So the local management started pushing for higher wages in order to reduce turnover and keep the quality people.
Here is your problem. I worked for a large international call centre once years ago and became "friends" with one of the female trainers. She explained that the business model doesn't expect worker retention. Customer Service has a short burnout time, which they calculated at an average of 18 months to 2 years which got factored that into the business. Their training process could train any monkey with sufficient language skills to do the job, and if they got 2 years out of each employee it was a win.
Why pay people more if you can just as easily replace them? If you have the training and QA process in place, retention is unnecessary.
I know this sucks, but if you are "quality" then customer service should only be a stepping stone onto bigger and better things.
And if you don't want to support them, then you can listen to your dad's favorite music, for all they care.
I have friends in bands, they get paid next to nothing yet still do it because they love it. I'm pretty sure if millionaire musicians went away there would still be new music. In fact there would probably be better music because it would only be musicians doing, not fame-whores.
The only way this can work is if the record labels - who own everything and do not have to pay themselves - offer a service.
I don't get why Apple doesn't just buy the 4 major labels and be done with it. Seriously, Apple has more in spare change than the value of the entire music industry combined.
This says to me that if you aren't an early mover, you are more likely to answer "Microsoft" to any questions about vendors.
Also the term CIO is heavily biased toward big slow movers. I'm working on a large project with a lot of small developers, none of which have CIOs. And they are all 100% AWS.
Someone needs to log these predictions by the Gartner types of this world to see how they pan out.
I don't have hard data, but my memory tells me they get it wrong a lot more often than right.
The point of my comment was that even though I've read a number of articles about this I didn't see anyone raise the question about the truck crossing the road. Of course the driver of the car should have been aware of the situation. But eventually there will be the day when all people aboard a car will be passengers so there won't be an option to take over. But that will be quite a while off.
Decades at least, and even then only in controlled environments, ie not a public street with pedestrians and animals etc.
It just feels like all of these articles are out to put self driving vehicles in a bad light. I just think that there's no reason to issue a recall for one incident. They don't do that for other cars when there is an accident.
If it's found that the car design itself was the difference between life and death they do.
The difference with a regular car is their is always ambiguity over precise causes. Here we have all the telemetry data, so know precisely that the car didn't see the truck or react appropriately. We know 100% that the car failed, and would repeat that same behaviour if the exact same scenario occurred again. So a recall is the only possible outcome.
Even if the truck was the initial cause, the car operated in a way not expected which resulted in death. It's a faulty product and should be treated as such.
Perhaps the USA should look to Europe to see how to avoid these deaths ?
These are the same people that think the solution to kids being shot in schools is to give every child a gun. Logic and reason does not work with these people.
Except he didn't "get into" the situation. The truck made a left turn across rural highway traffic.
We've all been in similar situations, when someone cuts us off or pulls out in front of us. Awareness and reaction times are key skills required to avoid such incidents. And every millisecond counts in such cases.
We can't know the precise detail, but we do know that large trucks don't move that quickly. For the car to go under the trailer (ie the back half of a long vehicle) at a speed to shear the roof completely off would mean the truck got at least halfway across the road with no reaction from the driver.
And we know the driver was operating in an "Autopilot" mode which suggests full attention and awareness was not a priority for him.
So the moment you turn on autopilot, or play with the radio, or use your phone, or eat food while operating dangerous machinery, you are getting yourself into a potential situation.
The truck might be the root cause, but from what I can gather from the nature of the accident, this driver's actions didn't his improve his chances.
Going the whole day without talking with someone is pure torture for her. I tend to think that most women share her views instead of mine.
And conversely, whenever we're out with other the couples, the women all talk at each other continuously while all the husbands grunt occasionally and offer the odd tidbit of conversation here and there.
There is a force more powerful than chauvinism at work here.
Yeah but in the land of the free, you should have the right to drive your truck without such encumbrances. You'll have to pry my unprotected trailer out of my cold dead hands!
It sounds like the truck crossed the lane without enough time for the oncoming cars to make it but all we hear is how the autopilot is at fault.
I ride a motorbike and have people cut me off all the time. One option is to blame the drivers, crash into them and die. Another is be aware of such risks and drive/ride appropriately, not rely on a software developer to hopefully work it out on my behalf.
If he had noticed the truck, he presumably would have applied the brake.
As anyone who has taken their eyes off the road for half a second knows, it only takes milliseconds to get into a situation you can't get out of.
So he could've seen it, but by the time he realised the autopilot hadn't seen it, even if the reaction was only half a second, it's too late to avoid collision.
According to the article this was not something the driver could see and avoid,
Yeah I read that and my bullshit detector went off the charts. "There was no way the driver could've possibly seen or avoided a tractor trailer"? No way at all? Really?
Sounds an awful lot like an attempted cover-up by the manufacturer IMO.
It may seem that way, but nevertheless there is overwhelming evidence that Autopilot improves safety. You should look at actual data rather than relying on gut feelings about what "seems" to be true.
You say that, and had the perfect opportunity to present such evidence right here to back up your claim, yet it is conspicuous in its absence.
In contrast, in a human-driven car, the only one who learned anything is dead, so the next person who gets in the same situation will likely react the same way and end up just as dead.
That's not true at all. Crash investigations contribute to car design, road design, and driver education, and it's precisely why the road death rate has continued to fall consistently for decades.
But don't let facts get in the way of your preaching....
The one your friends and family use. What's the point of a secure messaging network if nobody you know uses it?
My work uses Jabber, our outsourced developers use Hipchat, our other outsourced consultants use Slack, my kids use WhatsApp, and Snapchat, my wife uses Facebook, and SMS, My close friends use Wickr, my other friends are still on MSN/Skype. I have all these (except Facebook which I refuse to be a part of) and it's no big deal, I actually prefer that there's no crossover of worlds. This is the one thing Facebook/Google/Linkedin etc don't get. I have different relationships, and I like to keep them all separate. Stop trying to make one big love-in where everyone knows everyone else. The world doesn't work like that.
Here we go again. We just had this discussion last week too.
If the new slashdot owners are using the client base as fodder for some think-tank the least you could do is provide compensation after the first few times an article is recycled.
Slashdot is going down the toilet. I can hardly find any articles worth clicking on any more due to the stupid clickbait headlines:
Here's How Pinterest Plans to Get You To Shop More
How Gadget Makers Violate Federal Warranty Law
This Could Ruin Time Travel Forever
Drivers Prefer Autonomous Cars That Don't Kill Them
Why You Should Stop Using Telegram Right Now
Robot Pizza Company Wants To Be 'Amazon of Food'
Scientists Force Computer To Binge On TV Shows and Predict What Humans Will Do
You Could Be Paid To Post Snapchat Selfies With Products
Mark Zuckerberg Tapes Over His Webcam. Should You?
Yea, but a motorbike is going so much faster than a bicycle. On a bicycle, I can ride onto the grass or even into a driveway if I see something dangerous. That's just not an option on a motorbike.
Well that depends. I always plan an exit strategy when the risks increase. It's not 100% foolproof, but planning for that car to pull out in front of you is all part of the strategy.
Just last week a guy on a motorbike was killed while merging onto the highway. He collided with a car while merging, then he went down, and two cars behind them crashed to avoid running him over. Now that you mention it, I have to wonder how much control he had over his bike to have been hit while merging.
Yes this is good example. That scenario would be nearly impossible for me IMO, because the benefit of a bike is speed. When things get hairy you can always out accelerate the problem. In the case of a merge, if the car is in front of you, you slip in behind. If it's next to you or behind, speed up and go past. There's no chance of you both trying to occupy the same space at the same time.
there is nothing to gain from catching doping. Absolutely nothing.
Apart from public shaming, banning from international events, and massive legal implications you mean?
Rugby has the highest number of athletes serving drug suspensions in the UK.
Maybe this is a UK thing, and maybe it explains why until Eddie Jones took over they have been so shit. Until last month, NZ and Australia were the best teams in the world, and they have mandatory testing programs. The likes of Dan Carter and Johnny Wilkinson are not the best because they are the fastest or strongest. It's because they have skills drugs can't buy. They've also both had extended injury records with no miracle cures which supports the fact they don't need drugs to succeed.
I feel very strongly about this as a sports fan in general who prefers Cycling. The hypocrisy is infuriating.
At the top level, no other sport has such a high record of cheating. From 98 to 2011 there was only one winner who hasn't tested positive. Other sports have cases that's true, but I can't think of any other sport that included every single champion for a decade.
Slashdot Mirror
So the local management started pushing for higher wages in order to reduce turnover and keep the quality people.
Here is your problem. I worked for a large international call centre once years ago and became "friends" with one of the female trainers. She explained that the business model doesn't expect worker retention. Customer Service has a short burnout time, which they calculated at an average of 18 months to 2 years which got factored that into the business. Their training process could train any monkey with sufficient language skills to do the job, and if they got 2 years out of each employee it was a win.
Why pay people more if you can just as easily replace them? If you have the training and QA process in place, retention is unnecessary.
I know this sucks, but if you are "quality" then customer service should only be a stepping stone onto bigger and better things.
And if you don't want to support them, then you can listen to your dad's favorite music, for all they care.
I have friends in bands, they get paid next to nothing yet still do it because they love it. I'm pretty sure if millionaire musicians went away there would still be new music. In fact there would probably be better music because it would only be musicians doing, not fame-whores.
The only way this can work is if the record labels - who own everything and do not have to pay themselves - offer a service.
I don't get why Apple doesn't just buy the 4 major labels and be done with it. Seriously, Apple has more in spare change than the value of the entire music industry combined.
This says to me that if you aren't an early mover, you are more likely to answer "Microsoft" to any questions about vendors.
Also the term CIO is heavily biased toward big slow movers. I'm working on a large project with a lot of small developers, none of which have CIOs. And they are all 100% AWS.
Someone needs to log these predictions by the Gartner types of this world to see how they pan out.
I don't have hard data, but my memory tells me they get it wrong a lot more often than right.
How is Azure sketchy?
Did you read the GP's post? He gave examples right there...
The point of my comment was that even though I've read a number of articles about this I didn't see anyone raise the question about the truck crossing the road. Of course the driver of the car should have been aware of the situation. But eventually there will be the day when all people aboard a car will be passengers so there won't be an option to take over. But that will be quite a while off.
Decades at least, and even then only in controlled environments, ie not a public street with pedestrians and animals etc.
It just feels like all of these articles are out to put self driving vehicles in a bad light. I just think that there's no reason to issue a recall for one incident. They don't do that for other cars when there is an accident.
If it's found that the car design itself was the difference between life and death they do.
The difference with a regular car is their is always ambiguity over precise causes. Here we have all the telemetry data, so know precisely that the car didn't see the truck or react appropriately. We know 100% that the car failed, and would repeat that same behaviour if the exact same scenario occurred again. So a recall is the only possible outcome.
Even if the truck was the initial cause, the car operated in a way not expected which resulted in death. It's a faulty product and should be treated as such.
Perhaps the USA should look to Europe to see how to avoid these deaths ?
These are the same people that think the solution to kids being shot in schools is to give every child a gun. Logic and reason does not work with these people.
Except he didn't "get into" the situation. The truck made a left turn across rural highway traffic.
We've all been in similar situations, when someone cuts us off or pulls out in front of us. Awareness and reaction times are key skills required to avoid such incidents. And every millisecond counts in such cases.
We can't know the precise detail, but we do know that large trucks don't move that quickly. For the car to go under the trailer (ie the back half of a long vehicle) at a speed to shear the roof completely off would mean the truck got at least halfway across the road with no reaction from the driver.
And we know the driver was operating in an "Autopilot" mode which suggests full attention and awareness was not a priority for him.
So the moment you turn on autopilot, or play with the radio, or use your phone, or eat food while operating dangerous machinery, you are getting yourself into a potential situation.
The truck might be the root cause, but from what I can gather from the nature of the accident, this driver's actions didn't his improve his chances.
Sure, just be perfect. Great plan for humans.
Simply paying attention while operating dangerous machinery is a reasonably normal skill I would have thought....
Going the whole day without talking with someone is pure torture for her. I tend to think that most women share her views instead of mine.
And conversely, whenever we're out with other the couples, the women all talk at each other continuously while all the husbands grunt occasionally and offer the odd tidbit of conversation here and there.
There is a force more powerful than chauvinism at work here.
Anon for obvious reasons.
It's not very obvious to me. All you said is that there is strength in diversity, which there is.
Why would you be shamed into hiding that opinion?
There seems to be big flaw in the design of the trailer that allowed this to happen.
In the UK HGV trailers are required to have side and rear run-under prevention to stop this very thing from happening.
http://www.transportsfriend.or...
Yeah but in the land of the free, you should have the right to drive your truck without such encumbrances. You'll have to pry my unprotected trailer out of my cold dead hands!
It sounds like the truck crossed the lane without enough time for the oncoming cars to make it but all we hear is how the autopilot is at fault.
I ride a motorbike and have people cut me off all the time. One option is to blame the drivers, crash into them and die. Another is be aware of such risks and drive/ride appropriately, not rely on a software developer to hopefully work it out on my behalf.
..when my mind was wandering when the guy in front of me decided to stand on his brakes. I think it's good stuff.
You should just try paying attention. It has worked well for me.
If he had noticed the truck, he presumably would have applied the brake.
As anyone who has taken their eyes off the road for half a second knows, it only takes milliseconds to get into a situation you can't get out of.
So he could've seen it, but by the time he realised the autopilot hadn't seen it, even if the reaction was only half a second, it's too late to avoid collision.
According to the article this was not something the driver could see and avoid,
Yeah I read that and my bullshit detector went off the charts. "There was no way the driver could've possibly seen or avoided a tractor trailer"? No way at all? Really?
Sounds an awful lot like an attempted cover-up by the manufacturer IMO.
Depends on who's lawyer you ask. You can bet the counsel for the automobile manufacturer is going to blame the dead person....
As well as all the product fanboys...
That's still pretty impressive if it's twice as safe as letting a human drive.
Only if you don't know how statistics work.
It may seem that way, but nevertheless there is overwhelming evidence that Autopilot improves safety. You should look at actual data rather than relying on gut feelings about what "seems" to be true.
You say that, and had the perfect opportunity to present such evidence right here to back up your claim, yet it is conspicuous in its absence.
In contrast, in a human-driven car, the only one who learned anything is dead, so the next person who gets in the same situation will likely react the same way and end up just as dead.
That's not true at all. Crash investigations contribute to car design, road design, and driver education, and it's precisely why the road death rate has continued to fall consistently for decades.
But don't let facts get in the way of your preaching....
The one your friends and family use. What's the point of a secure messaging network if nobody you know uses it?
My work uses Jabber, our outsourced developers use Hipchat, our other outsourced consultants use Slack, my kids use WhatsApp, and Snapchat, my wife uses Facebook, and SMS, My close friends use Wickr, my other friends are still on MSN/Skype. I have all these (except Facebook which I refuse to be a part of) and it's no big deal, I actually prefer that there's no crossover of worlds. This is the one thing Facebook/Google/Linkedin etc don't get. I have different relationships, and I like to keep them all separate. Stop trying to make one big love-in where everyone knows everyone else. The world doesn't work like that.
Here we go again. We just had this discussion last week too.
If the new slashdot owners are using the client base as fodder for some think-tank the least you could do is provide compensation after the first few times an article is recycled.
Slashdot is going down the toilet. I can hardly find any articles worth clicking on any more due to the stupid clickbait headlines:
Here's How Pinterest Plans to Get You To Shop More
How Gadget Makers Violate Federal Warranty Law
This Could Ruin Time Travel Forever
Drivers Prefer Autonomous Cars That Don't Kill Them
Why You Should Stop Using Telegram Right Now
Robot Pizza Company Wants To Be 'Amazon of Food'
Scientists Force Computer To Binge On TV Shows and Predict What Humans Will Do
You Could Be Paid To Post Snapchat Selfies With Products
Mark Zuckerberg Tapes Over His Webcam. Should You?
And these are just from the last few days.
Yea, but a motorbike is going so much faster than a bicycle. On a bicycle, I can ride onto the grass or even into a driveway if I see something dangerous. That's just not an option on a motorbike.
Well that depends. I always plan an exit strategy when the risks increase. It's not 100% foolproof, but planning for that car to pull out in front of you is all part of the strategy.
Just last week a guy on a motorbike was killed while merging onto the highway. He collided with a car while merging, then he went down, and two cars behind them crashed to avoid running him over. Now that you mention it, I have to wonder how much control he had over his bike to have been hit while merging.
Yes this is good example. That scenario would be nearly impossible for me IMO, because the benefit of a bike is speed. When things get hairy you can always out accelerate the problem. In the case of a merge, if the car is in front of you, you slip in behind. If it's next to you or behind, speed up and go past. There's no chance of you both trying to occupy the same space at the same time.
there is nothing to gain from catching doping. Absolutely nothing.
Apart from public shaming, banning from international events, and massive legal implications you mean?
Rugby has the highest number of athletes serving drug suspensions in the UK.
Maybe this is a UK thing, and maybe it explains why until Eddie Jones took over they have been so shit. Until last month, NZ and Australia were the best teams in the world, and they have mandatory testing programs. The likes of Dan Carter and Johnny Wilkinson are not the best because they are the fastest or strongest. It's because they have skills drugs can't buy. They've also both had extended injury records with no miracle cures which supports the fact they don't need drugs to succeed.
I feel very strongly about this as a sports fan in general who prefers Cycling. The hypocrisy is infuriating.
At the top level, no other sport has such a high record of cheating. From 98 to 2011 there was only one winner who hasn't tested positive. Other sports have cases that's true, but I can't think of any other sport that included every single champion for a decade.