The kicker was it was after 4pm, and it would take about 2 hours to get there. He didn't want to hold the two people after 6pm to wait for me. So rather than flatly refusing I was curt with him and told him that "since I can't get there in less than 2 hours, and you won't wait. then I won't be able to come in today."
The mistake I think that you made here was trying to reason with someone who was clearly being unreasonable.
I don't blame you for a second here... but in my experience the best thing to do with such people is to get them to realize what needs to happen on their own instead of telling them something that they don't want to hear... that way, they can't blame you for being disrespectful. In this particular case, having already said he wasn't willing to wait two hours, I would ask him what he would like me to do. In fact, there are only two reasonable answers to this question, but it would again be important to allow him to realize that on his own. The possible answers are to 1) change his mind about waiting, and wait for me to get there, or 2) let me deal with it on monday. I would *NOT* present those options as any kind of multiple choice scenario, lest it be perceived that I was trying to limit his choices only to what is amenable to myself (despite the obvious fact that they are the only possible choices, because as I said, you can't reason with an unreasonable person). If he repeated that he wanted me there in 15 minutes, I'd tell him geographically where I was so that it could sink in about the infeasability of the request, and again ask him what he wanted me to do.
If he were to just go on about how I shouldn't have broken the build, let alone left town right afterwards, then I'd tell him that certainly wasn't any kind of intention of mine, and that I'm sorry if I did anything wrong. I'd repeat that I was out of town now, however... and ask him again what he wanted me to do.
If he turned the question around and instead asked me what I was going to do about it, I would tell him that I didn't have any solution that could get me there in less than a couple of hours.
Eventually, he'd either have to concede to wait a few hours for me to get there, or else he'd have to wait until Monday... unless he was willing to fire me right there over the phone.
Kinda off topic, btw... but I recognize your username from efnet's #c channel on irc from at least a decade or so ago. Small world.
One could argue that it is not reasonable to assume that such an event would *NOT* happen, given that every time in history automation has removed jobs, the result has been an overall higher standard of living for most people.
True... but as I said, my point was not to be a grammar nazi on the matter. With an error such as what you've pointed out, the meaning is still clear, despite not being correct. I was genuinely confused about the meaning of the sentence I quoted above, however... unsure if it was a typo or what.
That sentence I quoted has two present tense predicates, and it is unclear how a sentence of the form "X is Y, is Z" is supposed to mean anything. Are they saying that X is both Y and Z, are they saying X is Y and Y is Z (and thus X is Z by transitive property), or are they saying X is Y, and then amending Y to Z by repeating the predicate? Or do they mean something else entirely? It's entirely unclear.
I've been in similar situations at work.... in my experience, it's better to just pretend like you want to help people that you have no ability to (or interest in) than it is to just flatly refuse.
Had I been in that situation, I would said that because I was out of town, there was no way for me to get in to work right now, but I'd tell them in the most assuring voice I could muster that I'd look into the matter on Monday.
At the very least, if people believe that you want to help them but have no ability to, they are more willing to be forgiving of things that they think are your fault.
As I said... our inability to answer such questions more reflects a lack of imagination than it likely reflects that there is no answer that will eventually, in retrospect, seem obvious.
That's one hypothesis.... but thinking that there won't be new types of jobs in the future that can offset the lack of many jobs we do today is more attributable to a lack of imagination on our part than it reflects the idea that it might be a particularly likely outcome.
How about $100 for the first offence, and it doubles with each offence occurring within 24 hours of the last one, otherwise it stays the same. If a whole week goes by without incident, then it starts to reduce by 50% for each week there is no incident to a minimum of $100.
ain't no company in the world that could afford to leave that unchecked when its happening multiple times every day.
More likely what is holding them back is the lack of any widely used alternative that does everything that people would have expected from Facebook without having to use multiple services.
It describes to a person who can understand it how, at least theoretically, something works or is supposed to work, but does not itself offer any useful function or purpose beyond educating a person with a sufficient understanding of relevant source material on how whatever is described by it might be built. It's actually just a description of how the thing would work *IF* you actually built it.
It's worth noting, also, that electronic schematics are not ordinarily even considered to be copyrightable by themselves. There can be trademarks used in the schematic, or copyrighted content in it preventing wholesale copying. You can also patent whatever thing it is a schematic for, or you can keep your schematics a trade secret entirely to protect them, but if you publish a schematic there is *NOTHING* that you can legally do to stop someone else from copying that schematic and using it in something of their own design unless they have *OTHERWISE* infringed on your intellectual property (in which case it is not the copying of the schematic that is the problem, rather it is the other infringement that is actually an issue).
I think that it just means that much more effort should be spent on trying to find the underlying cause of such bugs rather than that the whole premise of self-driving automobiles is a bad one.
In principle, self driving cars could drastically cut down on vehicle accidents simply because of their faster reaction time alone.
Your point is well made, although with lives on the line, the stakes are a bit higher than just being annoying or inconvenient or even economically costly.
Slashdot Mirror
The effort required to do so.
It happens to be a whole lot easier to trick machines than people.
What is your scientifically valid basis for believing that AI will somehow be any different for society than any other prior form of automation?
Without that, there's no sustainable reason to think that such a conjecture is particularly likely.
You could chalk it up to fear of the unknown, but that's no reason to ascribe that the outcome is actually somehow probable.
Sun Probe
I loved that show when I was a kid.
That expression is ironic, considering outside of the USA, it is not anywhere nearly as accepted as Visa and MC.
Some percentage of them, yes... but then some percentage of workers get screwed whenever minimum wage rises as well.
It is, historically, a minority of those workers.
That's not to say that these people are unimportant, but the long term benefits still outweigh it.
The mistake I think that you made here was trying to reason with someone who was clearly being unreasonable.
I don't blame you for a second here... but in my experience the best thing to do with such people is to get them to realize what needs to happen on their own instead of telling them something that they don't want to hear... that way, they can't blame you for being disrespectful. In this particular case, having already said he wasn't willing to wait two hours, I would ask him what he would like me to do. In fact, there are only two reasonable answers to this question, but it would again be important to allow him to realize that on his own. The possible answers are to 1) change his mind about waiting, and wait for me to get there, or 2) let me deal with it on monday. I would *NOT* present those options as any kind of multiple choice scenario, lest it be perceived that I was trying to limit his choices only to what is amenable to myself (despite the obvious fact that they are the only possible choices, because as I said, you can't reason with an unreasonable person). If he repeated that he wanted me there in 15 minutes, I'd tell him geographically where I was so that it could sink in about the infeasability of the request, and again ask him what he wanted me to do.
If he were to just go on about how I shouldn't have broken the build, let alone left town right afterwards, then I'd tell him that certainly wasn't any kind of intention of mine, and that I'm sorry if I did anything wrong. I'd repeat that I was out of town now, however... and ask him again what he wanted me to do.
If he turned the question around and instead asked me what I was going to do about it, I would tell him that I didn't have any solution that could get me there in less than a couple of hours.
Eventually, he'd either have to concede to wait a few hours for me to get there, or else he'd have to wait until Monday... unless he was willing to fire me right there over the phone.
Kinda off topic, btw... but I recognize your username from efnet's #c channel on irc from at least a decade or so ago. Small world.
One could argue that it is not reasonable to assume that such an event would *NOT* happen, given that every time in history automation has removed jobs, the result has been an overall higher standard of living for most people.
True... but as I said, my point was not to be a grammar nazi on the matter. With an error such as what you've pointed out, the meaning is still clear, despite not being correct. I was genuinely confused about the meaning of the sentence I quoted above, however... unsure if it was a typo or what.
Ooooh.... yup. I missed that completely. My bad. :)
Thank you... that makes sense. The sentence I quoted above didn't, however.
How... unhelpful.
That sentence I quoted has two present tense predicates, and it is unclear how a sentence of the form "X is Y, is Z" is supposed to mean anything. Are they saying that X is both Y and Z, are they saying X is Y and Y is Z (and thus X is Z by transitive property), or are they saying X is Y, and then amending Y to Z by repeating the predicate? Or do they mean something else entirely? It's entirely unclear.
"I think the best regulation is no regulation, is self-regulation"
Is this a typo or something? Because that sentence does not make any sense to me, and I can't even figure out what he was meaning to say.
I've been in similar situations at work.... in my experience, it's better to just pretend like you want to help people that you have no ability to (or interest in) than it is to just flatly refuse.
Had I been in that situation, I would said that because I was out of town, there was no way for me to get in to work right now, but I'd tell them in the most assuring voice I could muster that I'd look into the matter on Monday.
At the very least, if people believe that you want to help them but have no ability to, they are more willing to be forgiving of things that they think are your fault.
As I said... our inability to answer such questions more reflects a lack of imagination than it likely reflects that there is no answer that will eventually, in retrospect, seem obvious.
That's one hypothesis.... but thinking that there won't be new types of jobs in the future that can offset the lack of many jobs we do today is more attributable to a lack of imagination on our part than it reflects the idea that it might be a particularly likely outcome.
I'd say this is still part of its 'embrace' phase. I think we'll start to see the 'extend' phase happening before the end of 2019.
How about $100 for the first offence, and it doubles with each offence occurring within 24 hours of the last one, otherwise it stays the same. If a whole week goes by without incident, then it starts to reduce by 50% for each week there is no incident to a minimum of $100.
ain't no company in the world that could afford to leave that unchecked when its happening multiple times every day.
When did I suggest that it was anything other than what people might want?
Lots of people want stuff they don't need. That doesn't make them stupid, it just means they want stuff they don't need.
You didn't need to post any of what you said... but you did. Does that make you stupid for doing so?
More likely what is holding them back is the lack of any widely used alternative that does everything that people would have expected from Facebook without having to use multiple services.
What difference does that make? You'll spend more on electricity trying to mine them than what bitcoin is worth.... it's been that way for years.
It doesn't matter how "sure" you are,,, when you are that broke, you don't spend your money on stupid shit because you *will* be homeless otherwise.
It describes to a person who can understand it how, at least theoretically, something works or is supposed to work, but does not itself offer any useful function or purpose beyond educating a person with a sufficient understanding of relevant source material on how whatever is described by it might be built. It's actually just a description of how the thing would work *IF* you actually built it.
It's worth noting, also, that electronic schematics are not ordinarily even considered to be copyrightable by themselves. There can be trademarks used in the schematic, or copyrighted content in it preventing wholesale copying. You can also patent whatever thing it is a schematic for, or you can keep your schematics a trade secret entirely to protect them, but if you publish a schematic there is *NOTHING* that you can legally do to stop someone else from copying that schematic and using it in something of their own design unless they have *OTHERWISE* infringed on your intellectual property (in which case it is not the copying of the schematic that is the problem, rather it is the other infringement that is actually an issue).
In principle, self driving cars could drastically cut down on vehicle accidents simply because of their faster reaction time alone.
Your point is well made, although with lives on the line, the stakes are a bit higher than just being annoying or inconvenient or even economically costly.
What the fuck kind of nonsense is that?
Either it needs to continue, or it needs to be suspended.
Or are they saying that the work exists in some kind of superposition of both states simultaneously?