exactly the same distribution? That is, if 5% of men are interested in something, then exactly 5% of women are also interested in it?
Further, the "randomly chosen individual" is ludicrous, as that isn't the situation in *any* work environment.
Yes, companies select individuals out of a larger pool based on their abilities (or also gender, if the company wants to appear non-sexist). We can be reasonably certain that every programmer working for Google is interested in programming and is reasonably competent.
The "randomly chosen" or "average" part comes when determining the pool size. If women are, on average, not interested in programming then there will be fewer women candidates to choose from. This does not mean that the candidates will be worse, just that there will be fewer of them. If you hire people based on their abilities, you will end up with both men and women working for you, but it won't be 50/50 split.
This is because if you assume that men and women programmers are, on average, the same in their ability, then it result is that there are fewer great women programmers just by the fact that there are fewer women programmers period. If your company wants people with great programming ability (let's say top 10% of all programmers) then you will end up with fewer women, because top 10% of women programmers is a smaller number than top 10% of men programmers.
One, or about 10%.
The problem is that when the candidate pool consists of 90% men, but the company wants to hire at least 80% women because there are too many men working in that department.already.
Why stop with STEM fields?
Why there is no outrage at the lack of women working in construction? Or that there are too few women working in remote oil rigs? Or that the army does not consist of 50% women?
Did you read the memo?
Did it say anything about women being inferior to men and that they should stay in the kitchen?
No. What it did say was that it may be biological differences that women ON AVERAGE have different interests than men and that it is unwise to try to get 50% of employees be women.
Do women ON AVERAGE have different interests than men? Yes. Does this mean that all women are inferior to men at "men fields"? NO. This is the same as with physical strength. There are lots and lots of women who are stronger than me and could kick my ass in a fight. But, if I was forced to choose between fighting a randomly selected man or a randomly selected woman, I would choose to fight the woman, because on average, my odds would be better.
But no, men and women are equal in all things, including their interests and if only 5% (made up number) of girls are interested in fighting each other with fists when 30% (made up number) boys do the same it is only because of discrimination in our culture not encouraging girls to settle their differences with a good fistfight. Right?
So, in an effort to not discriminate people based on their gender or race we ... discriminate people based on their gender or race. Girl-only programming classes are celebrated, where if one made a boys-only programming class it would be chaos. White-only dormitories are bad and racist, but black-only dormitories are an awesome symbol of non-racism. Right?
So now we have gender quotas. There is an open position in a company. 10 candidates apply - 9 men and one woman. The woman is average qualified for the position - out of the 9 men there are better and worse ones. But she gets hired anyway, because the company does not have enough women in that department.
Then again, the government of my country is incredibly sexist. Men are forced to serve in the army after school (not all of them, there is a lottery), but women only get to serve if they volunteer. So far I have not seen any feminist protest against this obviously sexist policy though. Actually, I remember feminists speaking out against forcing women to serve in the army. Weird, isn't it?
Go for emotion:
This year, X children died from [preventable disease] (picture of a child in hospital, picture of people carrying a small coffin). If only they were vaccinated, they would still run round and play instead of laying dead. (interview with a crying parent who says he has killed his child by not vaccinating him). (interview with another crying parent who says that his child was unable to be vaccinated, contracted the disease from some intenionally-unvaccinated child and died).
Another way you could do this would be to compare anti-vaxxers with Nazis. Interview some anti-vaxxer who says that if his child is not immune to diseases, then he should die. Or someone who says that he would rather his child died than became autistic. And if his child is ever diagnosed with autism, then the parent will kill him to preserve the intellectual and racial purity.
People respond to emotion better than facts. Just like infrequent-but-big tragic events like plane crashes may make people consider aircraft to be less safe than cars, even though, if you reported every fatal car crash in every country (like they do with airplane crashes), you would need multiple channels to be doing that 24/7, just to keep up.
I think it's quite clear that men are biologically disposed to, on average, spend more time decrying efforts to increase diversity.
Does this apply only to gender diversity or any diversity? Do black men spend more time decrying efforts to increase diversity in a predominantly-white field?
Take the example of nurses. Male nurses are quite rare, hell, in my native language the commonly used word for nurse literally means "medicine/medical sister", though the official name is one that can be made male of female (all nouns in my native language are either male or female, for example, a table is "he" and a chair is "she", but an armchair or bench is "he").
I am quite certain that there is no discrimination against men in that field, but for some reason mostly women choose this profession. The opposite is true for construction. I am sure there are some women who work there, but when I see a building being built or a road being repaired, I pretty much always only see men doing the job. Again, since my country has "equal rights" laws, I think that if a woman wanted to work there and could do the job as well as a man, then she would be welcome (especially since there is a shortage of workers in some fields).
Now, if a company wanted to have women as 50% of construction workers, the company would probably have to offer higher salaries for the women to work there (and that would be against the equal opportunities law).
One place where there is discrimination against women is the army. Men have to serve in the army after finishing school (not everyone, the list is chosen randomly), women volunteers are allowed, but but only men can be lucky winners of the lottery that forces you to serve. I do nto know why this is, but I also do not see feminists protesting this completely sexist law.
1) Google's management decide to have a quota on how many men and women are supposed to work there.
2) There is an open position. Two people apply for it - a man (more qualified) and a woman (less qualified).
3) The woman is hired because currently there are too few women working for the company.
This, to me, looks like the opposite of "no discrimination based on sex" or "equal opportunities".
that somehow his male brain gives him at least a statistical edge over them?
Actually, no. What he wrote was not that men on average are better at tech than women, but that it may be due to biological differences that more men are interested in tech and choose it as their career.
If that is true, then it may be bad for the company to force arbitrary quotas (I personally love how "equal rights and equal opportunities" to some mean that they have to choose who to hire based on their gender because the company has too few women in it) since they may have to choose not to hire a better qualified candidate based solely on their gender.
I do see few women builders or repairing roads or lorry drivers or security. It may be in part due to biological differences that a women is less likely to want to be a lorry driver or a programmer. But I also see more women cashiers for example (or rather, it is rare to see a man cashier in a supermarket, but it is the opposite for an electronics part store). So, I guess men would rather do something else than be cashiers.
I'd think that jamming the frequency would be difficult since the transmitters are most likely many kW in power and if it is a component of the Dead Hand then the receiver is in Russia. I would also assume that the frequency is closely monitored and if you try to jam it, you get a visit from the FSB. It is also probably not the only trigger (random faults also happen, you wouldn't want to have nuclear war if the transmitter fails at the wrong time), but part of it.
Centos6 (supported until 2020) does not support TLSv1.2 for its php-curl (command line curl works with TLSv1.2 IIRC).
I agree that it's an opt-in. All you need to do is continue using the old version and upgrade only when your logs show two consecutive months with no visits from users using browsers that do not support TLSv1.2.
Chrome has it, use the command line parameter --ignore-certificate-errors
But be careful, this will ignore ssl errors for all sites - it will still display the red "https" in the address bar, but it will not display the error.
That is true, but I think that there is quite a lot of empty space left there that could be used for this purpose.
When a discussion about genetically modified food comes up, I always say that the technology itself is great, but also, the management and some stock holders of Monsanto need to get a one way ticket to Siberia.
So, I guess paying them for sitting on their ass all day and drinking alcohol is much better for the society. Got it.
*EVERY* technology obsoletes some job that used to be done by human beings.
Yes. However, for most of history, the "obsolete" people could easily find another job they could do and earn money.
Nobody needs bows anymore? OK, you are good at woodwork, here, make stocks for rifles.
A new textile mill opened and nobody is buying your home-produced cloth? Go work at that factory, now that cloth is cheaper, more people want it and the factory can barely keep up with demand.
Also, I hear that those new factories are burning huge amounts of coal - if there is a coal mine near you, it probably needs some more workers.
The new railroads need huge numbers of people to maintain and drive the trains, lay/maintain the track, control the signals etc.
All this manufacturing needs a lot of raw materials - iron, copper etc - maybe there is a mine near you?
See? In the past there were a lot of jobs for people with little to no formal education, so, if your particular product is now obsolete, you can easily find a similar job (probably making the alternative to your product).
However, today is a bit different. So the coal mine is closing down because there is not enough demand. OK, maybe you can find a job at a factory? The are all either automated or in China. Well, maybe a taxi driver? Self-driving cars.
Not every taxi driver or coal miner can be a programmer.
The difference today is that instead of requiring the "obsolete" people to do a bit different jobs (like it was in the past - less jobs in one place meant increased demand of people somewhere else), we offer no alternatives to them. Self driving cars do not need drivers, but they also do not need anything more than regular cars. In comparison, a old-time factory reduces the number of people required to produce a certain amount of product, but increases the need of coal for its steam engines, requiring more coal miners to keep up with demand.
If you're for job for the sake of jobs, then you should pay people for digging holes, and a second set of people for filling them in.
There are quite a few unemployed people in my country - they get welfare, buy alcohol and drink it. I would prefer if the government, instead of paying them welfare for nothing, made them dig holes and fill them back in for that money. Yes, the job is useless, however, the person then would have less time for alcohol (and if you show up drunk, you don't get paid for that day). Also, this way the person would get used to actually working (instead of drinking all day) and maybe one day would choose a better paying (and actually useful) job.
It was similar in the USSR - there were no welfare payments for healthy people, but everyone was provided with a job (I think it was even illegal to be unemployed).
https://www.vox.com/policy-and...
CNN also provided a statement to me in its defense: âoeCNN decided not to publish the name of the Reddit user out of concern for his safety...."
And the way you changed my example, in my opinion, that is still blackmail. "Him no longer seeing that girl" may be as valuable to you as some amount of money and you get that value by threatening somebody with an action, that, while legal on its own, would cause damage to him. For all I know, you want to see that girl yourself and the pictures are just a way to make your competition go away. So, in my opinion, demanding that he stop seeing the girl (or stopped posting pro-Trump messages) is the same as demanding money or services.
The way I see it, this is wrong whether the initial action is legal or not. If you saw somebody commit a crime, you have to report it to the authorities (or not, if you consider the law to be wrong), not blackmail him. If what you saw was legal, then it is none of your business and using evidence of it to extract money, services or anything of value to you and him (including stopping some action) is wrong. After all, otherwise where would the line be? Stop posting pro-Trump videos? Stop driving an inefficient car? Stop owning a gun?
I also wonder if CNN would have done the same, if the Reddit user had made an anti-Trump video or used Fox News logo instead of CNN logo.
"Hi, I have pictures that prove you have a "girl on the side", do you want me to show them to your wife? No? OK, then please stop writing or saying anything negative about Russia or your wife will receive the pictures."
Demanding not to do (or stop doing) something is the same as demanding to do something.
CNN acknowledged that identifying the guy may put him in danger (or rather said that they did not identify him because he apologized and out of concern for his safety). Then saying that they may still choose to identify him if he behaves in a way that CNN does not like. So, they pretty much threatened him with bodily and/or financial harm if he stops being sorry or misbehaves.
All because he put a CNN logo on a pro wrestling video.
Then again, maybe CNN really liked that video so much that they wanted more videos like it. In that case, they succeeded.
This does fit the definition of blackmail.
"We have some information about you and it would bad for you if we published it, so do as we say or we will publish it"
It's the same as, say, taking a photo of somebody with a girlfriend and then asking him for money for not showing the photo to his wife.
When somebody needs something urgently (say, a production server went down) outside office hours, they have to call me (or my co-worker), because I will not check work email when not working. I may not even be at home (in which case I will try to get internet access or call a co-worker who is hopefully closer to a PC than I am).
I had a conversation once with a client who had a habit of notifying about urgent problems over skype (during office hours). That worked relatively OK, until one day I was away from my office PC (doing work) for half a day and he called angry that I did not do anything about the problem he wrote about. I then explained to him that I am not always at my office PC and even when I am at my office PC I may not notice the Skype message for some time. So, if he had an urgent problem, he should call.
Occasionally you do get a situation where your work is stalled until you get an answer from someone else - those warrant a phone call.
This happens to me a lot. Or rather I am on the receiving end of the phonecalls. Let's say internet conenction stopped working for some client of an ISP. The lower level worker went there, checked the cables etc and found no problems. He has to call me to check the system and would not want to wait an hour until I checked my email (at least if I or my co-worker cannot help him right away, he knows that and can go to another client at the time).
Or some important server goes down.
I would rather receive a phonecall that interrupts me when somebody urgently needs my help than have to interrupt myself to check my email more than a few times per day.