If it means that I can transfer money overseas without paying a ridiculously high fee, it has value to me. Of course, people have to view it as currency first, so that I can use bitcoins directly - otherwise I'd get fees going from one currency to bitcoins, and from bitcoins to the other. In any case, not being a big fan of banks, I am tempted to give this kind of project a try.
Even geeks like myself who cringe when they have to put on a tie tend to expect the people dealing with our savings to look the part..
I try to make the distinction between looks & competence. I will look for signs of the latter in the person's behavior. Clothing can send a message both ways: an impeccable suit might tell you that the person is tidy and conservative, but it might also tell you that the person spends a good deal of their time looking pretty rather than working for you. You can be competent & tidy and not wear a suit. I hope people aren't basing their decision on how the bank's employees are dressed.
You might argue that a suit nowadays does not mean anything in a bank, it's a neutral signal to the customers, so they will make their decision based on the products the banks offers. But it remains an unnecessary distinction to me, like wigs, robes, and other traditional types of clothing.
Allright, we get it. He's a bit of a weirdo as far as his love-life is concerned.
Now how is this news? Hooray, he likes a particular subset of the female population. What does this have to do with his ability to run a website which leaks government information?
Does this even have ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING?
:
For the same reason we like to read the biography of anyone whose work had a certain impact on society: to compare ourselves to them, to try and find out what motivated them to act that way. Would you have leaked government information, if you had been given the chance? What separates you from Julian Assange? What do you have in common? Is what we know about him relevant to determine how he came to leak this information?
As always, we try to create models, or build theories, that tell us something about ourselves. It is very unlikely that this article tells us much (and I personally don't give much credit to its veracity), but we still read it. If only for the analytical exercise of assessing its relevance.
Math indeed changes the way we think: we become more analytical. It also helps us think in an abstract way, so that a seemingly complex environment does not prevent us from making progress when facing problems.
For instance if you have an equation like
x+3y+5z=5+5z+3y,
we can see that x=5 ;
now apply that to computers: lots of people will say "I don't know anything about computers" and will not understand the message "you have run out of disk space", even if they know what disk space is (and they do understand English). They will refuse to think because the whole complexity of the environment, which can be taken out of the equation, has scared them off.
And today, most of what we do involves an environment that we do not fully understand. Math helps us ignoring it when possible.
Watch your mouth, people. It sucks when the main thing people remember about you is your race.
Your experience is that of one belonging to a minority, and the response of most people to that minority. Would be the same if you were extremely handsome, if you had one arm, if you had a Lamborghini. Racism is more common than 'Lamborghinism', so it gets more attention. But it's the same phenomenon, and you cannot blame the average Joe for categorizing you according to the minority you represent.
A more general solution to the problem where people don't do their job properly is to raise the salary for that position. Someone who earns a lot will do much more to do a good job, and more hard-working, honest people will apply for the job. If you want better cops, paying more taxes seems a necessary (but not sufficient) condition.
If I thought I was being paid too little then I'd talk to my manager and/or find another job. If I thought I was working too long I'd talk to my manager and/or find another job.
There are general dynamics involved here: if it is common practice for most companies of a certain sector to ask employees to work overtime, you can change jobs all you want, you will still be underpaid and/or overworked. Then you can indeed sue your company, but that requires taking a risk, investing time & money, and later on no one will hire you because you are 'that troublemaker'. Sometimes - and I hate to say it since indeed I'm also inclined to say 'nobody's forcing you to work there' - organizations with as much power as existing businesses can help.
Some colleagues of mine would hate to telecommute, for the simple reason that they go to the office to be able to chat, have a social experience...They aren't the most efficient, obviously. I want to telecommute 1 or 2 days per week because I grow frustrated of these long hours in my car, stuck in traffic. Being happy as an employee should count, but in case of conflicting opinions, efficiency should also be taken into account.
There is a reason for providing documentation in the first place: it is costly to make, and everybody knows its purpose, that is to explain how the software is supposed to work. The reason why the piece of software is not three times its actual price is because people are expected to RTFM before calling Tech Support. If something is not clear in the documentation, they can ask Tech Support to explain that part further. Private tutoring on how to optimize tool use for their job is not part of Tech Support, this is training they need.
Why should we not procrastinate? It is not obvious to me that a deadline is good for us, not just as workers, but as actual people. If I start procrastinating, it can be due to stress, or to the fact that I feel like stretching, or because I know that the work I have to do does not make me happy. I never procrastinate for things I really enjoy.
If you call this playing soccer. Robots roll, there seems to be a magnet to keep the ball, the ball always rolls, the pitch is perfect, there is no body contact. Nobody's moving except the one with the ball. Even if the mechanics part of handling & vizualizing the ball with body contacts, obstacles, imperfect pitch with varying bouncing conditions (due to water also)... if this is possible in 2050 (which I doubt), there will still need to be a decision algorithm, and that is not likely to happen. Ask all the soccer coaches in the world, you will have a different answer each time.
For the basics of soccer, I agree it can be done. To master it, is something else.
Slashdot Mirror
If it means that I can transfer money overseas without paying a ridiculously high fee, it has value to me. Of course, people have to view it as currency first, so that I can use bitcoins directly - otherwise I'd get fees going from one currency to bitcoins, and from bitcoins to the other. In any case, not being a big fan of banks, I am tempted to give this kind of project a try.
Even geeks like myself who cringe when they have to put on a tie tend to expect the people dealing with our savings to look the part..
I try to make the distinction between looks & competence. I will look for signs of the latter in the person's behavior. Clothing can send a message both ways: an impeccable suit might tell you that the person is tidy and conservative, but it might also tell you that the person spends a good deal of their time looking pretty rather than working for you. You can be competent & tidy and not wear a suit. I hope people aren't basing their decision on how the bank's employees are dressed.
You might argue that a suit nowadays does not mean anything in a bank, it's a neutral signal to the customers, so they will make their decision based on the products the banks offers. But it remains an unnecessary distinction to me, like wigs, robes, and other traditional types of clothing.
Allright, we get it. He's a bit of a weirdo as far as his love-life is concerned.
Now how is this news? Hooray, he likes a particular subset of the female population. What does this have to do with his ability to run a website which leaks government information?
Does this even have ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING?
:
For the same reason we like to read the biography of anyone whose work had a certain impact on society: to compare ourselves to them, to try and find out what motivated them to act that way. Would you have leaked government information, if you had been given the chance? What separates you from Julian Assange? What do you have in common? Is what we know about him relevant to determine how he came to leak this information?
As always, we try to create models, or build theories, that tell us something about ourselves. It is very unlikely that this article tells us much (and I personally don't give much credit to its veracity), but we still read it. If only for the analytical exercise of assessing its relevance.
Math indeed changes the way we think: we become more analytical. It also helps us think in an abstract way, so that a seemingly complex environment does not prevent us from making progress when facing problems. For instance if you have an equation like x+3y+5z=5+5z+3y, we can see that x=5 ; now apply that to computers: lots of people will say "I don't know anything about computers" and will not understand the message "you have run out of disk space", even if they know what disk space is (and they do understand English). They will refuse to think because the whole complexity of the environment, which can be taken out of the equation, has scared them off. And today, most of what we do involves an environment that we do not fully understand. Math helps us ignoring it when possible.
Watch your mouth, people. It sucks when the main thing people remember about you is your race.
Your experience is that of one belonging to a minority, and the response of most people to that minority. Would be the same if you were extremely handsome, if you had one arm, if you had a Lamborghini. Racism is more common than 'Lamborghinism', so it gets more attention. But it's the same phenomenon, and you cannot blame the average Joe for categorizing you according to the minority you represent.
A more general solution to the problem where people don't do their job properly is to raise the salary for that position. Someone who earns a lot will do much more to do a good job, and more hard-working, honest people will apply for the job. If you want better cops, paying more taxes seems a necessary (but not sufficient) condition.
If I thought I was being paid too little then I'd talk to my manager and/or find another job. If I thought I was working too long I'd talk to my manager and/or find another job.
There are general dynamics involved here: if it is common practice for most companies of a certain sector to ask employees to work overtime, you can change jobs all you want, you will still be underpaid and/or overworked. Then you can indeed sue your company, but that requires taking a risk, investing time & money, and later on no one will hire you because you are 'that troublemaker'. Sometimes - and I hate to say it since indeed I'm also inclined to say 'nobody's forcing you to work there' - organizations with as much power as existing businesses can help.
Some colleagues of mine would hate to telecommute, for the simple reason that they go to the office to be able to chat, have a social experience...They aren't the most efficient, obviously. I want to telecommute 1 or 2 days per week because I grow frustrated of these long hours in my car, stuck in traffic.
Being happy as an employee should count, but in case of conflicting opinions, efficiency should also be taken into account.
There is a reason for providing documentation in the first place: it is costly to make, and everybody knows its purpose, that is to explain how the software is supposed to work. The reason why the piece of software is not three times its actual price is because people are expected to RTFM before calling Tech Support. If something is not clear in the documentation, they can ask Tech Support to explain that part further. Private tutoring on how to optimize tool use for their job is not part of Tech Support, this is training they need.
Why should we not procrastinate?
It is not obvious to me that a deadline is good for us, not just as workers, but as actual people. If I start procrastinating, it can be due to stress, or to the fact that I feel like stretching, or because I know that the work I have to do does not make me happy.
I never procrastinate for things I really enjoy.
I agree, this demonstration is complete nonsense. Dividing by zero cannot be defined.
if you have: 6x0=0 and 7x0=0 then 0/0 equals 6, or 7, or anything.
If you call this playing soccer. Robots roll, there seems to be a magnet to keep the ball, the ball always rolls, the pitch is perfect, there is no body contact. Nobody's moving except the one with the ball.
Even if the mechanics part of handling & vizualizing the ball with body contacts, obstacles, imperfect pitch with varying bouncing conditions (due to water also)... if this is possible in 2050 (which I doubt), there will still need to be a decision algorithm, and that is not likely to happen. Ask all the soccer coaches in the world, you will have a different answer each time.
For the basics of soccer, I agree it can be done. To master it, is something else.