That's interesting and somewhat explains the apparently provocative stance of the US. If they can provoke NK into acting, then the US can do something and China (supposedly) won't back NK.
I actually work at a factory (doing automation). There are some interesting facts I've noticed. We have a lot of manual laborers, but of all the people in the company, they're paid the least and they work the *least* overtime. In fact, overtime percentage seems to correlate highly with base pay rate, so if someone is a skilled trade and makes $30 an hour, they're asked to work a lot more overtime than someone making $15 per hour as a laborer. Yet it's the laborer that mostly wants overtime, because they make so little money. The company doesn't want to do it because (a) their pay is directly related to product cost and they need to keep direct labor rate low, and (b) they get paid less because they don't bring much value to the table. Sure, there's more jobs for skilled trades when you bring in automation, but all of these laborers eat lunch in the same room as the skilled trades, and they know that they could go to a community college for 2 years (and we're in Canada where education doesn't cost as much as in the US), then do an apprenticeship for 2 years, and they'd be making double what they make now, and hardly anyone's doing it. We're constantly complaining that we can't find enough skilled trades, and we're complaining that the laborers need so much hand-holding to do even the simplest tasks. So the idea that these laborers could go do something else when they're replaced by robots... I just don't buy it. Unskilled laborers working on farms went to work unskilled labor jobs in factories making cars. A guy shoeing horses knew a skilled trade, so they could probably do another job. If you get rid of all the unskilled labor jobs everywhere, what are those people going to do?
Usually the only companies installing industrial robots are ones that are expanding, and an expanding company will rarely lay-off workers when they install automation because they always have something else for the employee to do. Of course an expanding company installing automation will likely be more efficient than an established company, so it's that other established competitor that eventually downsizes and cuts jobs. So you rarely see robots directly replace people. It happens in aggregate across industries and across the economy as a whole.
I realize the SSC is used as a primary key, but if you think about it, to do their job, they could have just stored a salted hash of the social security number along with a plain text full name and address. To find someone, you lookup anyone with a similar name in the database (maybe filtering by address, etc.) and then you take the given social security number and compute the hash for the maybe at most a dozen results until you find the one that matches. Now you still have the ability to uniquely find a record by a social security number, but you never need to store the actual social security number for hackers to steal.
As someone who deals with "processes" at work a lot, if I had a choice between getting *everybody* who does laundry to start using these bags, or implementing a solution at the wastewater treatment level and the dryer-exhaust-filter level, I think it's a no-brainer. I would never try to change everyone's behavior if I can implement a systemic change instead.
In March I installed one of these undersink filters which is rated at 0.3 micron. That's a particularly good one unless you go with reverse osmosis. 0.3 micron will filter out bacteria, but not viruses. Obviously it will filter out these 10 micron plastic fibers too. So far the filter has lasted this long with no change. Even a more basic undersink filter will typically filter down to 5 microns.
The vast majority of worldwide solar is likely going to be concentrated solar in the world's deserts. Yes, there are a few beetles and scorpions that might have a few more shady places to rest during the day.
Let's say the study worked like this... you identified anti-vaxxers with a poll. You then tell them they're part of a study (you have to) and you give them pro-vaxx documents and then you give them another similar poll to test their attitudes. Chances are they can figure out what's going on. The very idea that someone is trying to figure out the best rhetoric to use to change your mind is going to make you skeptical of what they're saying.
Make magazine had an article about plastic welding by using 3D printer filament in a dremel or other rotary tool. Maybe that'll work for what you need?
This reminds me of the book Makers. In that book, near the beginning, Polaroid tries to reinvent itself through the "maker movement" and completely self-destructs. The "maker" thing is really the same thing as "open source" which is people sharing ideas with each other. As soon as you try to apply business philosophy to that, it's like trying to apply a business philosophy to the Apollo program. When you don't know what's out there, you just need exploration, not exploitation. Companies can't handle the risk involved - it's all too uncertain for a 4 year payback.
People in their own workshops and homes are doing some amazing stuff. Companies see this and think they need to get in on it, but the hobbyists aren't doing it to make money, and most of them don't have much money, so there isn't much money to be made.
When I was younger I made less money and didn't have a family so I had a lot more time to put into hobbies and stuff. I scrounged through spare parts bins and re-used whatever I could. I could spend hours price-comparing and trying to find components that were $2 instead of $3 to save a buck. But back then I was a real "maker". Now I have more money and a lot less time. I take on much simpler projects and I'm willing to spend money to get it done faster. I don't buy the $2 or the $3 component - I buy the $20 pre-assembled solution and plug it in. So I don't want to buy Intel's fancy Arduino because it doesn't really save me any time, and my old self wouldn't either because it's too expensive for what it does.
I do industrial automation. You're talking about non-automated machines like lathes, drill presses, band saws, and hand mills. Typically any machine that doesn't start automatically isn't covered by machine safeguarding regulation, particularly if it's used by a skilled worker, like someone with their tool & die maker's certificate. On the other hand, production presses, robot cells, assembly cells, and even a production mill need to have proper category 4 safeguards in place that would prevent someone from sticking their hand into rotating equipment. As a licensed engineer I'd be perfectly comfortable allowing computer, tablet, or google glass use around such a machine. These machines are intrinsically safe by design.
So, doable? Yeah, could be done. Cheap and easy? Not hardly.....
I think that's how I remember it... "Ask not what your country can do for you, because we only do what's cheap and easy." Must be the new American anthem.
There's some truth in this. In our organization, we get audited for ISO 900x compliance every year, and they have to go through all of our processes and validate that we're following our procedures, etc., but during that audit, if the answer is, "our ERP system does that / enforces that" then the auditor essentially goes, "ok, good" and moves on. The funny thing is that we have a custom-programmed ERP system that we're updating and changing all the time. The auditor certainly never audits our software development process or how we incorporate business processes into the ERP system. Apparently to him it's just "magic." However, people come to me (the ERP programmer) all the time with process problems, and I implement solutions directly in the ERP system to solve those problems, often only with the input of the person doing the job, because in many cases it's just obvious what should be done. I occasionally bring these decisions up to management, but most of the time they just defer to me anyway. So in many ways IT here (or at least the ERP development part) is just a branch of management. I find the whole thing rather silly.
I'm Canadian, and this is a great country to live in, but most of the people I've met overseas who are considering coming to Canada are only doing it because it's considered easier to migrate to Canada if you have a graduate degree, and then they're still looking to get into the United States, once they're in Canada. For some reason that I don't quite understand, the idea of just migrating to Canada because it's a great place to live doesn't occur to them. Of course there are lots of people who immigrate here and stay, so I assume they figure it out eventually.
The unfortunate thing is that the graduate degree doesn't get you hired in Canada. Most companies here don't care either way about the master's or Ph.D., but want to see experience and a demonstration of good problem solving. If you've spent your life in school getting the graduate degree so you can migrate to Canada, you'll find that nobody will hire you because they're looking for an undergrad degree plus experience, not more academic credentials.
Yes, I know Tesla is kind of a startup, but auto plants can be rough places in general. There's certainly no political correctness going on in the ones I've been in. Companies need to crack down on harassment, but singling out Tesla is hardly fair.
If there is a demand for actual 2" x 4", how would you label them? 2.5" x 4.5"?
The only people who would want such a thing are people remodeling very old houses, and those people would go and pay extra to buy a "rough cut 2x4". Every single industry out there has details. Sometimes weird little details, and confusing nomenclature. Yeah, it sucks, but it's pragmatic. Why do we teach all little kids not to stick their fingers (or forks) in a toaster when we could just sell toasters you can't electrocute yourself with? Some stuff gets "grandfathered" in. A person who wants to take on a DIY project and goes to the store and doesn't realize that a 2x4 is 1.5x3.5 inches has way more to learn than just that fact. You have to learn stuff. That's why we have books and YouTube videos and seminars at Home Depot, and even a whole army of people walking around Home Depot in orange aprons who, at the very least, can help novices choose what they need to buy. A person who doesn't know this fact hasn't done any minimal amount of research, but even so, if the buy it, take it home, and realize it's wrong, then guess what... Home Depot will refund your purchase! Besides, a 2x4 is what... $1.57 or so?
It is, and it's obvious the lawsuit will fail. Most judges probably know that a 2x4 is 1.5x3.5. Next someone will sue because the sweater they bought doesn't sweat.
We were just talking about how guys taking and their feelings was considered weak. The idea that men should always be stoic and never show weakness is an example of toxic ideas about masculinity.
Only some people hold that idea (I only gave an example of one person, which is only an anecdote). I was trying to give an example of where expressing an emotion is considered inappropriate, and backfired on the person doing the expressing. I am free to express my emotions or not (unless I express anger by hurting people, of course). The fact that a majority of people would rather I not express them is a preference they're allowed to have. People also want me to wear a shirt in public, even though I'm perfectly free to walk down the street bare-chested. Is the shirt rule an example of toxic masculinity, or is it a social norm? What's the difference? If the men-don't-express-emotions social norm is toxic, then why don't we call them all "toxic social norms" and include toxic norms independently of gender?
The fact is, by using the term "toxic masculinity" people feel good because they can point to men and say there's something wrong with them, not us. Clearly there's something wrong with masculinity, not our social norms. It's no different than saying "the fairer sex," or "the model minority." It's all based on stereotypes that we need to step away from.
Accepting that some group might be statistically more likely to be a certain way, or do certain things, or think certain ways, and yet treating each individual in a way that doesn't automatically apply those stereotypes to your expectations the moment you meet them is really hard. It takes practice. Using terms like "toxic masculinity" is just letting yourself subconsciously give in to stereotypes.
And as for toxic masculinity... Yeah, some traits commonly associated with males are toxic, that's well understood.
I just don't get that, or maybe I'm not familiar with these toxic things that "they" commonly associate with males. I'm a male. I spend pretty much all my time trying to do stuff that I believe is productive: go to work, do something useful to get paid, try to provide an enriching and educational upbringing for my kids, along with a safe, healthy and happy home environment, including trying to set an example of a strong but balanced work ethic. When I'm home I'm fixing stuff around the house, loading and unloading the dishwasher, folding clothes, vacuuming, or playing checkers (or Kerbal Space Program) with my kids. This is literally 95% of what I do. Then I watch like one half-hour show on Netflix and go to bed. People around me seem to think I'm a "typical man," so what gives? How is this toxic? The whole concept is nothing but insulting to men.
That kind of thing is why I'm a feminist. Patriarchy and toxic masculinity.
I think you're right. It is an example of toxic masculinity, as defined. Ironically the term "toxic masculinity" is an example of itself. It implies that there's something different and negative about typical traits associated with males. For that matter, so is "feminism" since that implies equality (which is good) is feminine. Nobody's going to agree as long as we use loaded terms like that.
Putting all that aside, I intended that case as an example of hypocrisy. I prefer "be how you want to be, but don't hurt anyone, and respect others for being how they want to be." Gender doesn't need to be considered. Even if most women want men who are emotionally restrained, it's still my choice how to be. People are allowed to have unfair views, illogical desires, and unreasonable wishes. I'm allowed to deal with my emotions privately, people are allowed to be hypocrites, and I'm allowed to point it out.:)
I buy that he might know how to save money constructing a wall, but I'm not certain this knowledge translates well into the technology domain. Government I.T. jobs are notorious for going over budget.
Slashdot Mirror
That's interesting and somewhat explains the apparently provocative stance of the US. If they can provoke NK into acting, then the US can do something and China (supposedly) won't back NK.
I actually work at a factory (doing automation). There are some interesting facts I've noticed. We have a lot of manual laborers, but of all the people in the company, they're paid the least and they work the *least* overtime. In fact, overtime percentage seems to correlate highly with base pay rate, so if someone is a skilled trade and makes $30 an hour, they're asked to work a lot more overtime than someone making $15 per hour as a laborer. Yet it's the laborer that mostly wants overtime, because they make so little money. The company doesn't want to do it because (a) their pay is directly related to product cost and they need to keep direct labor rate low, and (b) they get paid less because they don't bring much value to the table. Sure, there's more jobs for skilled trades when you bring in automation, but all of these laborers eat lunch in the same room as the skilled trades, and they know that they could go to a community college for 2 years (and we're in Canada where education doesn't cost as much as in the US), then do an apprenticeship for 2 years, and they'd be making double what they make now, and hardly anyone's doing it. We're constantly complaining that we can't find enough skilled trades, and we're complaining that the laborers need so much hand-holding to do even the simplest tasks. So the idea that these laborers could go do something else when they're replaced by robots... I just don't buy it. Unskilled laborers working on farms went to work unskilled labor jobs in factories making cars. A guy shoeing horses knew a skilled trade, so they could probably do another job. If you get rid of all the unskilled labor jobs everywhere, what are those people going to do?
Usually the only companies installing industrial robots are ones that are expanding, and an expanding company will rarely lay-off workers when they install automation because they always have something else for the employee to do. Of course an expanding company installing automation will likely be more efficient than an established company, so it's that other established competitor that eventually downsizes and cuts jobs. So you rarely see robots directly replace people. It happens in aggregate across industries and across the economy as a whole.
...which is why you salt it...
I realize the SSC is used as a primary key, but if you think about it, to do their job, they could have just stored a salted hash of the social security number along with a plain text full name and address. To find someone, you lookup anyone with a similar name in the database (maybe filtering by address, etc.) and then you take the given social security number and compute the hash for the maybe at most a dozen results until you find the one that matches. Now you still have the ability to uniquely find a record by a social security number, but you never need to store the actual social security number for hackers to steal.
As someone who deals with "processes" at work a lot, if I had a choice between getting *everybody* who does laundry to start using these bags, or implementing a solution at the wastewater treatment level and the dryer-exhaust-filter level, I think it's a no-brainer. I would never try to change everyone's behavior if I can implement a systemic change instead.
In March I installed one of these undersink filters which is rated at 0.3 micron. That's a particularly good one unless you go with reverse osmosis. 0.3 micron will filter out bacteria, but not viruses. Obviously it will filter out these 10 micron plastic fibers too. So far the filter has lasted this long with no change. Even a more basic undersink filter will typically filter down to 5 microns.
If you're using your phone at work for personal use, you're doing it on your company's dime too, particularly if you're paid hourly.
The vast majority of worldwide solar is likely going to be concentrated solar in the world's deserts. Yes, there are a few beetles and scorpions that might have a few more shady places to rest during the day.
Let's say the study worked like this... you identified anti-vaxxers with a poll. You then tell them they're part of a study (you have to) and you give them pro-vaxx documents and then you give them another similar poll to test their attitudes. Chances are they can figure out what's going on. The very idea that someone is trying to figure out the best rhetoric to use to change your mind is going to make you skeptical of what they're saying.
Make magazine had an article about plastic welding by using 3D printer filament in a dremel or other rotary tool. Maybe that'll work for what you need?
This reminds me of the book Makers. In that book, near the beginning, Polaroid tries to reinvent itself through the "maker movement" and completely self-destructs. The "maker" thing is really the same thing as "open source" which is people sharing ideas with each other. As soon as you try to apply business philosophy to that, it's like trying to apply a business philosophy to the Apollo program. When you don't know what's out there, you just need exploration, not exploitation. Companies can't handle the risk involved - it's all too uncertain for a 4 year payback.
People in their own workshops and homes are doing some amazing stuff. Companies see this and think they need to get in on it, but the hobbyists aren't doing it to make money, and most of them don't have much money, so there isn't much money to be made.
When I was younger I made less money and didn't have a family so I had a lot more time to put into hobbies and stuff. I scrounged through spare parts bins and re-used whatever I could. I could spend hours price-comparing and trying to find components that were $2 instead of $3 to save a buck. But back then I was a real "maker". Now I have more money and a lot less time. I take on much simpler projects and I'm willing to spend money to get it done faster. I don't buy the $2 or the $3 component - I buy the $20 pre-assembled solution and plug it in. So I don't want to buy Intel's fancy Arduino because it doesn't really save me any time, and my old self wouldn't either because it's too expensive for what it does.
I do industrial automation. You're talking about non-automated machines like lathes, drill presses, band saws, and hand mills. Typically any machine that doesn't start automatically isn't covered by machine safeguarding regulation, particularly if it's used by a skilled worker, like someone with their tool & die maker's certificate. On the other hand, production presses, robot cells, assembly cells, and even a production mill need to have proper category 4 safeguards in place that would prevent someone from sticking their hand into rotating equipment. As a licensed engineer I'd be perfectly comfortable allowing computer, tablet, or google glass use around such a machine. These machines are intrinsically safe by design.
So, doable? Yeah, could be done. Cheap and easy? Not hardly.....
I think that's how I remember it... "Ask not what your country can do for you, because we only do what's cheap and easy." Must be the new American anthem.
There's some truth in this. In our organization, we get audited for ISO 900x compliance every year, and they have to go through all of our processes and validate that we're following our procedures, etc., but during that audit, if the answer is, "our ERP system does that / enforces that" then the auditor essentially goes, "ok, good" and moves on. The funny thing is that we have a custom-programmed ERP system that we're updating and changing all the time. The auditor certainly never audits our software development process or how we incorporate business processes into the ERP system. Apparently to him it's just "magic." However, people come to me (the ERP programmer) all the time with process problems, and I implement solutions directly in the ERP system to solve those problems, often only with the input of the person doing the job, because in many cases it's just obvious what should be done. I occasionally bring these decisions up to management, but most of the time they just defer to me anyway. So in many ways IT here (or at least the ERP development part) is just a branch of management. I find the whole thing rather silly.
Or, just tell the Vietnamese that moon dust cures cancer.
I'm Canadian, and this is a great country to live in, but most of the people I've met overseas who are considering coming to Canada are only doing it because it's considered easier to migrate to Canada if you have a graduate degree, and then they're still looking to get into the United States, once they're in Canada. For some reason that I don't quite understand, the idea of just migrating to Canada because it's a great place to live doesn't occur to them. Of course there are lots of people who immigrate here and stay, so I assume they figure it out eventually.
The unfortunate thing is that the graduate degree doesn't get you hired in Canada. Most companies here don't care either way about the master's or Ph.D., but want to see experience and a demonstration of good problem solving. If you've spent your life in school getting the graduate degree so you can migrate to Canada, you'll find that nobody will hire you because they're looking for an undergrad degree plus experience, not more academic credentials.
Yes, I know Tesla is kind of a startup, but auto plants can be rough places in general. There's certainly no political correctness going on in the ones I've been in. Companies need to crack down on harassment, but singling out Tesla is hardly fair.
If there is a demand for actual 2" x 4", how would you label them? 2.5" x 4.5"?
The only people who would want such a thing are people remodeling very old houses, and those people would go and pay extra to buy a "rough cut 2x4". Every single industry out there has details. Sometimes weird little details, and confusing nomenclature. Yeah, it sucks, but it's pragmatic. Why do we teach all little kids not to stick their fingers (or forks) in a toaster when we could just sell toasters you can't electrocute yourself with? Some stuff gets "grandfathered" in. A person who wants to take on a DIY project and goes to the store and doesn't realize that a 2x4 is 1.5x3.5 inches has way more to learn than just that fact. You have to learn stuff. That's why we have books and YouTube videos and seminars at Home Depot, and even a whole army of people walking around Home Depot in orange aprons who, at the very least, can help novices choose what they need to buy. A person who doesn't know this fact hasn't done any minimal amount of research, but even so, if the buy it, take it home, and realize it's wrong, then guess what... Home Depot will refund your purchase! Besides, a 2x4 is what... $1.57 or so?
Ontario has a $15 minimum wage coming in. Last time I was at Starbucks, all the employees were panicking they're going to lose their jobs.
Good riddance. It's not like they're anything more than a glorified Keurig, and most of them probably have university degrees.
It is, and it's obvious the lawsuit will fail. Most judges probably know that a 2x4 is 1.5x3.5. Next someone will sue because the sweater they bought doesn't sweat.
We were just talking about how guys taking and their feelings was considered weak. The idea that men should always be stoic and never show weakness is an example of toxic ideas about masculinity.
Only some people hold that idea (I only gave an example of one person, which is only an anecdote). I was trying to give an example of where expressing an emotion is considered inappropriate, and backfired on the person doing the expressing. I am free to express my emotions or not (unless I express anger by hurting people, of course). The fact that a majority of people would rather I not express them is a preference they're allowed to have. People also want me to wear a shirt in public, even though I'm perfectly free to walk down the street bare-chested. Is the shirt rule an example of toxic masculinity, or is it a social norm? What's the difference? If the men-don't-express-emotions social norm is toxic, then why don't we call them all "toxic social norms" and include toxic norms independently of gender?
The fact is, by using the term "toxic masculinity" people feel good because they can point to men and say there's something wrong with them, not us. Clearly there's something wrong with masculinity, not our social norms. It's no different than saying "the fairer sex," or "the model minority." It's all based on stereotypes that we need to step away from.
Accepting that some group might be statistically more likely to be a certain way, or do certain things, or think certain ways, and yet treating each individual in a way that doesn't automatically apply those stereotypes to your expectations the moment you meet them is really hard. It takes practice. Using terms like "toxic masculinity" is just letting yourself subconsciously give in to stereotypes.
And as for toxic masculinity... Yeah, some traits commonly associated with males are toxic, that's well understood.
I just don't get that, or maybe I'm not familiar with these toxic things that "they" commonly associate with males. I'm a male. I spend pretty much all my time trying to do stuff that I believe is productive: go to work, do something useful to get paid, try to provide an enriching and educational upbringing for my kids, along with a safe, healthy and happy home environment, including trying to set an example of a strong but balanced work ethic. When I'm home I'm fixing stuff around the house, loading and unloading the dishwasher, folding clothes, vacuuming, or playing checkers (or Kerbal Space Program) with my kids. This is literally 95% of what I do. Then I watch like one half-hour show on Netflix and go to bed. People around me seem to think I'm a "typical man," so what gives? How is this toxic? The whole concept is nothing but insulting to men.
That kind of thing is why I'm a feminist. Patriarchy and toxic masculinity.
I think you're right. It is an example of toxic masculinity, as defined. Ironically the term "toxic masculinity" is an example of itself. It implies that there's something different and negative about typical traits associated with males. For that matter, so is "feminism" since that implies equality (which is good) is feminine. Nobody's going to agree as long as we use loaded terms like that.
Putting all that aside, I intended that case as an example of hypocrisy. I prefer "be how you want to be, but don't hurt anyone, and respect others for being how they want to be." Gender doesn't need to be considered. Even if most women want men who are emotionally restrained, it's still my choice how to be. People are allowed to have unfair views, illogical desires, and unreasonable wishes. I'm allowed to deal with my emotions privately, people are allowed to be hypocrites, and I'm allowed to point it out. :)
I buy that he might know how to save money constructing a wall, but I'm not certain this knowledge translates well into the technology domain. Government I.T. jobs are notorious for going over budget.