Nope. Control and experimental conditions do not accomplish that. Random assignment to conditions does. So if you want to rule out being ugly causing you to commit more crimes you have to assign random people to the ugly condition.
I think the whole point is that historians can't decide if they can't get their works published or read because one state decides what content should be presented to the future generations. In this case, a school board, in one state, rather than professional historians will make the call.
I'd be hard pressed to name anyone who was a greater detriment to the american economy, though I suppose there are the creators of slashdot to consider.
Because running into a critical design flaw that can only be fixed by a designer while a thousand light years from the nearest designer sucks? It's the same reason a space shuttle designer has flown on every mission.
What do they do that would earn them getting referred to as an engineer rather than a doctor? Imagine calling a doctorate in psychology who does research on lab rats a shrink. Same area, different roles.
But above average is at least 49% of everybody out there. No one above average has to work 60, there are plenty of jobs looking for those 49% that don't require 60 hours. If 49% of the industry won't work 60 hours, it will get much harder to make the other 51% do it.
Again... if you have that kind of contract on your loan, you really should have gone with a government loan instead, or gone with a much cheaper education. You got screwed, but it was due to choices you made.
Mod parent up, this is the best reply I've seen so far.
If you opt out of the social life at your company, you will:
Limit how far you can rise. Make other people feel you are unpleasant to work with. Be early on the layoff list.
All in all it is a terrible, terrible strategy, unless it is your goal to be a hermit, and you don't care about the concomitant risks. If that's the case, it's OK, it is your life after all (or about half of your waking life, anyway). You should think about that when you decide how you want to spend half of your life.
If you have thousands in student loan payments per month, and all you are doing is software engineering, you grossly overpaid for your education. A software engineer should have no reason to have more than about 50k in loans, and that's on the exorbitant end of the spectrum. Payment on that ought to be less than $500, and if not, you can easily refinance to a monthly that low right now, just by lowering interest. Do it now, interest rates are really low.
You're lucky. I had to do this for a while due to developing a sensitivity to the aluminum in antiperspirant. I smelled obscenely bad after 2-3 hours, and had to start making routine trips to the gym in our building (thank goodness I work at a location with showers).
Some people really do need deodorant to smell socially acceptable. I'm one of them.
It's not funny. People wind up believing the stories of working 60 hours for nothing, and so become willing to do it, believing they have no choice, and then there's another story. The talented people in this industry do not have to work 60 hours for nothing. Either they get comp time, over time pay, or salary adjustment. If you're talented and working 60 for nothing, it's time to look for a new job, there are plenty of openings out there for you.
(For the untalented, of course, all bets are off... when you have the only job that will hire you, you have much less negotiating power).
There are hundreds of global warming scientists who would disagree with you on the likelihood of global collapse. When we displace 3 billion people, we may well see the end of our current civilization.
If you're hedging complete economic meltdown, buy guns and ammo, then get rubes to give you lots of gold or whatever you want later. Nothing beats guns and ammo (except bigger guns and ammo).
I use the term always because I truly believe this is all behavior, and behavior has only two inputs. This is particularly true of the bus case... you're talking about what has to be a split second decision. Why does that decision go the way it does? Have you been trained to be good, and therefore you act good? What causes you to make a split second decision that puts someone else's life before your own?
Yes, but what's the motivation behind the choice? Do they do it because they are emotionless robots? Or because giving that money away makes them feel bad? None of our decisions happen in a void.
Everyone in the game industry has a dozen ideas. The ideas are all chasing a very limited pool of money not devoted to sequels. Many of the idea bearers already in the industry have much better credentials than you.
My claim is only that altruism, pure of any selfish motive, doesn't exist. You seem to agree. That some things are better for others as well I also agree.
However, on the child bit, I disagree. Save the child comes from selfish genes, rewarded over many generations.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. Control and experimental conditions do not accomplish that. Random assignment to conditions does. So if you want to rule out being ugly causing you to commit more crimes you have to assign random people to the ugly condition.
I think the whole point is that historians can't decide if they can't get their works published or read because one state decides what content should be presented to the future generations. In this case, a school board, in one state, rather than professional historians will make the call.
I'd be hard pressed to name anyone who was a greater detriment to the american economy, though I suppose there are the creators of slashdot to consider.
Because running into a critical design flaw that can only be fixed by a designer while a thousand light years from the nearest designer sucks? It's the same reason a space shuttle designer has flown on every mission.
What do they do that would earn them getting referred to as an engineer rather than a doctor? Imagine calling a doctorate in psychology who does research on lab rats a shrink. Same area, different roles.
No, I definitely count conditioned response as environmental, as does the field of psychology.
But above average is at least 49% of everybody out there. No one above average has to work 60, there are plenty of jobs looking for those 49% that don't require 60 hours. If 49% of the industry won't work 60 hours, it will get much harder to make the other 51% do it.
Again ... if you have that kind of contract on your loan, you really should have gone with a government loan instead, or gone with a much cheaper education. You got screwed, but it was due to choices you made.
Mod parent up, this is the best reply I've seen so far.
If you opt out of the social life at your company, you will:
Limit how far you can rise.
Make other people feel you are unpleasant to work with.
Be early on the layoff list.
All in all it is a terrible, terrible strategy, unless it is your goal to be a hermit, and you don't care about the concomitant risks. If that's the case, it's OK, it is your life after all (or about half of your waking life, anyway). You should think about that when you decide how you want to spend half of your life.
If you have thousands in student loan payments per month, and all you are doing is software engineering, you grossly overpaid for your education. A software engineer should have no reason to have more than about 50k in loans, and that's on the exorbitant end of the spectrum. Payment on that ought to be less than $500, and if not, you can easily refinance to a monthly that low right now, just by lowering interest. Do it now, interest rates are really low.
If you think advancement is as much luck as talent, I suspect you're working for the wrong company. Seriously, time to move on.
If the cow doesn't scream when you stick the fork in, your beef isn't fresh.
You're lucky. I had to do this for a while due to developing a sensitivity to the aluminum in antiperspirant. I smelled obscenely bad after 2-3 hours, and had to start making routine trips to the gym in our building (thank goodness I work at a location with showers).
Some people really do need deodorant to smell socially acceptable. I'm one of them.
It's not funny. People wind up believing the stories of working 60 hours for nothing, and so become willing to do it, believing they have no choice, and then there's another story. The talented people in this industry do not have to work 60 hours for nothing. Either they get comp time, over time pay, or salary adjustment. If you're talented and working 60 for nothing, it's time to look for a new job, there are plenty of openings out there for you.
(For the untalented, of course, all bets are off ... when you have the only job that will hire you, you have much less negotiating power).
Yep, exactly. There's always that little bit of ulterior motive driving things.
There are hundreds of global warming scientists who would disagree with you on the likelihood of global collapse. When we displace 3 billion people, we may well see the end of our current civilization.
If you're hedging complete economic meltdown, buy guns and ammo, then get rubes to give you lots of gold or whatever you want later. Nothing beats guns and ammo (except bigger guns and ammo).
Followed by R&D, licensing debate, standardization, product development, product release, product uptake.
Go read about how long it took from first silicon to widespread adoption for USB2, which was built on top of a proven technology.
Light Peak devices are 6 years away (at best). USB 3 devices are here now. Will USB3 take off? It already has.
I use the term always because I truly believe this is all behavior, and behavior has only two inputs. This is particularly true of the bus case ... you're talking about what has to be a split second decision. Why does that decision go the way it does? Have you been trained to be good, and therefore you act good? What causes you to make a split second decision that puts someone else's life before your own?
Altruism and selfishness are sides of the same coin, whether shaped by environment or by genetics, both options support my point.
And 'rationalise' is precisely what they're doing, which is my point, exactly.
Yes, but what's the motivation behind the choice? Do they do it because they are emotionless robots? Or because giving that money away makes them feel bad? None of our decisions happen in a void.
Everyone in the game industry has a dozen ideas. The ideas are all chasing a very limited pool of money not devoted to sequels. Many of the idea bearers already in the industry have much better credentials than you.
My claim is only that altruism, pure of any selfish motive, doesn't exist. You seem to agree. That some things are better for others as well I also agree.
However, on the child bit, I disagree. Save the child comes from selfish genes, rewarded over many generations.
They are lying to themselves, and I know better. Read the psych literature, this is well established fact.