I have been approached many times (maybe 7?) by Google. I am now over 50! I'm not interested. I had to nominally get G's legal dept involved to stop the unwanted contacts... Got SPAMmed one more time by accident along with (apprently) ~1000 others recently by fumble-fingered recruiter... %-P
And aren't most people in white-collar jobs at peak earning potential in their 40s? I always assumed so. I have only worked a few weeks for anyone else in the last 30 years, but I always assumed something similar would apply to me.
Well, more subtly, I believe research suggests that the maximum tolerable one-way commute across many countries/cultures is 90 minutes, and in the case of expensive places such as London people move just far enough away, saving on property prices, to make that close to the typical commute for the area. And people do indeed commute in from a long away away from London, such as Brighton (and the reaches of Essex and Kent).
From where I am now I can be from my desk at home to a desk in the City of London in 75 minutes typically by public transport. My town has been a dormitory suburb for City clerks for a long time, in effect.
I can imagine an ordinary person getting over being asked to them obvious questions and having to repeat themselves, explain the obvious over and over to the same person and to different people.
If that's part of the job then it should be done with good grace, not irritation.
As an example I regularly explain and re-explain what my (start-up) business is up to, in terms that anyone can grasp, and have done for many years, and my own understanding has grown in doing so. (And I don't think that I have the highest IQ in my business!)
I disagree; that's a bad way to look at things from your point of view and your employer's.
I have always considered myself to be on a day's notice whenever contracting/consulting, and always work to make myself expendable.
And guess what:
1) The person paying you appreciates that you aren't trying to lock them in.
2) There's usually better, more interesting and more valuable stuff to be done once you have the previous rounds of tedium scripted.
3) False heroics, ie manually doing things that could easily be automated, makes for cockups and unhappiness. I've seen friends I otherwise respect and admire do this.
For this I got to be one of the better paid IT guys in my field, and always had interesting stuff to tackle.
Why are you at/. if you only care what's on sale now in your budget range, and science and tech over the horizon is of no interest? Or where many of the the world's potential and actual pandemics flare up? Or where many people will be displaced from as climate change bites, some of whom will arrive in your backyard almost inevitably?
How useful is it to make scenes in public places just for the sake of it? You subtract from other people's enjoyment and focus. And no I don't think that being unpleasant/destructive just because you can is anything other than a selfish ego trip.
If that's something that you do regularly, maybe *that* is why people are calling you out. Doing more of it isn't going to get them to stop.
Can we just stick with "HR needs to be fixed"? Working with small local companies up to multinationals over 30+ years I have remained friends with essentially all the useful people that I ever met in HR! That is sadly rather few.
Social media and the rest want to see an og:image (or similar) meta tag, should you happen to post a link.
Once you have selected something suitable for a 'hero' image, you may as well use it to add some colour to your page.
For me it was near impossible to manage manually on my main site, so I simply have some scripts to manage and insert variants of the basic hero image I selected, so it's nearly free. And yes, I work very hard to keep the page-weight down, coming in an order of magnitude below typical, including the image(s), AFAIK.
Rgds
Damon
PS. I use very little stock, maybe 2 or 3 total out of hundreds of pages' images.
Having all my incoming and outbound email thrown away because I might be a phisher or one of the people sending something to me might be is not a good thing. (And there are random days when for no obvious reasons suddenly some portion of mail in either direction for one of my mail accounts appears to be treated as SPAM by the large mail handlers for example, and I don't know.)
I am capable of spotting and avoiding responding to phishing attempts myself, without assistance.
I get 10,000 SPAM delivery attempts per day (when I bother to count), so I have a view on whether such a binary view of automated filtering is useful. Details matter.
Artificial intelligence is highly adept at spotting patterns and making predictions that are much too small and subtle for humans to pick out
But all the patterns that AI extracts are historical. They all assume that the events in the future will be caused by, and will act out, the same things that happened in the past.
The recent past remains statistically a good guide to the near future. Contingency plans deal with the rest. Using the former better saves money and makes the latter *less* likely.
We have seen this with computerised trading: that all they can do is find a past pattern of actions and try to fit that to what is happening now and will continue into the future. AIs have no ability to understand when the rules have changed, or when new and previously unseen conditions need to be applied.
The UKs electricity generation often runs very, very, close to its limits in the winter. Mainly due to cost-cutting: why spend money on maintaining plant and excess capacity when it won't be used?
To employ AI to shave further percentage points and thereby run even closer to the limits simply reduces the margin for the unexpected. And being unexpected, you can't blame an AI for not spotting those patterns in the past.
A dangerous game.
It's more likely about better scheduling/forecasting than cutting any reserve.
Cover for the largest expected single generator failure were increased when Sizewell (nuke) and then Longannet (coal) tripped in close succession in 2008. Maybe better modelling would have had the increased cover in place *before* then and 500,000 people would not have lost power.
Rgds
Damon
PS. BTW, I worked with low-latency traders. I suspect it doesn't work quite how you imagine.
You said elsewhere, amongst some insightful posts:
Slashdot used to be more of a "reasoned discussion" kind of place, but it's really gone to hell in the last 5 to 10 years. Sadly I think much of the internet has descended into hair-trigger flamewar territory, not just Slashdot.:(
Well, maybe you could avoid starting some of the fires here. Please. Life is too short.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe the message to which you are replying would answer the question that you have asked, ie one proposes the other disposes in this case.
Rgds
Damon
I have been approached many times (maybe 7?) by Google. I am now over 50! I'm not interested. I had to nominally get G's legal dept involved to stop the unwanted contacts... Got SPAMmed one more time by accident along with (apprently) ~1000 others recently by fumble-fingered recruiter... %-P
And aren't most people in white-collar jobs at peak earning potential in their 40s? I always assumed so. I have only worked a few weeks for anyone else in the last 30 years, but I always assumed something similar would apply to me.
Rgds
Damon
Well, more subtly, I believe research suggests that the maximum tolerable one-way commute across many countries/cultures is 90 minutes, and in the case of expensive places such as London people move just far enough away, saving on property prices, to make that close to the typical commute for the area. And people do indeed commute in from a long away away from London, such as Brighton (and the reaches of Essex and Kent).
From where I am now I can be from my desk at home to a desk in the City of London in 75 minutes typically by public transport. My town has been a dormitory suburb for City clerks for a long time, in effect.
So it is not extreme in that sense.
Rgds
Damon
Oh, the horrors!
Sounds like a typical commute into London, rather than some extreme bad case.
One of the reasons that I have worked for myself for all but ~6 weeks out of the last ~30Y is to have a bit more control over commuting...
Rgds
Damon
I can imagine an ordinary person getting over being asked to them obvious questions and having to repeat themselves, explain the obvious over and over to the same person and to different people.
If that's part of the job then it should be done with good grace, not irritation.
As an example I regularly explain and re-explain what my (start-up) business is up to, in terms that anyone can grasp, and have done for many years, and my own understanding has grown in doing so. (And I don't think that I have the highest IQ in my business!)
Rgds
Damon
I run a similar setup (ie my entire primary server set including HTTP, NTP, DNS, etc) on an RPi2.
Does its job very well and uses only 1W most of the time enabling me to keep them off-grid:
http://www.earth.org.uk/note-o...
http://www.earth.org.uk/_off-g...
I see various people pissing all over the RPis here, but they really are remarkable, and bigger is not always better. It depends on the application.
Rgds
Damon
If that is the case then you should change manager or company, not dig deeper into the one you're in.
Rgds
Damon
I disagree; that's a bad way to look at things from your point of view and your employer's.
I have always considered myself to be on a day's notice whenever contracting/consulting, and always work to make myself expendable.
And guess what:
1) The person paying you appreciates that you aren't trying to lock them in.
2) There's usually better, more interesting and more valuable stuff to be done once you have the previous rounds of tedium scripted.
3) False heroics, ie manually doing things that could easily be automated, makes for cockups and unhappiness. I've seen friends I otherwise respect and admire do this.
For this I got to be one of the better paid IT guys in my field, and always had interesting stuff to tackle.
Rgds
Damon
I regard that view as very sad.
Why are you at /. if you only care what's on sale now in your budget range, and science and tech over the horizon is of no interest? Or where many of the the world's potential and actual pandemics flare up? Or where many people will be displaced from as climate change bites, some of whom will arrive in your backyard almost inevitably?
Never mind simply being humane.
Goodness, what a narrow view of what matters. And the relative populations.
How useful is it to make scenes in public places just for the sake of it? You subtract from other people's enjoyment and focus. And no I don't think that being unpleasant/destructive just because you can is anything other than a selfish ego trip.
If that's something that you do regularly, maybe *that* is why people are calling you out. Doing more of it isn't going to get them to stop.
How to make friends and influence people!
Maybe this whole story is not about you, just maybe.
Can we just stick with "HR needs to be fixed"? Working with small local companies up to multinationals over 30+ years I have remained friends with essentially all the useful people that I ever met in HR! That is sadly rather few.
Rgds
Damon
Social media and the rest want to see an og:image (or similar) meta tag, should you happen to post a link.
Once you have selected something suitable for a 'hero' image, you may as well use it to add some colour to your page.
For me it was near impossible to manage manually on my main site, so I simply have some scripts to manage and insert variants of the basic hero image I selected, so it's nearly free. And yes, I work very hard to keep the page-weight down, coming in an order of magnitude below typical, including the image(s), AFAIK.
Rgds
Damon
PS. I use very little stock, maybe 2 or 3 total out of hundreds of pages' images.
I hear you. (I used to run a significant UUCP mail node, BTW!)
But then we have to agree on a definition of 'right' for the application, which is nuanced.
I still have a perfectly valid address rejected sometimes because it's 'too short'! (It's of the form X@YY.ZZZ)
Rgds
Damon
Getting such a regex right is MUCH harder than it looks:
https://stackoverflow.com/ques...
Rgds
Damon
Ouch!
What about providing something to help cover the costs of creating content you consumed? Do the words "immoral" and "heinous" apply there in any way?
Rgds
Damon
Really no.
Having all my incoming and outbound email thrown away because I might be a phisher or one of the people sending something to me might be is not a good thing. (And there are random days when for no obvious reasons suddenly some portion of mail in either direction for one of my mail accounts appears to be treated as SPAM by the large mail handlers for example, and I don't know.)
I am capable of spotting and avoiding responding to phishing attempts myself, without assistance.
I get 10,000 SPAM delivery attempts per day (when I bother to count), so I have a view on whether such a binary view of automated filtering is useful. Details matter.
Rgds
Damon
The obvious (and already available) solution is to have the spider mark its incoming HTTP request at the TCP level appropriately:
https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc35...
Rgds
Damon
Oblig: https://xkcd.com/1807/
I hear them from time to time here in the UK. Could be for individual buildings or at larger scale, I don't know.
Rgds
Damon
Relatively up-to-date when talking about /. news items. B^>
Rgds
Damon
Artificial intelligence is highly adept at spotting patterns and making predictions that are much too small and subtle for humans to pick out
But all the patterns that AI extracts are historical. They all assume that the events in the future will be caused by, and will act out, the same things that happened in the past.
The recent past remains statistically a good guide to the near future. Contingency plans deal with the rest. Using the former better saves money and makes the latter *less* likely.
We have seen this with computerised trading: that all they can do is find a past pattern of actions and try to fit that to what is happening now and will continue into the future. AIs have no ability to understand when the rules have changed, or when new and previously unseen conditions need to be applied.
The UKs electricity generation often runs very, very, close to its limits in the winter. Mainly due to cost-cutting: why spend money on maintaining plant and excess capacity when it won't be used?
To employ AI to shave further percentage points and thereby run even closer to the limits simply reduces the margin for the unexpected. And being unexpected, you can't blame an AI for not spotting those patterns in the past.
A dangerous game.
It's more likely about better scheduling/forecasting than cutting any reserve.
Cover for the largest expected single generator failure were increased when Sizewell (nuke) and then Longannet (coal) tripped in close succession in 2008. Maybe better modelling would have had the increased cover in place *before* then and 500,000 people would not have lost power.
Rgds
Damon
PS. BTW, I worked with low-latency traders. I suspect it doesn't work quite how you imagine.
Here was one I wrote up at the weekend:
http://www.earth.org.uk/Hey-Si...
Guess what could compute a daily forecast ready to upload to those phones and laptops, just for example, as well as some real-time polling?
Some of it could be based on the data used here:
http://www.earth.org.uk/_gridC...
Rgds
Damon
You said elsewhere, amongst some insightful posts:
Slashdot used to be more of a "reasoned discussion" kind of place, but it's really gone to hell in the last 5 to 10 years. Sadly I think much of the internet has descended into hair-trigger flamewar territory, not just Slashdot. :(
Well, maybe you could avoid starting some of the fires here. Please. Life is too short.
Damon