like in VLC every Christmas time the cone gets a Santa hat
Then when a subsequent maintainer comes along finds the Santa hat graphic, and since it is not in the specs, removes it causing the software to crash the next Xmas there is a problem.
Not if it's programmed properly. Easter Eggs are no excuse for sloppy coding.
If you can get your work done and still have time to "goof off" like this then obviously you could do more work.
That's how a small minded manager would see it for sure. Personally, I do Easter Eggs when a piece of code is just not working and it's starting to get me frustrated - I don't want to lose my momentum/coding mindset so I work on something fun for a bit then come back and work the problem. Better than losing the rest of the day being unproductive due to being frustrated. My favourite is adding a hidden to webpages that does something innocuous. Gotta love the hilarity that is "The Net" https://youtu.be/46qKHq7REI4?t...
Or you could look at it as your employees doing self-training, stress management, staying "productive" while stepping back from a problem set of code, or trying to add value to a product by making small additions. Full blown flight sim is overboard I grant you, but simple things like in VLC every Christmas time the cone gets a Santa hat - it's a nice touch that shows they're thinking about the end user... not every easter egg adds value and some are unprofessional but there should always be room for some expression beyond the bare bones function.
There will be a million different right answers to this question. The problem is that the question is addressing the wrong crowd. Ask the people who work for you/with you what they want, what they find important. Stop guessing/asking strangers and just get to know people.
Classic business theory suggests you should have 3 levels. People doing the work, the people taking care of the day to day management/drama, the decision makers. Communication will flow through a system like that but the moment you add a 4th level it all goes to hell.
I think the intended take away was that people who rely on the internet as an external source of information over estimate their own knowledge even when that resource is unavailable to them regardless of how intelligent they are.
That's a completely different set of skills though. That relates to the individuals ability to retain information and regurgitate it. I had comprehensive testing done on myself and in most natural intelligence areas I was 97th/98th percentile but I can't read a paragraph from a book and regurgitate the information immediately. Take that identical test and make it a picture in a book instead of words and I can tell you almost every detail.
Modern understanding of intelligence, various difference in auditory and visual processing and recall are far more nuanced than this study would suggest. The controls on the individuals taking the test are non-existent. It's junk science based on outdated concepts imo.
Define "smarter". Natural intelligence + easily accessible and disposable facts does not make one more or less intelligent. The problem is the old school definition of intelligence was tested through the ability to recount facts. It was not a reliable indicator of the level of intelligence of an individual. Whether gathered from a book or a search, facts are not always useful without the ability to understand, interpret, and deduce what is not represented by the facts.
There's a simple reason for the low pass rate in online courses: they're pathetic. They're all canned courses you can find the answer sheets to online in a single Google search. They have the intelligence of a 6th grade class and it's seriously insulting that they're asking you to do this stuff at a college level. They also took away one of their best features which was the ability to work at your own pace - now they drag them out over months restricting your access to assignments and encouraging loss of interest.
Again, in what way does video aid in any of that? They have constant two way communication already. Private in public doctrine would still seem to apply.
Bathroom doors, especially inside the cabin, don't need to be something that is sturdy. The cabin door needs to prevent people from breaking in, a bathroom door can be something you can break through on a whim (jammed or not).
Root cause analysis is not just about laying blame, it's about finding out where the processes/procedures broke down and how they can be improved to prevent a similar incident in the future.
Sure, but this is not a case where video would help that in any way. A captain's privy on the right side of the cockpit door would have helped, but not a camera.
Their level of knowledge is very inconsistent, some know some stuff but for the most part they're just CSRs like any other chain. Go in expecting to know the shit for yourself and only expect them to be able to locate the general area where you might find something. Beyond that, go to a non-chain store where they have to know the products for themselves.
Even if that half-assed attempt was true, it doesn't improve the safety - they'd still all be dead. It just gives us the ability to ogle and lay blame.
They're minimum wage employees for the most part, what do you expect? At least when they say something stupid you know it's out of ignorance. Future Shop (pre-and post bestbuy) they would lie to your face just to try get you to buy something you didn't need.
It was a great place to shop if you needed an extended warranty.
It was never a great place to shop, it was a pain trying to get them to honour said warranties, and Best Buy stores were infinitely more friendly/useful due to the non-commission status of employees.
I get that BRG feels that way. Considering the specifics of their claim it sounds like Facebook contacted them expecting something unique and novel, found it wasn't, and BRG being greedy and knowing it's the all mighty Facebook tried to gouge them and lost any hope of working together. Facebook went on and said, "lets just do what we do every day and build in a modular manner" (you know, like classes/methods in programming).
It's such an obvious and old concept that it's not even worth thinking about that much. Read 80s architecture magazines, modular was all the fad back then.
Wait a second. The Canadian government regulates how warm you heat your home?
Not exactly. They regulate the *minimum* the temperature an be during the winter months for rental units. Federally, it's 18C but then individual provinces/municipalities have different temperatures. Ontario is 20C I believe and Toronto is 21C.
Trust me, it's not. It was regulated because people were freezing to death due to lack of heat in their apartments. While it was a long time ago, most companies will set the temperature to the exact minimum they can get away with - if the regulations go down, so does the temperature.
Now they're considering regulating how hot it can get, especially in nursing homes, as the elderly are dying in poorly run facilities due to heat exhaustion.
Slashdot Mirror
like in VLC every Christmas time the cone gets a Santa hat
Then when a subsequent maintainer comes along finds the Santa hat graphic, and since it is not in the specs, removes it causing the software to crash the next Xmas there is a problem.
Not if it's programmed properly. Easter Eggs are no excuse for sloppy coding.
If you can get your work done and still have time to "goof off" like this then obviously you could do more work.
That's how a small minded manager would see it for sure. Personally, I do Easter Eggs when a piece of code is just not working and it's starting to get me frustrated - I don't want to lose my momentum/coding mindset so I work on something fun for a bit then come back and work the problem. Better than losing the rest of the day being unproductive due to being frustrated. My favourite is adding a hidden to webpages that does something innocuous. Gotta love the hilarity that is "The Net" https://youtu.be/46qKHq7REI4?t...
Or you could look at it as your employees doing self-training, stress management, staying "productive" while stepping back from a problem set of code, or trying to add value to a product by making small additions. Full blown flight sim is overboard I grant you, but simple things like in VLC every Christmas time the cone gets a Santa hat - it's a nice touch that shows they're thinking about the end user... not every easter egg adds value and some are unprofessional but there should always be room for some expression beyond the bare bones function.
There will be a million different right answers to this question. The problem is that the question is addressing the wrong crowd. Ask the people who work for you/with you what they want, what they find important. Stop guessing/asking strangers and just get to know people.
Classic business theory suggests you should have 3 levels. People doing the work, the people taking care of the day to day management/drama, the decision makers. Communication will flow through a system like that but the moment you add a 4th level it all goes to hell.
I think the intended take away was that people who rely on the internet as an external source of information over estimate their own knowledge even when that resource is unavailable to them regardless of how intelligent they are.
That's a completely different set of skills though. That relates to the individuals ability to retain information and regurgitate it. I had comprehensive testing done on myself and in most natural intelligence areas I was 97th/98th percentile but I can't read a paragraph from a book and regurgitate the information immediately. Take that identical test and make it a picture in a book instead of words and I can tell you almost every detail.
Modern understanding of intelligence, various difference in auditory and visual processing and recall are far more nuanced than this study would suggest. The controls on the individuals taking the test are non-existent. It's junk science based on outdated concepts imo.
Define "smarter". Natural intelligence + easily accessible and disposable facts does not make one more or less intelligent. The problem is the old school definition of intelligence was tested through the ability to recount facts. It was not a reliable indicator of the level of intelligence of an individual. Whether gathered from a book or a search, facts are not always useful without the ability to understand, interpret, and deduce what is not represented by the facts.
...just stop.
There's a simple reason for the low pass rate in online courses: they're pathetic. They're all canned courses you can find the answer sheets to online in a single Google search. They have the intelligence of a 6th grade class and it's seriously insulting that they're asking you to do this stuff at a college level. They also took away one of their best features which was the ability to work at your own pace - now they drag them out over months restricting your access to assignments and encouraging loss of interest.
Again, in what way does video aid in any of that? They have constant two way communication already. Private in public doctrine would still seem to apply.
Bathroom doors, especially inside the cabin, don't need to be something that is sturdy. The cabin door needs to prevent people from breaking in, a bathroom door can be something you can break through on a whim (jammed or not).
Root cause analysis is not just about laying blame, it's about finding out where the processes/procedures broke down and how they can be improved to prevent a similar incident in the future.
Sure, but this is not a case where video would help that in any way. A captain's privy on the right side of the cockpit door would have helped, but not a camera.
Their level of knowledge is very inconsistent, some know some stuff but for the most part they're just CSRs like any other chain. Go in expecting to know the shit for yourself and only expect them to be able to locate the general area where you might find something. Beyond that, go to a non-chain store where they have to know the products for themselves.
Apparently the pilot is a master at voices.
Even if that half-assed attempt was true, it doesn't improve the safety - they'd still all be dead. It just gives us the ability to ogle and lay blame.
They're minimum wage employees for the most part, what do you expect? At least when they say something stupid you know it's out of ignorance. Future Shop (pre-and post bestbuy) they would lie to your face just to try get you to buy something you didn't need.
It was a great place to shop if you needed an extended warranty.
It was never a great place to shop, it was a pain trying to get them to honour said warranties, and Best Buy stores were infinitely more friendly/useful due to the non-commission status of employees.
Depends on the country... Canada has a bunch of exceptions in their copyright law regarding building design.
I get that BRG feels that way. Considering the specifics of their claim it sounds like Facebook contacted them expecting something unique and novel, found it wasn't, and BRG being greedy and knowing it's the all mighty Facebook tried to gouge them and lost any hope of working together. Facebook went on and said, "lets just do what we do every day and build in a modular manner" (you know, like classes/methods in programming).
It's such an obvious and old concept that it's not even worth thinking about that much. Read 80s architecture magazines, modular was all the fad back then.
Sorry, I shall pay you for that immediately! Please, take my first born as penance.
... it's apparently an exclusive concept to BRG [facepalm]
I'm wondering, is this the next round of BPA /phthalates that we find are bad for us?
Of course it is, but we won't do any sort of health testing until decades later when it's in most of our products.
Wait a second. The Canadian government regulates how warm you heat your home?
Not exactly. They regulate the *minimum* the temperature an be during the winter months for rental units. Federally, it's 18C but then individual provinces/municipalities have different temperatures. Ontario is 20C I believe and Toronto is 21C.
That's fucked up!
Trust me, it's not. It was regulated because people were freezing to death due to lack of heat in their apartments. While it was a long time ago, most companies will set the temperature to the exact minimum they can get away with - if the regulations go down, so does the temperature.
Now they're considering regulating how hot it can get, especially in nursing homes, as the elderly are dying in poorly run facilities due to heat exhaustion.
The computing power will be needed all year round but the heat won't be - that was my point.
Average summer daytime temps are 17-20C which is about what we heat to in the winter in Canada. (regulations vary from 18-21C as a minimum)