I've seen quotes of the post. He complemented her, said her post was interesting and that he agreed with most of it. he had one minor fairly technical point about having multiple dialogue trees so customers could customize their own experience of the character.
I saw nothing about Deroir's post that even displayed inciviliit
She then went nuclear on him. She reacted badly. She attacked one of the companies long term customers who was known to other customers too.
Perhaps you can help me out.
What part of this is trollish?
" âoeReally interesting thread to read! However, allow me to disagree slightly,â and shared a three-tweet explanation of how narrative design influences player expression in the sort of games that Price narratively designs."
She wasn't fired for saying she did or didn't like Nickleback on social media while representing herself as "MsPrice" or "MsP2379" relatively anonymously on some random social site.
She was fired for representing herself as a company developer and attacking a customer.
Business 101: Do NOT attack your customers.
(Business 102: Do not disparage the company products) (That didn't happen but just fyi).
Actually, the american bundt party was *huge* until the japanese attacked pearl harbor. The u.s. had many german immigrants who sympathised with germany and many non british immigrants who favored germany over britain.
Go look up the american bundt party on the wiki. They were filling Madison Square Garden just before the war.
This is a division I'm seeing in the left. And it could cost us control of the u.s. for the next two generations.
The left is dividing into a group who is traditionally liberal and favors a diversity of opinions and fairness (and many other left wing policies) and a group who insists on compliance, attacks heretics, and isn't in favor of fairness ("it's okay if innocent men's lives are destroyed", "It's okay if 70% of people in a field are women but not okay if 70% of people in a field are men").
In the 2016 elections, many of them stayed home or even voted against Clinton because they couldn't accept that Bernie lost/was out maneuvered/the party favored the old hand over the new guy. (and he did lose fair and square. it's just clear that if he had won fair and square then clinton still would have won unless bernie won by a huge margin. As it is, he lost by any measure). So about 12% of bernie voters in those three states literally threw away the right to abortion, controls on corporations, and elected an immature man child because they couldn't hold their nose and vote for the liberal candidate.
---
Side note. If clinton or bernie had been elected, it would have simply been 4 more years of stalemate. I think overruling Roe v Wade will demotivate right wing voters and motivate left wing voters. As in Ireland, in 20-40 years, the right to abortion will return for good. And I see *lots* of scandals where right wingers send their mistresses and daughters away to get abortions where it is still legal.
Here's the thing. I'm old. and I've seen women do it to both men and other women too, my entire life.
Tossing out "SJW", "Mansplaining", "Homophobic" is a way to stereotype the other person and shut down real communication while also getting in an insult at the same time. It also promotes dividing any discussion into "teams" and identifies the 'team' members really quickly.
It would be easier to understand, more civil, less divisive, and less insulting to say, "You are telling her how to do her job in a condescending or patronizing way." ("mansplaining") or "You are ignoring the rights of men and assuming women and minorities are always honest and always right" ("swj") or "You comment shows you dislike or are excessively afraid of homosexuals or homosexuality."
And those are clear statements of your opinion that can then be discussed or addressed. "Oh, I didn't mean to be patronizing. I've also been playing this game since it was released 8 years ago and my opinion has merit too." "Yes, my religion is against homosexuality so I am against homosexuality." or "Wow, I guess I do have strong negative feelings about homosexuality even tho I play video games with some gay friends. Something about this particular topic is setting me off." or "Yea, I guess 58% of women to 42% of men being students in college is an unfair level. While I want more women to be in college, we should get the number closer to 50/50 again."
Here are the conclusions. You can see the details in the article.
----- Conclusions *Unless a number of optimistic assumptions are realized, SMRs are not likely to be a viable solution to the economic and safety problems faced by nuclear power.
*While some SMR proponents are worried that the United States is lagging in the creation of an SMR export market, cutting corners on safety is a shortsighted strategy.
*Since safety and security improvements are critical to establishing the viability of nuclear power as an energy source for the future, the nuclear industry and the DOE should focus on developing safer reactor designs rather than weakening regulations.
*Congress should direct the DOE to spend taxpayer money only on support of technologies that have the potential to provide significantly greater levels of safety and security than currently operating reactors.
*The DOE should not be promoting the idea that SMRs do not require 10-mile emergency planningâ"nor should it be encouraging the NRC to weaken its other requirements just to facilitate SMR licensing and deployment.
Problem is, without the government business was flat out killing people, leaving toxic landfills, polluting water supplies, and committting other heinous acts.
Capitalism doesn't stop them because they make higher profits by doing these things. Then they walk away leaving the costs for other citiziens.
Government needs to be powerful enough to control the largest companies and the wealthiest citizens.
Unfortunately, they have a large financial interest in corrupting the government. You need someone incorruptible to come in and clean house and break up the corrupted departments and the corrupt businesses and wealth.
The incremental cost is low but it may have cost millions of dollars,to develop the software. And it may cost Millions more to maintain the staff to support that software.
I agree that short sellers are doing everything they can because they are getting desperate.
And I agree Tesla has a product that people really desire.
And finally I'll agree that Tesla is ramping up production rapidly. It appears to have strong, highly intelligent management and motivated Workforce.
Oh come on. That's obviously underbid amounts even now.
Decommissioning costs are 10%-15% of construction costs and rising.
Companies have repeatedly not set aside the money to decommission and so the it will fall on the citizens.
We need clawback provisions on nuclear industry executives pension and savings if we want the money set aside.
Humans always become careless, sloppy, and cut corners for everything. Nuclear power is no different in that regard.
I don't think your information is very realistic.
As you'll note from my post above, I'm not absolutely opposed to nuclear power but we should avoid it based on experience over the last 6 decades. The actual costs of nuclear are always paid later by citizens who see little to none of the benefits.
I understand you are passionate about nuclear power but I think you are rationalizing and ignoring anything that contradicts your world view. Fortunately, your view that the public is going to accept nuclear power is unrealistic too.
While researching this, I see that china is planning to build many of these plants. Given their history and their culture, that is a catastrophe waiting to happen.
I can't think of many cultures which could handle nuclear power safely. I would have thought the japanese but they cut costs in the face of hard evidence. So maybe the Swiss or the Germans.
Certainly not americans- and certainly not the chinese.
Even tho the 2009 supreme court ruling gutted our age discrimination protection, I think government stings could go a long way.
Essentially, do what they do in housing and credit. Conduct sting operations.
Send identical resumes with different ages and if the company consistently schedules an interview for the young but not the older people then fine the company. Make the company submit a record of all job applicants. If they hire young vs old at disproportionate rates, then fine the company.
I'm thinking on the order of $10,000 per occurrence level fines.
If you cut people over 50 off from working, then they will become a burden on the state and that means higher taxes.
The next supreme court justice will definitely be pro-corporation.
Corporations will have increasing power over individuals for the rest of our lives.
The current ruling that they are artificial people with all the rights of humans but who can't be imprisoned is already bad enough.
I don't see anyway to stop it so prepare to suffer.
This case seems pretty blatant but age discrimination in the technical field was going on already in 1988. I saw a 45 year old programmer laid off as too old and he couldn't get back into the field then. I decided I needed to be ready to retire by 45. It meant less luxury cars and so on and I missed my goal by 6 years but I was able to retire at 51.
And I was literally laid off one day before I was going to retire.
I was going to retire on january 1 for the five weeks vacation benefits money and had trained two of my team to replace me as manager. In September, the company laid off 90% of programming staff as of december 31st to replace them with Infosys after they had been our "partner" for about five years.
My director never knew why I was so happy to be laid off. I told her I couldn't tell her for legal reasons. She was let go too a few months later.
Some of the people laid off with me have never found a job again and have fallen on very hard times. They were mostly 55+.
I also have another friend who was a manager and being courted by other companies. But once he was laid off, no one was interested in him. He can't even get an interview unless he lies about his age. After six months he tested that. When he lowers his age to the 30s he gets call backs. When he's 40 or older he gets no call backs.
You can sequester that by burying them or making protected objects out of them (like tables and chairs).
But even if we covered the earth with plants, it's under 1/20th of the problem. It would consume about 3 gigatons of carbon per year assuming we perfectly sequestered all of it.
Last I saw was we release 37 gigatons of carbon per year. That's down from 50gigatons a couple decades ago but we only have about 115 gigatons before we pass 2 degrees celsius. And the easy carbon reductions are mostly all gone now.
Nuclear energy is not safe and is not inexpensive when humans are involved.
Decommissioning costs are running two orders of magnitude more expensive than proponents said they would be. * This means that nuclear is actually much more expensive than it's stated cost and that means the next generatiosn subsidizes nuclear power used by the prior generations.
Securing the nuclear waste costs millions of dollars per site per year for the foreseeable future. * This cost increases over time. What cost $6 million 10 years ago, costs $8 million a couple years ago.
Private insurance will not cover the risk. That's evidence right there that the risks are unknowable or larger than proponents say. * This means citizens are on the hook for unlimited losses. Corporations and executives get the profits up front and dump the costs on citizens.
It has benefits for CO2 but we sail thru the 2 degree celcius increase about 2024. Nuclear plants wouldn't be done for 20 years. The public hate them.
I could see using Nuclear only in extreme lattitudes where alternative energy is less practical.
And the price on those shares will drop and the market cap will become rational about 3 weeks after all the short sellers are broken. There are too many short Sellers and they are supporting the market. Tesla stock is unlikely to be able to correct until most of the short sellers are flushed.
That's the main reason I don't want nuclear power. Humans are way to casual with it within a decade or so. Nothing bad happened so they start cutting corners.5%. And nothing bad happens... so they iterate.
Well, please take consolation in the fact that as they are doing this, folks who are being shot will proclaim "Those aren't A.I." as they die.
A.I. is really a potential extinction level threat and people don't take it seriously enough.
At a minimum any A.I. research should have analog power consumption indicators, remote observation, and a physical power connection that can be broken easily (or even one where active steps must be taken to maintain it).
Well we don't have the technology yet but wouldn't it be nice if we had something powered by renewable energy that directly produced graphene from the air in amounts sufficient to make a difference?
For one thing, we could use it to replace the sand we are running out of for concrete (can't use desert sand- it's spherical).
If we do get a technology that does it, then we will have the problem on the other end as carbon extractors deny co2 levels are getting too low. But that's probably over 100 years away.
A lot of the nanny-ism flows from overpopulation. If we get the world below replacement levels, we might wean back down to a more sustainable population level which supports a higher standard of living per individual.
But then we risk an over shoot there too. Rats in the Calhoun rat universe experiments did not resume breeding even with plentiful space, food, and water after they stopped breeding due to overcrowding. They were in a behavioral sink that persisted until they went extinct.
On the other hand, it's also possible that if all but one population drops below replacement level then the lone population which continues to breed at high levels will eventually come to dominate the population.
I think the CO2 situation will not be resolved well short of us finding a technological solution.
We are already past the c02 limit for a 1.5 C temperature increase. We blow thru the 2.0 C temperature increase in 2025. To not do so, we would have to lower our carbon output by 90%.
I just don't see that happening.
In the mean time, natural gas extraction is leading to very sharp increases in methane.
Nothing short of directly removing CO2 is going to work. And we are not even close to reduction much less extraction.
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen quotes of the post. He complemented her, said her post was interesting and that he agreed with most of it. he had one minor fairly technical point about having multiple dialogue trees so customers could customize their own experience of the character.
I saw nothing about Deroir's post that even displayed inciviliit
She then went nuclear on him. She reacted badly. She attacked one of the companies long term customers who was known to other customers too.
Perhaps you can help me out.
What part of this is trollish?
" âoeReally interesting thread to read! However, allow me to disagree slightly,â and shared a three-tweet explanation of how narrative design influences player expression in the sort of games that Price narratively designs."
She responded with the mansplaining comment here
https://www.theverge.com/2018/...
her comments upset many other fans and so she tweeted...
"âoeIâ(TM)m not on the clock here. Iâ(TM)m not your emotional courtesan just because Iâ(TM)m a dev. Donâ(TM)t expect me to pretend to like you here.â
That's very abrasive, confrontational, and was directed at *many* of the companies customers.
I would have fired her too.
She wasn't fired for saying she did or didn't like Nickleback on social media while representing herself as "MsPrice" or "MsP2379" relatively anonymously on some random social site.
She was fired for representing herself as a company developer and attacking a customer.
Business 101: Do NOT attack your customers.
(Business 102: Do not disparage the company products) (That didn't happen but just fyi).
Actually, the american bundt party was *huge* until the japanese attacked pearl harbor. The u.s. had many german immigrants who sympathised with germany and many non british immigrants who favored germany over britain.
Go look up the american bundt party on the wiki. They were filling Madison Square Garden just before the war.
This is a division I'm seeing in the left. And it could cost us control of the u.s. for the next two generations.
The left is dividing into a group who is traditionally liberal and favors a diversity of opinions and fairness (and many other left wing policies) and a group who insists on compliance, attacks heretics, and isn't in favor of fairness ("it's okay if innocent men's lives are destroyed", "It's okay if 70% of people in a field are women but not okay if 70% of people in a field are men").
In the 2016 elections, many of them stayed home or even voted against Clinton because they couldn't accept that Bernie lost/was out maneuvered/the party favored the old hand over the new guy. (and he did lose fair and square. it's just clear that if he had won fair and square then clinton still would have won unless bernie won by a huge margin. As it is, he lost by any measure). So about 12% of bernie voters in those three states literally threw away the right to abortion, controls on corporations, and elected an immature man child because they couldn't hold their nose and vote for the liberal candidate.
---
Side note. If clinton or bernie had been elected, it would have simply been 4 more years of stalemate. I think overruling Roe v Wade will demotivate right wing voters and motivate left wing voters. As in Ireland, in 20-40 years, the right to abortion will return for good. And I see *lots* of scandals where right wingers send their mistresses and daughters away to get abortions where it is still legal.
Here's the thing. I'm old. and I've seen women do it to both men and other women too, my entire life.
Tossing out "SJW", "Mansplaining", "Homophobic" is a way to stereotype the other person and shut down real communication while also getting in an insult at the same time. It also promotes dividing any discussion into "teams" and identifies the 'team' members really quickly.
It would be easier to understand, more civil, less divisive, and less insulting to say, "You are telling her how to do her job in a condescending or patronizing way." ("mansplaining") or "You are ignoring the rights of men and assuming women and minorities are always honest and always right" ("swj") or "You comment shows you dislike or are excessively afraid of homosexuals or homosexuality."
And those are clear statements of your opinion that can then be discussed or addressed. "Oh, I didn't mean to be patronizing. I've also been playing this game since it was released 8 years ago and my opinion has merit too." "Yes, my religion is against homosexuality so I am against homosexuality." or "Wow, I guess I do have strong negative feelings about homosexuality even tho I play video games with some gay friends. Something about this particular topic is setting me off." or "Yea, I guess 58% of women to 42% of men being students in college is an unfair level. While I want more women to be in college, we should get the number closer to 50/50 again."
Business 102: Do not disparage the product (that didn't happen in this case).
Seriously tho... this is part of the problem with Star Wars. Kennedy, Johnson and Abrahms attacked Disney's customers.
Have they addressed the issues raised in this article from four years ago?
https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear...
Here are the conclusions. You can see the details in the article.
-----
Conclusions
*Unless a number of optimistic assumptions are realized, SMRs are not likely to be a viable solution to the economic and safety problems faced by nuclear power.
*While some SMR proponents are worried that the United States is lagging in the creation of an SMR export market, cutting corners on safety is a shortsighted strategy.
*Since safety and security improvements are critical to establishing the viability of nuclear power as an energy source for the future, the nuclear industry and the DOE should focus on developing safer reactor designs rather than weakening regulations.
*Congress should direct the DOE to spend taxpayer money only on support of technologies that have the potential to provide significantly greater levels of safety and security than currently operating reactors.
*The DOE should not be promoting the idea that SMRs do not require 10-mile emergency planningâ"nor should it be encouraging the NRC to weaken its other requirements just to facilitate SMR licensing and deployment.
Problem is, without the government business was flat out killing people, leaving toxic landfills, polluting water supplies, and committting other heinous acts.
Capitalism doesn't stop them because they make higher profits by doing these things. Then they walk away leaving the costs for other citiziens.
Government needs to be powerful enough to control the largest companies and the wealthiest citizens.
Unfortunately, they have a large financial interest in corrupting the government. You need someone incorruptible to come in and clean house and break up the corrupted departments and the corrupt businesses and wealth.
Last time it really happened was Teddy Roosevelt.
Software isn't free.
The incremental cost is low but it may have cost millions of dollars,to develop the software. And it may cost Millions more to maintain the staff to support that software.
I agree that short sellers are doing everything they can because they are getting desperate.
And I agree Tesla has a product that people really desire.
And finally I'll agree that Tesla is ramping up production rapidly. It appears to have strong, highly intelligent management and motivated Workforce.
College graduation date.
And Infosys (and some other companies) require High School graduation date.
Oh come on. That's obviously underbid amounts even now.
Decommissioning costs are 10%-15% of construction costs and rising.
Companies have repeatedly not set aside the money to decommission and so the it will fall on the citizens.
We need clawback provisions on nuclear industry executives pension and savings if we want the money set aside.
Humans always become careless, sloppy, and cut corners for everything. Nuclear power is no different in that regard.
I don't think your information is very realistic.
As you'll note from my post above, I'm not absolutely opposed to nuclear power but we should avoid it based on experience over the last 6 decades. The actual costs of nuclear are always paid later by citizens who see little to none of the benefits.
I understand you are passionate about nuclear power but I think you are rationalizing and ignoring anything that contradicts your world view. Fortunately, your view that the public is going to accept nuclear power is unrealistic too.
While researching this, I see that china is planning to build many of these plants. Given their history and their culture, that is a catastrophe waiting to happen.
I can't think of many cultures which could handle nuclear power safely. I would have thought the japanese but they cut costs in the face of hard evidence. So maybe the Swiss or the Germans.
Certainly not americans- and certainly not the chinese.
Even tho the 2009 supreme court ruling gutted our age discrimination protection, I think government stings could go a long way.
Essentially, do what they do in housing and credit. Conduct sting operations.
Send identical resumes with different ages and if the company consistently schedules an interview for the young but not the older people then fine the company. Make the company submit a record of all job applicants. If they hire young vs old at disproportionate rates, then fine the company.
I'm thinking on the order of $10,000 per occurrence level fines.
If you cut people over 50 off from working, then they will become a burden on the state and that means higher taxes.
They might even go off and shoot a dozen people.
http://articles.latimes.com/20...
The next supreme court justice will definitely be pro-corporation.
Corporations will have increasing power over individuals for the rest of our lives.
The current ruling that they are artificial people with all the rights of humans but who can't be imprisoned is already bad enough.
I don't see anyway to stop it so prepare to suffer.
This case seems pretty blatant but age discrimination in the technical field was going on already in 1988. I saw a 45 year old programmer laid off as too old and he couldn't get back into the field then. I decided I needed to be ready to retire by 45. It meant less luxury cars and so on and I missed my goal by 6 years but I was able to retire at 51.
And I was literally laid off one day before I was going to retire.
I was going to retire on january 1 for the five weeks vacation benefits money and had trained two of my team to replace me as manager. In September, the company laid off 90% of programming staff as of december 31st to replace them with Infosys after they had been our "partner" for about five years.
My director never knew why I was so happy to be laid off. I told her I couldn't tell her for legal reasons. She was let go too a few months later.
Some of the people laid off with me have never found a job again and have fallen on very hard times. They were mostly 55+.
I also have another friend who was a manager and being courted by other companies. But once he was laid off, no one was interested in him. He can't even get an interview unless he lies about his age. After six months he tested that. When he lowers his age to the 30s he gets call backs. When he's 40 or older he gets no call backs.
You can sequester that by burying them or making protected objects out of them (like tables and chairs).
But even if we covered the earth with plants, it's under 1/20th of the problem. It would consume about 3 gigatons of carbon per year assuming we perfectly sequestered all of it.
Last I saw was we release 37 gigatons of carbon per year. That's down from 50gigatons a couple decades ago but we only have about 115 gigatons before we pass 2 degrees celsius. And the easy carbon reductions are mostly all gone now.
When you cut and paste, Slashdot fails.
When you make a mistake or your phone autocorrects badly, Slashdot fails because you can't fix it.
I've been using slashdot less over the last year and can see a time when I'll just drop it.
Nuclear energy is not safe and is not inexpensive when humans are involved.
Decommissioning costs are running two orders of magnitude more expensive than proponents said they would be.
* This means that nuclear is actually much more expensive than it's stated cost and that means the next generatiosn subsidizes nuclear power used by the prior generations.
Securing the nuclear waste costs millions of dollars per site per year for the foreseeable future.
* This cost increases over time. What cost $6 million 10 years ago, costs $8 million a couple years ago.
Private insurance will not cover the risk. That's evidence right there that the risks are unknowable or larger than proponents say.
* This means citizens are on the hook for unlimited losses. Corporations and executives get the profits up front and dump the costs on citizens.
It has benefits for CO2 but we sail thru the 2 degree celcius increase about 2024. Nuclear plants wouldn't be done for 20 years. The public hate them.
I could see using Nuclear only in extreme lattitudes where alternative energy is less practical.
And the price on those shares will drop and the market cap will become rational about 3 weeks after all the short sellers are broken. There are too many short Sellers and they are supporting the market.
Tesla stock is unlikely to be able to correct until most of the short sellers are flushed.
That's the main reason I don't want nuclear power. Humans are way to casual with it within a decade or so. Nothing bad happened so they start cutting corners .5%. And nothing bad happens... so they iterate.
And no, I have many baskets. :-)
A.I. is just one of them.
Well, please take consolation in the fact that as they are doing this, folks who are being shot will proclaim "Those aren't A.I." as they die.
A.I. is really a potential extinction level threat and people don't take it seriously enough.
At a minimum any A.I. research should have analog power consumption indicators, remote observation, and a physical power connection that can be broken easily (or even one where active steps must be taken to maintain it).
We don't do that in many cases.
Even highly intelligent humans often use random trial and error when confronted with totally new situations.
They also do stupid things like seeing patterns that don't exist or extending from prior situations they think are similar but which are not.
The human brain is delightfully buggy, subject to framing errors, physical defects, and can't even detect when it's broken most the time.
Just remember... whenever a computer can do it, it's not A.I. any more.
So when we have a computer with a robotic body that passes for human and is better than humans in every way... folks will say, "Oh that's not A.I."
The amygdala isn't intelligent.
The cerebellum isn't intelligent.
No component of the brain is really intelligent.
I actually think it's plausible that intelligence might emerge from multi player collectives where each "player" isn't intelligent individually.
Well we don't have the technology yet but wouldn't it be nice if we had something powered by renewable energy that directly produced graphene from the air in amounts sufficient to make a difference?
For one thing, we could use it to replace the sand we are running out of for concrete (can't use desert sand- it's spherical).
If we do get a technology that does it, then we will have the problem on the other end as carbon extractors deny co2 levels are getting too low. But that's probably over 100 years away.
A lot of the nanny-ism flows from overpopulation. If we get the world below replacement levels, we might wean back down to a more sustainable population level which supports a higher standard of living per individual.
But then we risk an over shoot there too. Rats in the Calhoun rat universe experiments did not resume breeding even with plentiful space, food, and water after they stopped breeding due to overcrowding. They were in a behavioral sink that persisted until they went extinct.
On the other hand, it's also possible that if all but one population drops below replacement level then the lone population which continues to breed at high levels will eventually come to dominate the population.
I think the CO2 situation will not be resolved well short of us finding a technological solution.
The overall situation is extremely complex.
We are already past the c02 limit for a 1.5 C temperature increase. We blow thru the 2.0 C temperature increase in 2025. To not do so, we would have to lower our carbon output by 90%.
I just don't see that happening.
In the mean time, natural gas extraction is leading to very sharp increases in methane.
Nothing short of directly removing CO2 is going to work. And we are not even close to reduction much less extraction.
How do you come to a valid conclusion when everything you know could be a lie?
Garbage in... Garbage out.
Well you are a massive asshole to complete strangers based on little evidence, so I'm sure you are more offensive to some wait staff than you realize.
dandruff in the parmeson has been done. And it was a reference to your comment regarding piss and beer.
So yea.. ."whoosh" but not for me- for you.
As I said above.. I'm offered off menu items by waitstaff who know me. I don't think I'm going to have a problem with pee in my beer if I drank beer.
If you want a 20%+ tip, then give good service..