"Once you hire somebody in Spain you can't fire them"
To make this patently clear to you: I'm Spanish; I have more than a decent grasp on local labor laws, including last reform, and I tell this to you: you don't know shit.
"Because you don't train someone, who has been manufacturing doorknobs for the last 20 years, to now be an electrical engineer."
Nor do you need it.
I for one have successfully worked on all kind of IT-related positions in the last 20-plus years, from servers' set up to IT strategy, on start-ups to the biggest telcos; I own both strong hands-on and managerial experience; I proud myself of leading best by example on agile environments and have the focus to lead companies that really want it from "old" siloed, process-strong style to agile, people-empowering one. I hold an MBA and even know the buzz-words when need arise. I also manage to, at the very least, make myself be understood in English. I'm Spanish, I almost surely sent my CV for the position that's been mentioned here.
And d'you know what? I wasn't even phoned back for a face-to-face interview in order to be properly rejected and I've been at the unemployment queue for more than a year. Now I'm on a purely technical position for about a 50% less than I used to make... which is exactly what the last labour reform was about. Pimentel wasn't able to find a suitable candidate my ass. For him, the only suitable solution would be poaching a candidate doing exactly the same for a different company, and even with exactly the same tech stack despite looking for a managerial position.
You don't fathom how incredibly hypocritical and incompetent the hiring/corporate part of the labour system is here in Spain.
"Pimentelâ(TM)s client asked him for list of candidates trained in âoeAgileâ project management techniques for helping companies boost their productivity by using more I.T. systems. The client was offering as much as 200,000 euros ($220,000) a year -- almost 10 times the average salary in Spain."
Pimentel is a fucking sociopathic moron.
No, I mean it. That's all that needs to be said.
But in reality, he was *not* a) offering 200 grands for a suitable candidate and b) he wouldn't know a suitable candidate even it he was spouted to his face.
Oh, and c) his customer wouldn't distinguish "agile" from "eagle" even looking at wikipedia.
How much do you see if you're looking right into the Sun? "Nothing."
Did you take the time to read what I wrote before spouting you venom? I bet not.
But, OK, the driver could do nothing: why the parent poster states then that "Had the driver been paying attention, then he could have stopped it"? If he could do nothing, how can be a problem if the driver was not paying attention? On the other hand, if the driver could avoid the accident, how is it anything but a shitty detection system on the car?
"You're a fucking idiot, and and ignoramus to boot."
Coming from an Anonymous Coward, don't worry, I'll give due value to your vomi^H^H^H^Hwords.
"do you really think they fed back the speedometer results into the algorithm?"
Exactly that.
"There would be no good reason to do that at all. There would be no good reason to do that at all, it only adds complexity and another point of failure."
Except that's exactly the only way to be sure. And then, tell me how is it anymore complex to read the input from the engine regime (which doesn't directly map up to speed anyway) instead of the speedometer. The latter naturally lends itself to a very simple algorithm with, basically, reads: 1) If below the mark speed: increase gas. 2) if above the mark speed: let gas idle. 2.1) if deceleration doesn't happen quick enough, gently press the brakes. END.
Add controls to detect clutch engagement, over-revving and stalling and you are done.
"Of course they use gas and brakes to control it, that's only the method used to control RPM"
Did you read what I wrote? So "in order to reduce complexity", they need to introduce the conversion for any given gear to all others, right? Because, please tell me how is it possible otherwise for the vehicle to sustain its speed when I happen to go from forth gear to sixth or the other way around. Or how it commands for higher revs till the mark speed is reached if it goes too much below it (pressing the clutch for a while, for instance).
"as to truck detection, it was a white truck that came across the road [,,,] such that the driver [was] blinded from seeing the truck [...] Had the driver been paying attention, then he could have stopped it."
So, was the driver blinded from seeing the truck or would he be able to stop the car if paying attention? If the later, how doesn't it point to a shitty detection system on the car? A full damn truck in the middle of the road, for god's shake!
And as for the "signing it off as not being safe" what's that apart from lawyers' weaselry? It's full known you can't disengage a human from most of the nuances of driving a vehicle and then expect him to react properly on an emergency. That's true for car drivers and it's still true for highly trained plane pilots.
"I don't have a Tesla but the most useful thing I could imagine the Tesla autopilot for is actually stop and go traffic, where the car could do a great job of removing the tedium of constantly adjusting speed, you just watch the cars all around you."
You don't need a Tesla for that. "Intelligent" cruise control that does exactly that has been in the market for quite a few years now.
"All it's doing is managing RPM. The cruise control disengages when you operate the clutch."
Maybe that's the case for your model. Mine doesn't control RPM but speed itself, acting either the brakes or the gas as needed and even allows you to change gears. It disengages either when you operate the designed control or the brakes.
It's a Mercedes manual transmission model from 2001, so not exactly new.
"Here in the UK, most people learn to drive a manual"
I can confirm the same in Spain -and probably everywhere as it just makes common sense: always use the parking brake, put in gear only on a slope with wheels turned so the car goes out of the way in case of going loose.
But on the other hand, as some of the steps, while common sense are just there for redundancy, or are just good for the long term/rare circunstances, a lot of people tend not to do it.
Just on the start/stop process a lot of people won't depress the clutch before turning the engine on, for instance.
"previous work on human cadavers demonstrated that some genes remain active after death" What does mean "remain active" with regards to genes? For all that I know (and I own a Biology major) genes just "stay there" (more or less) for RNA to make use of them so, what this does mean? That supressing factors, as they are supressing no more after death, allow for some genes to be expressed after death? What a surprise! I don't mean the details not to be worthnoting as I'm not aware too many time/money has been thrown towards that target but that the general assertion is of little surprise. We already knew death is not an event but a process (despite all legal interest in the contrary).
"So the government increased the price on electricity"
That's not needed, specially if the government doesn't want to appear as the bad guy of the film. It just needs to set the rules on such a regulated and oligopoly-inclined market.
"Why not automate the job of a CEO or Board of Directors, and fire them."
Because it is the CEO or the Board of Directors the one choosing who gets fired and who gets a bonus. Become a CEO and you will be totally free to fire yourself without bonuses or seven digit severance packages if so you want.
"Really don't see an alternative to a basic minimal income in the future"
And I really don't get how this "basic minimal income" meme has come from, except there *is* a Protocols of the Elders of Zion-style plan for world domination. Nobody can really be that stupid as to think basic income is, at least on itself, anything but a very very bad idea for those hoping for it, which means there must be a really strong conspiration from those that will really benefit from it (those that already reached the 0,1% status) to push it to less informed minds.
State-controlled basic minimal services *may* hold a merit but, printing money "for free"??? How in hell can anybody even start thinking it won't utterly backfire?
"Why do you need humans to put on the cheese and toppings?"
They don't.
That's the difference between a real entrepreneur and an armchair one.
You don't need your business to be perfect, you just need it to be profitable within the current environment (well, at least that's the idea of "old school" business -of course as of today it seems you also can become billionaire without any sensible business case as long as you can have the potential to accrue users in the millions and the proper contacts, but that's a different story).
So here, it seems, it's good enough to automate the easiest part of the procurement cycle to make a profit, so that's what he did. It's always better to take a shorter profit and launch today than wait for your case to be "perfect" and launch tomorrow. If they idea shows merit, don't worry, they'll increasingly go automating the more difficult/costly parts as they start making sense.
"Drive the price up too high and you see what happened in the UK a few years ago with the elderly on pensions dying because they froze to death during the winter."
You are aware that this has very little to do with production costs and very much to do with whatever the government of the day is wanting to push, right?
"the judge goes on to write that there's no reasonable expectation of privacy for the contents of an Internet-connected computer, because that computer "can - and eventually will - be hacked.""
So, am I free to take the money on a bank safe? The contents of any safe can -and eventually will, be cracked.
"You're missing the point - that someone can do something against his own interests, because he's not properly thinking things through. There was a German guy back in the 1940s who did that quite a lot."
Do you really think so? It's obvious that he worked quite against German's best interest but against his? A matter of opinion -and it's his opinion the one that counts: he was a sociopathic nobody with assertivity problems that found his way to be the world's center of attention and got to take the resources of an important nation for his whims to come true. Yes, only for a while, that's true, but we should ask him, if even after the bitter end he would have chosen otherwise, probably not.
Slashdot Mirror
"I would never let anybody come close to touching my codebase without them training in my company on a standard set of test projects for a few weeks"
So you have them training on your own particular ways, for you own particular benefit but still you won't pay them for their time.
I have a name for you, but I'm too polite to write it down here.
"As to Spain, you have no idea how difficult and expensive it is to hire and fire people there"
Neither do you.
"Once you hire somebody in Spain you can't fire them"
To make this patently clear to you: I'm Spanish; I have more than a decent grasp on local labor laws, including last reform, and I tell this to you: you don't know shit.
"Because you don't train someone, who has been manufacturing doorknobs for the last 20 years, to now be an electrical engineer."
Nor do you need it.
I for one have successfully worked on all kind of IT-related positions in the last 20-plus years, from servers' set up to IT strategy, on start-ups to the biggest telcos; I own both strong hands-on and managerial experience; I proud myself of leading best by example on agile environments and have the focus to lead companies that really want it from "old" siloed, process-strong style to agile, people-empowering one. I hold an MBA and even know the buzz-words when need arise. I also manage to, at the very least, make myself be understood in English. I'm Spanish, I almost surely sent my CV for the position that's been mentioned here.
And d'you know what? I wasn't even phoned back for a face-to-face interview in order to be properly rejected and I've been at the unemployment queue for more than a year. Now I'm on a purely technical position for about a 50% less than I used to make... which is exactly what the last labour reform was about. Pimentel wasn't able to find a suitable candidate my ass. For him, the only suitable solution would be poaching a candidate doing exactly the same for a different company, and even with exactly the same tech stack despite looking for a managerial position.
You don't fathom how incredibly hypocritical and incompetent the hiring/corporate part of the labour system is here in Spain.
"Pimentelâ(TM)s client asked him for list of candidates trained in âoeAgileâ project management techniques for helping companies boost their productivity by using more I.T. systems. The client was offering as much as 200,000 euros ($220,000) a year -- almost 10 times the average salary in Spain."
Pimentel is a fucking sociopathic moron.
No, I mean it. That's all that needs to be said.
But in reality, he was *not* a) offering 200 grands for a suitable candidate and b) he wouldn't know a suitable candidate even it he was spouted to his face.
Oh, and c) his customer wouldn't distinguish "agile" from "eagle" even looking at wikipedia.
How much do you see if you're looking right into the Sun? "Nothing."
Did you take the time to read what I wrote before spouting you venom? I bet not.
But, OK, the driver could do nothing: why the parent poster states then that "Had the driver been paying attention, then he could have stopped it"? If he could do nothing, how can be a problem if the driver was not paying attention? On the other hand, if the driver could avoid the accident, how is it anything but a shitty detection system on the car?
"You're a fucking idiot, and and ignoramus to boot."
Coming from an Anonymous Coward, don't worry, I'll give due value to your vomi^H^H^H^Hwords.
"Really? How do you know that"
Because I know.
"do you really think they fed back the speedometer results into the algorithm?"
Exactly that.
"There would be no good reason to do that at all. There would be no good reason to do that at all, it only adds complexity and another point of failure."
Except that's exactly the only way to be sure. And then, tell me how is it anymore complex to read the input from the engine regime (which doesn't directly map up to speed anyway) instead of the speedometer. The latter naturally lends itself to a very simple algorithm with, basically, reads:
1) If below the mark speed: increase gas.
2) if above the mark speed: let gas idle.
2.1) if deceleration doesn't happen quick enough, gently press the brakes.
END.
Add controls to detect clutch engagement, over-revving and stalling and you are done.
"Of course they use gas and brakes to control it, that's only the method used to control RPM"
Did you read what I wrote? So "in order to reduce complexity", they need to introduce the conversion for any given gear to all others, right? Because, please tell me how is it possible otherwise for the vehicle to sustain its speed when I happen to go from forth gear to sixth or the other way around. Or how it commands for higher revs till the mark speed is reached if it goes too much below it (pressing the clutch for a while, for instance).
"if visibility is too poor for a pilot to land they just flip the switch for automatic landing."
Provided the airport has the required supporting facilities in place, which is not the case for the road system (not yet, at least).
Fanboy detection alarm!!!
"as to truck detection, it was a white truck that came across the road [,,,] such that the driver [was] blinded from seeing the truck [...] Had the driver been paying attention, then he could have stopped it."
So, was the driver blinded from seeing the truck or would he be able to stop the car if paying attention? If the later, how doesn't it point to a shitty detection system on the car? A full damn truck in the middle of the road, for god's shake!
And as for the "signing it off as not being safe" what's that apart from lawyers' weaselry? It's full known you can't disengage a human from most of the nuances of driving a vehicle and then expect him to react properly on an emergency. That's true for car drivers and it's still true for highly trained plane pilots.
"I don't have a Tesla but the most useful thing I could imagine the Tesla autopilot for is actually stop and go traffic, where the car could do a great job of removing the tedium of constantly adjusting speed, you just watch the cars all around you."
You don't need a Tesla for that. "Intelligent" cruise control that does exactly that has been in the market for quite a few years now.
"All it's doing is managing RPM. The cruise control disengages when you operate the clutch."
Maybe that's the case for your model. Mine doesn't control RPM but speed itself, acting either the brakes or the gas as needed and even allows you to change gears. It disengages either when you operate the designed control or the brakes.
It's a Mercedes manual transmission model from 2001, so not exactly new.
"...Windows 10 install manager, now only available in Windows 10."
Well, you are not to far away: "Windows 10 install manager, now only available in Windows".
So far, it's been quite easy for me to avoid it.
"I'm pretty sure you have to do that? Isn't there a clutch safety switch or something that requires the clutch to be engaged for the starter to work?"
I recall a tiny minority of cars with that kind of safe but, as a general matter, no.
"What is wrong with you people (mostly Americans I guess). Do you actually take driving lessons?"
Well, for any practical purpose, no, they don't.
"Here in the UK, most people learn to drive a manual"
I can confirm the same in Spain -and probably everywhere as it just makes common sense: always use the parking brake, put in gear only on a slope with wheels turned so the car goes out of the way in case of going loose.
But on the other hand, as some of the steps, while common sense are just there for redundancy, or are just good for the long term/rare circunstances, a lot of people tend not to do it.
Just on the start/stop process a lot of people won't depress the clutch before turning the engine on, for instance.
I am a CEO, you insensitive clod!
What's that article beside click-bait?
"previous work on human cadavers demonstrated that some genes remain active after death" What does mean "remain active" with regards to genes? For all that I know (and I own a Biology major) genes just "stay there" (more or less) for RNA to make use of them so, what this does mean? That supressing factors, as they are supressing no more after death, allow for some genes to be expressed after death? What a surprise! I don't mean the details not to be worthnoting as I'm not aware too many time/money has been thrown towards that target but that the general assertion is of little surprise. We already knew death is not an event but a process (despite all legal interest in the contrary).
"So the government increased the price on electricity"
That's not needed, specially if the government doesn't want to appear as the bad guy of the film. It just needs to set the rules on such a regulated and oligopoly-inclined market.
"it will become so cheap and so easy to have robots make quality food and deliver it, people just won't bother to cook anymore."
Exactly that.
And it'll come in the form of pills and they will be delivered by flying cars.
That's no news: we know that's happening since the 50's!
"Why not automate the job of a CEO or Board of Directors, and fire them."
Because it is the CEO or the Board of Directors the one choosing who gets fired and who gets a bonus. Become a CEO and you will be totally free to fire yourself without bonuses or seven digit severance packages if so you want.
Easy, isn't it?
"Really don't see an alternative to a basic minimal income in the future"
And I really don't get how this "basic minimal income" meme has come from, except there *is* a Protocols of the Elders of Zion-style plan for world domination. Nobody can really be that stupid as to think basic income is, at least on itself, anything but a very very bad idea for those hoping for it, which means there must be a really strong conspiration from those that will really benefit from it (those that already reached the 0,1% status) to push it to less informed minds.
State-controlled basic minimal services *may* hold a merit but, printing money "for free"??? How in hell can anybody even start thinking it won't utterly backfire?
"Why do you need humans to put on the cheese and toppings?"
They don't.
That's the difference between a real entrepreneur and an armchair one.
You don't need your business to be perfect, you just need it to be profitable within the current environment (well, at least that's the idea of "old school" business -of course as of today it seems you also can become billionaire without any sensible business case as long as you can have the potential to accrue users in the millions and the proper contacts, but that's a different story).
So here, it seems, it's good enough to automate the easiest part of the procurement cycle to make a profit, so that's what he did. It's always better to take a shorter profit and launch today than wait for your case to be "perfect" and launch tomorrow. If they idea shows merit, don't worry, they'll increasingly go automating the more difficult/costly parts as they start making sense.
"Drive the price up too high and you see what happened in the UK a few years ago with the elderly on pensions dying because they froze to death during the winter."
You are aware that this has very little to do with production costs and very much to do with whatever the government of the day is wanting to push, right?
"Why did they switch from the former to the latter then?"
The shinny promise of the golden pot at the end of the rainbow, of course.
By the time they learn there's no golden pot and not even a rainbow, it's already too late.
"the judge goes on to write that there's no reasonable expectation of privacy for the contents of an Internet-connected computer, because that computer "can - and eventually will - be hacked.""
So, am I free to take the money on a bank safe? The contents of any safe can -and eventually will, be cracked.
"You're missing the point - that someone can do something against his own interests, because he's not properly thinking things through.
There was a German guy back in the 1940s who did that quite a lot."
Do you really think so? It's obvious that he worked quite against German's best interest but against his? A matter of opinion -and it's his opinion the one that counts: he was a sociopathic nobody with assertivity problems that found his way to be the world's center of attention and got to take the resources of an important nation for his whims to come true. Yes, only for a while, that's true, but we should ask him, if even after the bitter end he would have chosen otherwise, probably not.