You say a job with no skills, but being able to look at all that shit and compartmentalize it so it doesn't affect you is a necessary skill for this job. The problem is that they are not getting trained in the mental skills needed.
Mirror neurons don't make a distinction between what we see and what we do. This affects everyone who gets exposed to that quantity of crap.
The brain shifts its baseline for "normal" based on its environmental exposure. Unless the company is facilitating high quality positive experiences, the baseline for normal/healthy/sane is shifting subconsciously in the minds of the moderators.
Scientific Method
1) Ask a Question: Will this program I just wrote compile?
2) Background Research:
2.1) Previous experience with programming language
2.2) Previous experience with type of problem
2,3) Quality of Understanding of CS concepts
3) Form a hypothesis: First time to compile: no. Estimate X syntax errors and Z semantic errors per Y lines of code.
4) Experiment: Perform compile.
5) Analyze Results
6) Iterate on Experiment. (Fix errors, refine understanding.)
7) Present findings (Boss, it's going to be another 3 days for thorough testing)
The scientific investigation in Computer Science is on many fronts, but the most empirical aspect of science is the study of how well you, the programmer, understand the problem at hand and the tools you have for tackling it.
Perhaps you don't understand the Science aspect of Computer Science: The ongoing effort to refine our models of understanding about the world.
somehow I doubt that kind of language would be tolerated against Hillary, no network would air it to begin with, but if came up Democrats and Republicans would call it "woman hating"
If Hillary had bragged about how she likes to grab men by the cock, had multiple accusers of sexual assault, and was more than sympathetic to the will of the leader of a rival nation, I'm pretty sure calling her a cock holster for that foreign leader would be fair game. You are forgetting that Trump went crass long before Colbert did.
You clarified a distinction between two memetic expressions, civil society vs civic society. The person you responded to was pointing out that going from a phenotypic expression (asian) to assuming a particular memetic expression (any number of different 'asian' cultures) is racist. The correlation between phenotype and memetic expression is weakening continually across the globe as cultures mix and mingle, especially here in the US. And if someone makes it all the way to being a CEO of an American corporation you can pretty much assume the correlation causes wrong inferences more often than right inferences.
I see your point. But he has also placed himself in the position of telling others what to believe. Either he cares about informing others about the actual truth and will make sure he has the right stats, or he cares about converting others to his warped perception of reality and spreads his confirmation bias. That he misread a stat and ran with something that should have made you go "say what?" and look closer, indicates the confirmation bias. It's a lie in that it is being told to others when it is not the truth. Regardless if it's an intentional lie or an unconscious lie from confirmation bias, he intentionally places himself in a position of telling others what to believe and is spreading lies.
I'm clearly missing the problem here? He has the wrong statistic (literally the opposite quantity), but what part of his statement doesn't make sense?
The question answers itself. He didn't take the time to have the right statistic and is running with a flagrant lie to insinuate something. What part of a civic society is founded on falsities?
Sound is a subjective experience. Sound waves are physical perturbation in a fluid or gaseous media. They must be processed by a nervous system capable of transducing them into subjective experience before thy become sounds. They are not the same. Speriments not needed.
Observing at small scales is not a passive activity. You have to inject energy into the system (and have it reflect back) to make an observation. That injection of energy alters the system. So the universe does know when you are actively looking at it. Think of looking as not just looking with eyes passively but also shining a high energy flashlight in the direction of looking.
I find computer science to be highly empirical and experimental. Does the program I just wrote meet the specification and solve the problem it is intended to solve? The hypothesis is yes. Unit testing and testing for corner cases is the empirical evidence that the specification and requirements are met. Debugging is the process of refining the hypothesis (statement of the program) based on empirical results.
You've been hired to fix a very elusive bug in a mission critical but complex low level system. Form your hypothesis based on the data available and test your correction to see I you were right. If bug still exists then refine hypothesis.
Computer Science gives you the reasoning tools necessary to empirically investigate computational systems. I teach computer science classes and I tell my students to experiment with different statements in python to see what happens. Learning how to program within a new language requires experimentation with combinations of expressions to develop the right mental model for the semantics and execution of the language.
If you can't see the science in computer science it's because you are stuck thinking that science applies only to the investigation of the physical world. Science applies whenever we try to tame the unknown and make it known. It is the process of refinement of our mental models. Every student engages in scientific exploration when they try to learn a new programming language. Each new discovery in relationship and properties of abstract systems is still a scientific discovery. For example, the discovery of unit propegation as a means of speeding up SAT solvers. It is a refinement of our mental models and integrating the theory into a coded sat solvers is empirical proof that the theoretical performance boost is indeed correct.
You didn't choose your aesthetics, you chose to act in accordance with your aesthetics. Huge difference. It is the aesthetics (desires, preferences and sense of beauty and pleasure) that determine our wills. We do not have free will in altering our preferences and perception of beauty and pleasure. For a gay, straight, or bisexuals man to be willful in their choosing, they would have to be able to alter their aesthetics. Doesn't happen volitionally.
Did you read the part of the linked to article that says that a similar request was refused and the court agreed that these records are not releasable though a FOIA request back in 2013? Yea, didn't think so...
And that proves there's nothing to hide because...?
It is standard practice for bureaucratic offices to deny requests which are not made through proper means. Citing that the request was made through improper means does not entail that there is something to hide, merely that the bureaucrats are either lazy or just not prone to sharing information unless required to by law.
The belief that "there is something to hide" is not supported by the events and is a projection of a mind prone to paranoia. That's not to say that there isn't something to hide, but merely that inferring such from the events is not a sound inference.
Unless your education was complete crap, you still learned what you were supposed to learn which was a skill with certain KINDS of tools, allowing you to move on and use better tools than what they used in your classes. At worst you learned what not to do and what tools not to use, which is still very valuable knowledge.
Hell it doesn't even have to be "sharing" so much as reciprocity and symbiosis. It's not like you were born fully formed with the knowledge you now have. Your parents were not the only ones that supported your existence, after all who supported theirs?
If someone really doesn't want to give in return, there is always the option of leaving...
We live in a system and the system has to be looked at as a whole. The give and the take. Investing in the well being off others pays dividends in your improved quality of life.
Why would things be different under the proposed system? We don't have slaves now, and those jobs get done. They typically have higher pay to compensate for the undesirable aspects of the job or risk associated with them. Someone is choosing to do those jobs instead of other more desirable jobs.
In one scenario you have a choice between Y+0 compensation for job J_Y and X+0 compensation for J_X, Lets assume that J_X is the more undesirable job. The proposed scenario is that you would have a choice between Y+B and X+B, where B is a minimum stipend to cover the cost of existence in society. At worst, Y is going to be commensurate with B. The relevant metric is going to be the ratio (X-Y)/B. In the worst case scenario that boils down to X/B - 1. If the difference in pay for the undesirable job was high, then (X-Y)/B is high and you would still choose to do the undesirable job for its higher compensation. If (X-Y)/B was small then the difference between X and Y is small and if you're smart you would be working the more desirable job for slightly less pay.
The only places where B would have a negative impact on jobs is when X/B-1 is negative. Its better compensation for doing nothing. Since B is so small anyway, any job where X/B-1 is negative is essentially exploitation. You shouldn't be working that job anyway as it doesn't sustain your existence.
Why is all the stuff broke? Why does all the stuff have holes in it? Why isn't there any stuff that isn't broke? ARM processors from now on. All this stuff is broke.
To a computer there is no difference between "good instructions" and "bad instructions". Any ability to update or improve existing code is also a vector for getting infected by malicious code. You can either allow updates and risk infection, or you can hard code the firmware and disallow updates, but then you're stuck with whatever the firmware is at the outset.
It's not broke. It's just upgradable. Unless you have solid protocols to control who can upgrade and what upgrades are applied, you are at risk of getting a malicious "upgrade". Even with good protocols, an attacker can mimic the appearance of an authorized upgrader and fake the certification of the upgrade to get a malicious payload installed.
Nature is riddled with this kind of phenomenon. Undesirable mate X tries to present itself as desirable mate Y to inject its dna into the replicator.
Looking forward to playing a 110 Murloc Demon Hunter. Especially since I unlocked all my Heirlooms.
They have a new crafting skill specializing in tomato farming!?!
Re:Say Good By to the Rainforests ....
on
FDA Bans Trans Fat
·
· Score: 1
Atheism vs. Religion creeps its way into everything, eh?
I am neither religious, nor atheist, nor would I label myself agnostic. I think if we look below the surface of the mantra "atheism is a lack of belief" we will find that there is still an ardent position at play. I've always found it curious how a lack of belief about something could still lead to an intense/defensible position. There is some personal identity wrapped up with the self-label of being a particular theist sect or atheist. The philosophic position of Atheism is a corollary to a general epistemic disposition: Do not believe in the existence of something without significant evidence for its existence. I don't know what the proper label is for someone whose belief system is such. Perhaps we should just call it part of being rational.
There is something going on when a person points to Atheism and Atheist, over simply being rational. Why fixate on the particular sub-domain. Why fixate on the conflict specifically with those who are religious? If we honestly take the time to examine ourselves we will find that we are not rational in many of our existential beliefs. So fixating on the demand to be rational about religion but not broadening our scrutiny to other domains is indicative of something more than just a "lack of belief in theism". The narrowed focus onto the specific topic of theism is putting a chip on one's shoulder. It's a line drawn in the sand and saying anyone that crosses this line is going to get at least my scorn.
To me this is where the "atheist" (subscriber to atheism) becomes religious (defensive) about their belief in the rightness of their lack of belief in a deity.
That thought came to my mind a while ago. Eventually, our whole brain replace itself but we never cease to be, well, ourselves. Even though it's a generally accepted concept in/. community that our mind is our brain (and not our soul or anything religion related), it's mind blowing to think that I'm still myself even if our brain replace itself every 7 years (or 10 depending on the research). Or is my being is slowly disappearing to be replaced by perfect copy of myself and the memory of my past is actually the remain of my old self?
It's a complex but very fun concept to play with, but it's also quite terrifying sometime.
So you are not a static object. You are an evolving pattern. Is there really much to make a big deal about?
History IS a shared mythos. Unless you're an archaeologist and cross referencing all the primary sources to get your own accurate picture of what happened in history, you're trusting someone else who claims to know what happened. It is in essence a mythology that everyone is "educated" into believing that it actually happened. And even as an archealogist/historian, you are interpreting the evidence with confirmation bias through the history you were taught to believe in.
Giving Johnny an F because he didn't parrot the history text book on an exam or paper is no different than giving Johnny an F in bible class for getting his bible stories wrong.
History is Mythology. It's the same kind of faith applied to a difference in grandeur in the objects being believed in.
People apparently stay at work so long that they need a dedicated toothbrush.
That or they just like to brush after every meal, trust their fellow bathroom users not to scrub the toilets with their brush, and can afford to keep duplicates of their hygiene utilities at the place they spend around half their waking hours.... Neurotic I tell you, they're all neurotic.
Slashdot Mirror
You say a job with no skills, but being able to look at all that shit and compartmentalize it so it doesn't affect you is a necessary skill for this job. The problem is that they are not getting trained in the mental skills needed. Mirror neurons don't make a distinction between what we see and what we do. This affects everyone who gets exposed to that quantity of crap. The brain shifts its baseline for "normal" based on its environmental exposure. Unless the company is facilitating high quality positive experiences, the baseline for normal/healthy/sane is shifting subconsciously in the minds of the moderators.
More like a "Calling it a Scottsman Fallacy". (Calling someone a Scottsman doesn't make them a Scottsman.)
Uh, computer scientists aren't scientists...
(Source: Am a computer scientist.)
Scientific Method
1) Ask a Question: Will this program I just wrote compile?
2) Background Research:
2.1) Previous experience with programming language
2.2) Previous experience with type of problem
2,3) Quality of Understanding of CS concepts
3) Form a hypothesis: First time to compile: no. Estimate X syntax errors and Z semantic errors per Y lines of code.
4) Experiment: Perform compile.
5) Analyze Results
6) Iterate on Experiment. (Fix errors, refine understanding.)
7) Present findings (Boss, it's going to be another 3 days for thorough testing)
The scientific investigation in Computer Science is on many fronts, but the most empirical aspect of science is the study of how well you, the programmer, understand the problem at hand and the tools you have for tackling it.
Perhaps you don't understand the Science aspect of Computer Science: The ongoing effort to refine our models of understanding about the world.
You are experiencing the halo effect: https://www.psychologytoday.co...
somehow I doubt that kind of language would be tolerated against Hillary, no network would air it to begin with, but if came up Democrats and Republicans would call it "woman hating"
If Hillary had bragged about how she likes to grab men by the cock, had multiple accusers of sexual assault, and was more than sympathetic to the will of the leader of a rival nation, I'm pretty sure calling her a cock holster for that foreign leader would be fair game. You are forgetting that Trump went crass long before Colbert did.
"I'll quit reading and posting on Slashdot, just after I finish this post about how far it has declined."
You clarified a distinction between two memetic expressions, civil society vs civic society. The person you responded to was pointing out that going from a phenotypic expression (asian) to assuming a particular memetic expression (any number of different 'asian' cultures) is racist. The correlation between phenotype and memetic expression is weakening continually across the globe as cultures mix and mingle, especially here in the US. And if someone makes it all the way to being a CEO of an American corporation you can pretty much assume the correlation causes wrong inferences more often than right inferences.
I see your point. But he has also placed himself in the position of telling others what to believe. Either he cares about informing others about the actual truth and will make sure he has the right stats, or he cares about converting others to his warped perception of reality and spreads his confirmation bias. That he misread a stat and ran with something that should have made you go "say what?" and look closer, indicates the confirmation bias. It's a lie in that it is being told to others when it is not the truth. Regardless if it's an intentional lie or an unconscious lie from confirmation bias, he intentionally places himself in a position of telling others what to believe and is spreading lies.
"Civic" doesn't mean "civil". A "civic society" is one that represents local values and culture.
The asian ceo could have been raised within the local culture and carry local values. Nothing about being Asian intrinsically implies otherwise.
I'm clearly missing the problem here? He has the wrong statistic (literally the opposite quantity), but what part of his statement doesn't make sense?
The question answers itself. He didn't take the time to have the right statistic and is running with a flagrant lie to insinuate something. What part of a civic society is founded on falsities?
Sound is a subjective experience. Sound waves are physical perturbation in a fluid or gaseous media. They must be processed by a nervous system capable of transducing them into subjective experience before thy become sounds. They are not the same. Speriments not needed.
Observing at small scales is not a passive activity. You have to inject energy into the system (and have it reflect back) to make an observation. That injection of energy alters the system. So the universe does know when you are actively looking at it. Think of looking as not just looking with eyes passively but also shining a high energy flashlight in the direction of looking.
I find computer science to be highly empirical and experimental. Does the program I just wrote meet the specification and solve the problem it is intended to solve? The hypothesis is yes. Unit testing and testing for corner cases is the empirical evidence that the specification and requirements are met. Debugging is the process of refining the hypothesis (statement of the program) based on empirical results.
You've been hired to fix a very elusive bug in a mission critical but complex low level system. Form your hypothesis based on the data available and test your correction to see I you were right. If bug still exists then refine hypothesis.
Computer Science gives you the reasoning tools necessary to empirically investigate computational systems. I teach computer science classes and I tell my students to experiment with different statements in python to see what happens. Learning how to program within a new language requires experimentation with combinations of expressions to develop the right mental model for the semantics and execution of the language.
If you can't see the science in computer science it's because you are stuck thinking that science applies only to the investigation of the physical world. Science applies whenever we try to tame the unknown and make it known. It is the process of refinement of our mental models. Every student engages in scientific exploration when they try to learn a new programming language. Each new discovery in relationship and properties of abstract systems is still a scientific discovery. For example, the discovery of unit propegation as a means of speeding up SAT solvers. It is a refinement of our mental models and integrating the theory into a coded sat solvers is empirical proof that the theoretical performance boost is indeed correct.
You didn't choose your aesthetics, you chose to act in accordance with your aesthetics. Huge difference. It is the aesthetics (desires, preferences and sense of beauty and pleasure) that determine our wills. We do not have free will in altering our preferences and perception of beauty and pleasure. For a gay, straight, or bisexuals man to be willful in their choosing, they would have to be able to alter their aesthetics. Doesn't happen volitionally.
Did you read the part of the linked to article that says that a similar request was refused and the court agreed that these records are not releasable though a FOIA request back in 2013? Yea, didn't think so...
And that proves there's nothing to hide because...?
It is standard practice for bureaucratic offices to deny requests which are not made through proper means. Citing that the request was made through improper means does not entail that there is something to hide, merely that the bureaucrats are either lazy or just not prone to sharing information unless required to by law.
The belief that "there is something to hide" is not supported by the events and is a projection of a mind prone to paranoia. That's not to say that there isn't something to hide, but merely that inferring such from the events is not a sound inference.
I use NONE of these tools as a web developer.
Unless your education was complete crap, you still learned what you were supposed to learn which was a skill with certain KINDS of tools, allowing you to move on and use better tools than what they used in your classes. At worst you learned what not to do and what tools not to use, which is still very valuable knowledge.
Hell it doesn't even have to be "sharing" so much as reciprocity and symbiosis. It's not like you were born fully formed with the knowledge you now have. Your parents were not the only ones that supported your existence, after all who supported theirs?
If someone really doesn't want to give in return, there is always the option of leaving...
We live in a system and the system has to be looked at as a whole. The give and the take. Investing in the well being off others pays dividends in your improved quality of life.
Why would things be different under the proposed system? We don't have slaves now, and those jobs get done. They typically have higher pay to compensate for the undesirable aspects of the job or risk associated with them. Someone is choosing to do those jobs instead of other more desirable jobs.
In one scenario you have a choice between Y+0 compensation for job J_Y and X+0 compensation for J_X, Lets assume that J_X is the more undesirable job. The proposed scenario is that you would have a choice between Y+B and X+B, where B is a minimum stipend to cover the cost of existence in society. At worst, Y is going to be commensurate with B. The relevant metric is going to be the ratio (X-Y)/B. In the worst case scenario that boils down to X/B - 1. If the difference in pay for the undesirable job was high, then (X-Y)/B is high and you would still choose to do the undesirable job for its higher compensation. If (X-Y)/B was small then the difference between X and Y is small and if you're smart you would be working the more desirable job for slightly less pay.
The only places where B would have a negative impact on jobs is when X/B-1 is negative. Its better compensation for doing nothing. Since B is so small anyway, any job where X/B-1 is negative is essentially exploitation. You shouldn't be working that job anyway as it doesn't sustain your existence.
Why is all the stuff broke? Why does all the stuff have holes in it? Why isn't there any stuff that isn't broke? ARM processors from now on. All this stuff is broke.
To a computer there is no difference between "good instructions" and "bad instructions". Any ability to update or improve existing code is also a vector for getting infected by malicious code. You can either allow updates and risk infection, or you can hard code the firmware and disallow updates, but then you're stuck with whatever the firmware is at the outset.
It's not broke. It's just upgradable. Unless you have solid protocols to control who can upgrade and what upgrades are applied, you are at risk of getting a malicious "upgrade". Even with good protocols, an attacker can mimic the appearance of an authorized upgrader and fake the certification of the upgrade to get a malicious payload installed.
Nature is riddled with this kind of phenomenon. Undesirable mate X tries to present itself as desirable mate Y to inject its dna into the replicator.
Looking forward to playing a 110 Murloc Demon Hunter. Especially since I unlocked all my Heirlooms.
They have a new crafting skill specializing in tomato farming!?!
Atheism vs. Religion creeps its way into everything, eh? I am neither religious, nor atheist, nor would I label myself agnostic. I think if we look below the surface of the mantra "atheism is a lack of belief" we will find that there is still an ardent position at play. I've always found it curious how a lack of belief about something could still lead to an intense/defensible position. There is some personal identity wrapped up with the self-label of being a particular theist sect or atheist. The philosophic position of Atheism is a corollary to a general epistemic disposition: Do not believe in the existence of something without significant evidence for its existence. I don't know what the proper label is for someone whose belief system is such. Perhaps we should just call it part of being rational.
There is something going on when a person points to Atheism and Atheist, over simply being rational. Why fixate on the particular sub-domain. Why fixate on the conflict specifically with those who are religious? If we honestly take the time to examine ourselves we will find that we are not rational in many of our existential beliefs. So fixating on the demand to be rational about religion but not broadening our scrutiny to other domains is indicative of something more than just a "lack of belief in theism". The narrowed focus onto the specific topic of theism is putting a chip on one's shoulder. It's a line drawn in the sand and saying anyone that crosses this line is going to get at least my scorn.
To me this is where the "atheist" (subscriber to atheism) becomes religious (defensive) about their belief in the rightness of their lack of belief in a deity.
Exactly this!
That thought came to my mind a while ago. Eventually, our whole brain replace itself but we never cease to be, well, ourselves. Even though it's a generally accepted concept in /. community that our mind is our brain (and not our soul or anything religion related), it's mind blowing to think that I'm still myself even if our brain replace itself every 7 years (or 10 depending on the research). Or is my being is slowly disappearing to be replaced by perfect copy of myself and the memory of my past is actually the remain of my old self?
It's a complex but very fun concept to play with, but it's also quite terrifying sometime.
So you are not a static object. You are an evolving pattern. Is there really much to make a big deal about?
History IS a shared mythos. Unless you're an archaeologist and cross referencing all the primary sources to get your own accurate picture of what happened in history, you're trusting someone else who claims to know what happened. It is in essence a mythology that everyone is "educated" into believing that it actually happened. And even as an archealogist/historian, you are interpreting the evidence with confirmation bias through the history you were taught to believe in.
Giving Johnny an F because he didn't parrot the history text book on an exam or paper is no different than giving Johnny an F in bible class for getting his bible stories wrong.
History is Mythology. It's the same kind of faith applied to a difference in grandeur in the objects being believed in.
This gets modded to 0?
It starts out at 0 for being posted by an AC. Likely no one has modded it one way or another.
People apparently stay at work so long that they need a dedicated toothbrush.
That or they just like to brush after every meal, trust their fellow bathroom users not to scrub the toilets with their brush, and can afford to keep duplicates of their hygiene utilities at the place they spend around half their waking hours. ... Neurotic I tell you, they're all neurotic.