Largely speaking, both left and right want people treated fairly. The further away from the centre ground you go, the more polarised the group becomes on what they deem an unfairly treated group to be, and the extent to which that group is disadvantaged. Also, they're usually wrong about the 'why' of the disadvantage.
Seriously? You could say the same of any war. Side (x) ignored the increasingly vocal behaviour of side (y) until it was too late, then War! I call post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.
No, BLM is recognised as a Black Power movement. 93% of Black homicides are committed by black people (84% of homicides against white people are committed by whites; while this is only a 10% difference, in the population sizes, a vast amount more white people are killed by non-whites than the other way round. If Black Lives Matter, then to get the biggest return, they need to address the (probably cultural, gangsta, edgy, which is so popular it's practically mainstream) issues in their own community first. But that'd not get any political points and headlines. So nobody does it, or is even allowed to speak about it.
That being said, it's pretty much a no brainer to block this (as you intimate). To my thinking, and addressing earlier in the thread, it's not because he has any particular political ideology (it's not about that), it's because the complete arse chose to drive his car straight at people. All observations are that this was a deliberate act of murder, and needs to be treated as such. We've had such things over here in Europe, and each one has been tied to extremist organisations (and planned). I suspect that this wasn't planned, but a spur of the moment thing, but it's in the same league as terror attacks. There is, quite simply, no excuse for that behaviour. There are points that you turn round and say "yeah, this is no longer political, it's legal", and what would be real bad for business is showing support for murder. If the right want to crowd fund, sure.. Let them. If the left, or BLM want to crowd fund, sure.. They're all extreme, but it gives a useful trail on who is doing what, which may inform intelligence communities, which is useful. It also keeps them quiet (well, less violent, and more talky, which is generally a good thing). I'm largely centre politically, with odd steps to the right of Attila the Hun, or left of Lennin (all depends on the matter at hand), and there's no way in hell that I'd want to be associated with this. Now if they allow crowd funding for legal funds of black people accused of murdering other people, with this weight of observable evidence in the public domain, then they get strung up for hypocrisy, as you rightfully put.
Actually the parent was correct. This is probably nothing to do what the fact the skin happens to be black, but more likely an artifact of what Black Culture has become (gangsta, edgy).
Also contrary to what you're likely be indoctrinated into believing, though people feel more threatened by a black presence (with the 8 times as likely to kill, and a definite skewing of violent offending towards the upper scale of violence, this may be warranted, especially if you're black, as the majority of killings are intra race, not inter race), they take longer to actually pull the trigger, showing a net bias in favour of a person of colour over one that's white.
The Black Lives Matter movement isn't actually about saving black lives. It's about Black Power (and is recognised as a Black Power movement). This has nothing to do with racial equality, and everything to do with attempted justification of unjustified hate.
Because construction is seen as hard work. Where women dominate, there's no political SJW angle to it, so that's brushed under the carpet and "men just don't want to" (part of that is men are scared to these days; much higher chance of some pupil trumping a molestation charge to ruin your career and having it taken seriously).
The tech industry is seen as a 'clean office job, and probably not that demanding, so easy money'. So it's seen as a political thing to get people into cushy jobs. Many that go into it and actually get to realise that it's not a cushy job then leave.
The women (and, well, generally everyone) that is actually passionate about it accept that it's pretty gruelling and get on with the job. There are outliers of jerks, same as there are in every job, but that's not the main factor.
My other half's an engineer (mechanical engineering), but went into finance, simply because she preferred it as an interest. She does marvellously; the precision and conscientiousness of an Engineer working on figures. Currently, she's doing very nicely with it, just has no real intention of working in Engineering (though her DIY projects are absolutely awesomely engineered).
That's the joy of science. You can think research is shit, then you get to disprove their assertion. If you _think_ it's shit, but can't disprove the science behind it, then it's valid. If you think it's shit and you _can_ disprove it, then it's objectively shit.
Would be interesting to see another PhD rebuttal to it in scientific terms, rather than the name calling and witch hunting.
All of that is absolutely true.. However, what we often get hit with is "except if you are a person of colour, or if you're a woman". In those cases, you're exempt from that, and you can't possibly be discriminatory.
Which is absolute cods, and only increases tension in the targeted group (white/male), so increases undesirable traits in them. Continue cycle and increase polarisation.
I hope that's just part of a larger (hundred plus) set of questions they're using, with a weighting of 'opinion'.. On the record is a more formal one, and has less 'chance to hide'.. But as part of a larger system, it has a place.. But it needs to be a weighted place.
Except the question is "which of these people entering the shop is the most risky, based on an established risk analysis set of factors. Now we've blurred the picture so you can't see what sex they are, or the colour of their skin, but here, look at the risks.. Tell me which you have a problem with".
The correct answer should be the one that's modelled to be more risky, if that model is an accurate assessment.
Models improve all the time, and it's possible that some risk factors are now no longer as strong as they used to be, as society may well have adjusted to be better at 'curing' those recidivist traits.
Overall, the challenge would be to them, how they could improve the mathematical modelling of the system, such that it has a more accurate outcome from initial risk factors (could be altering weighting to better fit the long term wider outcomes).. If they can't improve the model (rather than make some interesting claims, when if you read deeply, it shows that they're making some of those claims based on analysis of some extremely low population counts in a particular category), then they've not added much of use.
These models need to be kept up to date, so I'd be wondering how old their statistics are, and how well they're being researched these days..
According to a lot of black people, they can't be racist if they're black. Not long ago, if you even did a google search for "can black people be racist", it was full of "No they can't, because 'reverse racism'". That seems to be declining a bit now, but it's still an entrenched view, even if it lacks any grounding.
No, AI doesn't learn from our biases. This one is built from statistical risk models, which work largely pretty well. And when you go through their research and find that they've taken as percentage error, only the people that were predicted to reoffend (and basing it off that number), rather than including the ones that were discarded from their analysis, things could well get more interesting. They're showing errors in the statistical modelling, which could be looked at more closely, but overall, their statistics show that the software has it generally in the right area (they're showing a high statistical variance in a low population sample as being similar to a slightly lower variance in a population an order of magnitude greater; when you're dealing with a population set of 2, and trying to show stastical chances of things happening, getting it wrong once, is pretty big, whereas one in ten is a much better resolution).
The poverty to violence link is an interesting one, with so many confounding factors, it's a real task to get things done..
Black people (of African descent) started out as _indentured servants_. Many of these became slave owners themselves and made hefty profits from that, and were incidentally quite fond of the progression towards chattel slavery while it earned them more cash, with a few being instrumental in getting precedent set towards chattel.
Yes, it can take generations to get out of poverty. The best way to get out of poverty is to become educated (which is free). However, there's a strong anti-rationalist movement going on, and it tends to be the poorer that engage more with this (the "It's all them edjumacated bastards, thinking the're better than us.. We don't need none of that. Mind control!" syndrome, with the current 'black culture' of focussing on 'gangsta' attitudes, and distinctly anti-rationalist, pushing them further away from opportunities they could otherwise have had).
Personally, i think humans are a great way to start an AI.. Unless you mean all the humans that don't treat things statistically, mathematically and scientifically.. In which case, no, those probably aren't a great way to start an AI..
We have the scientific method to reduce the emotional and political input into a hypothesis. There are strong and weak scientific methods (lots of the social science 'scientific studies' are actually case reports, which are the least strong of scientific method. I don't think I've ever seen one do randomized controlled trials to back up their hypotheses).
To do AI properly, you need to treat it scientifically, and with a good deal of input.. At a certain level of getting into artificial life, for example, I've seen people switch disciplines from computing to biology and vice versa. The guy that I really admired when I was doing my own thesis on AI has since become a professor of earth sciences as he got so far into the study of ecologies and such that he switched disciplines.. But they get there by following the science and the learning that we as a species have amassed.
AI, done properly, is the best of us.
As I posted elsewhere, if you're employed for a 40 hour week, and still have the legs for an extra 20 hours, Spend those hours building your own company. That way, you'll get what you're worth, build a client base, maybe employ others, and make a profit from all the work they do, plus the hours you put in. You will, in all probability, end up vastly further along the wealth curve in a decade than the person who pushes themselves to the limit working those extra 20 hours for a company that, to be honest, probably doesn't care that much.
Yes, but in the usual environment, you're working for someone else. So that extra productivity.. It makes a lot more money for your employer(s), but not necessarily more for you.
All the people he's mentioned have followed their interests and been pretty damn bright. If you're playing with something that interests you, and can (for many meanings of the word) be considered "playing", then spending all the hours under the sun, and many that aren't, is a great way to enjoy yourself. One in a few hundred million just happens to have something for which "play" is also worth a lot of money, and they find themselves on a rocket ride to riches. Most, however, don't have that luxury. If you're being _employed_ by someone to do some work, there's an incredibly large chance that it's not "play". It's a job. Doing that "eternal grind" that needs doing, irrespective of whether you like it or not, is not a recipe for fulfilment. It's a fast way to burnout, as the anxieties of being forced to do something without remit takes its toll. So, what it could more reasonably be phrased as is: "If you're working for yourself, and love what you do, and consider it almost play, then keeping the nose to the grindstone and putting in endless hours may, if you're lucky, be a good way to get ahead, though you could lose everything if you get it wrong". I did my time working for myself (quite lucratively, before I moved on for ethical reasons to a job in the health sector; I still get people coming to me to this day to see if I'll do extremely well paid work for them, which I occasionally do), and I always hark back to what my father told me many a year ago (he ran a very successful company and is comfortably retired, though he still works at a light pace, simply because he'd get bored if he didn't 'play'): "You'll never get rich working for someone else". And that's pretty much the crux. If you're working for someone else, they have to consider that what you're providing for them is worth MORE than what you're selling it to them for. Otherwise, how could they make a profit from it?
Having a salary coming in is a 'safer' option. Nothing wrong with that (I quite like it; far less frenetic than working for myself or running a small company with all the responsibilities that carries, and I'm no spring chicken anymore). However, all the EXTRA time you put in is effectively lining someone else's pocket. If you REALLY want to get ahead, what you should do is spend that extra time _working for yourself on your own small business_ until it gets running, and you have your own clients that pay you what you're worth. And when you scale up, and hire more people, you pay them a fair rate, but one from which you most certainly will be making a profit on. Burning yourself out for an employer is NOT the way to get ahead. I'm afraid the chap has introduced a false dichotomy (you can work hard for your employer to get ahead, or you can get left behind). Choose option 3 if you want advancement, or else choose life and work a fair shift for fair recompense for an employer.
The model used for insurance payment is valid. If females drive less than males, so have less accidents,,then overall, for a given set of money, a female driver is a safer bet in that slice of time.
Well, tell that to one of my white friends who escaped from Zimbabwe after her father was killed over the land they had. Her and her family escaped, but had a rather traumatic time getting out of the country (car jacked once, and her mother raped for being white). Now that's racism.
Male drivers is also not protected. And statistically, males make up a greater proportion of the accidents, that's why the insurance premiums used to be smaller for women in the UK, until sex discrimination laws disallowed that, and made insurance companies charge the same as for male drivers.. Have to hate it when ideology trumps reality (I'm male, and was all for keeping the female discount, as that's exactly what reality was showing).
The company is responsible for process.. They should be continually having it as a background task (even in the back of their minds) of "how do we keep the wheels on this thing". Just as important for a startup as it is for a big company (maybe moreso). Starting point of everything is backups, backups and more backups! They're your lifeblood if you're a company using data for doing real things (hint, they all do). If a backup isn't tested, it's not a backup. If you've not given your systems team time and resources to test backups, then the problem lies with a lack of understanding (or listening) further up the management chain. Once you know you can recover, you know you can use your data safely... Then it's the process for letting someone loose in your systems... If they're not authorised for prod, then they don't get the credentials for prod. And credentials should be stored in a nice encrypted file on a VERY well backed up area. Credentials should NEVER be in plain, or embedded in unencrypted documents.. That''s so much a 'no' that it fails the basic test of "do you understand what the word security means?". Rough analysis of the situation is that there's a marked problem with process, and large problem with security and information governance, and an insane problem with backup processing. An accident waiting to happen.. The developer made a mistake.. Yep, a big telling off for not engaging the brain and being careful with the credentials is well in order. You need to treat systems carefully.. But us old grizzled systems farts got our caution from somewhere, and it's called experience.. And experience involves coming up through the ranks and seeing stuff go wrong. Even stuff that's almost guaranteed never to go wrong. I'm all for having young blood in a place.. They do bring new approaches, and new ideas.. But us old farts have seen many of the approaches before and can say why they're broken and/or dangerous.. It's just that little gap of new idea where we thing "Hey, that's actually new.." that means things move forward... But with us old farts around, it happens in a controlled and safe manner.. So, I'd say this guy is actually MORE valuable than he was before he made the screwup.. I can be fairly sure that they'll be MUCH less likely to be cavalier in the future, and put an awful lot of thought into safety of systems.. From the way it's set up, I'd actually say they're better off out of that environment anyway with the CTO having that lack of understanding of the root cause of the problem and/or management also not understanding/standing up for the dev and explaining root cause. Alas, I'm not hiring at the mo, otherwise I'd have a serious chat with them and pick them up.. People getting through extremely bad screwups AND openly admitting they screwed up is a good sign of a person you want on your side.. Screwups happen.. It's the people that HIDE them that are dangerous..
Reverse discrimination is an intellectual abstract that's given a name. When you name something, you can use it as a weapon. Just for example, I see a lot of people yelling and accusing people of "white entitlement" when they see something they don't like. On examining discussions, I've seen nothing entitled in the propositions.. In other words, it's mainly being used as a weapon by people not actually investigating anything, and used as a character attack (occasionally as an ad-hominem). I've also seen minority rights activists yell out in discussions, and every single point struck home on a checklist for "entitlement syndrome". Yet you're not allowed to call it a "black entitlement", because, of course, that would be racist, and racism isn't something that the minorities are allowed to be (no matter how hard some try). A closer approximation (from what I've observed) is that all sides of discussions have embedded entitlements, privileges and so on. Usually, the most "entitled" in each group yells the loudest that they want all the privileges of the other groups, along with keeping ones that are for 'their side' just for 'their side'. And all of these groups yell at reasonably unbiased people and accuse them (usually unfairly) of exhibiting the various problem behaviours, simply because they don't agree with the biased frame of reference of the accuser.
There's interesting research going on now related to how bad this is, and how much it creates oversensitivity to the issues, dividing people and polarising issues, such that things like skin colour or sex (which in theory shouldn't matter in an equal society) become obsessed over, and are part of every decision, whether pro or con. From what I've gleaned so far, there is an initial phase where a 'grand recalibration' needs to occur, in which case, activism can be beneficial. And a point that when momentum is gained, it heads to a reasonably balanced equilibrium.. Further activism at this point achieves very little, and is actually counterproductive, and can cause other problems to arise because of this behaviour.
So, I'd dispute the 'reverse discrimination' bit and simply say that 'Discrimination is like air'. Everyone uses it, some more than others.. You want to keep it clean and healthy and at a level that lets everyone get on with doing the job in hand.
That would be 'extremely stressful', you know, burnout level stress, not your ordinary every day stressor that makes you work better and gives you that bit of get up and go.. This is more the 'lie down and weep' kind.
It's only if you distribute the kernel that you need to publish changes to it in source. As you're not about to distribute, nobody ever needs to get to see the kernel mods you made.
It's a piece of paper that says "You can work hard, study, make your own mind up and evaluate things critically, research and a whole host of other extremely advantageous traits while operating in a field of rigor and discipline". Coupled with the experience that also says "I can do the job you're asking me to do as described".
I've run companies, managed people, and worked shop floor in my time. And there's one thing about management; they're hired to represent the company, and they're responsible for keeping track of the workers. This involves their health, physical and mental. As this was extreme comorbid anxiety and depression, this would have been impossible for a manager not to notice. Which brings about the question of whether the lack of action was due to incompetence (not noticed extreme distress in employee) or negligence (noticed, but never did anything about it). As the manager in question was acting on behalf of the company (that's what managers do, and why they carry authority), his actions are thus backed by the company.. If it's a lone manager that's failed, then they've got a heavy whack on the head to say "hire real managers, not spreadsheet pushers". If it's endemic, then this may be uncovered by the investigation, and it could be a whole lot nastier.
While Uber may not have directly caused the death, they're culpable for it (the same way as bullying someone into suicide is an indirect way of killing). And when someone's as mentally compromised as he was, then the simple "get another job" just doesn't work. Things really aren't as simple as that.. Been there, got that tee shirt..
I don't like ambulance chasing, but Uber seem (from all available information presented) to be culpable as they have failed in their duty.
Slashdot Mirror
Largely speaking, both left and right want people treated fairly. The further away from the centre ground you go, the more polarised the group becomes on what they deem an unfairly treated group to be, and the extent to which that group is disadvantaged. Also, they're usually wrong about the 'why' of the disadvantage.
Seriously? You could say the same of any war. Side (x) ignored the increasingly vocal behaviour of side (y) until it was too late, then War! I call post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.
No, BLM is recognised as a Black Power movement. 93% of Black homicides are committed by black people (84% of homicides against white people are committed by whites; while this is only a 10% difference, in the population sizes, a vast amount more white people are killed by non-whites than the other way round.
If Black Lives Matter, then to get the biggest return, they need to address the (probably cultural, gangsta, edgy, which is so popular it's practically mainstream) issues in their own community first.
But that'd not get any political points and headlines. So nobody does it, or is even allowed to speak about it.
That being said, it's pretty much a no brainer to block this (as you intimate). To my thinking, and addressing earlier in the thread, it's not because he has any particular political ideology (it's not about that), it's because the complete arse chose to drive his car straight at people. All observations are that this was a deliberate act of murder, and needs to be treated as such. We've had such things over here in Europe, and each one has been tied to extremist organisations (and planned). I suspect that this wasn't planned, but a spur of the moment thing, but it's in the same league as terror attacks. There is, quite simply, no excuse for that behaviour. There are points that you turn round and say "yeah, this is no longer political, it's legal", and what would be real bad for business is showing support for murder.
If the right want to crowd fund, sure.. Let them. If the left, or BLM want to crowd fund, sure.. They're all extreme, but it gives a useful trail on who is doing what, which may inform intelligence communities, which is useful. It also keeps them quiet (well, less violent, and more talky, which is generally a good thing).
I'm largely centre politically, with odd steps to the right of Attila the Hun, or left of Lennin (all depends on the matter at hand), and there's no way in hell that I'd want to be associated with this.
Now if they allow crowd funding for legal funds of black people accused of murdering other people, with this weight of observable evidence in the public domain, then they get strung up for hypocrisy, as you rightfully put.
Actually the parent was correct. This is probably nothing to do what the fact the skin happens to be black, but more likely an artifact of what Black Culture has become (gangsta, edgy).
Also contrary to what you're likely be indoctrinated into believing, though people feel more threatened by a black presence (with the 8 times as likely to kill, and a definite skewing of violent offending towards the upper scale of violence, this may be warranted, especially if you're black, as the majority of killings are intra race, not inter race), they take longer to actually pull the trigger, showing a net bias in favour of a person of colour over one that's white.
The Black Lives Matter movement isn't actually about saving black lives. It's about Black Power (and is recognised as a Black Power movement). This has nothing to do with racial equality, and everything to do with attempted justification of unjustified hate.
Because construction is seen as hard work. Where women dominate, there's no political SJW angle to it, so that's brushed under the carpet and "men just don't want to" (part of that is men are scared to these days; much higher chance of some pupil trumping a molestation charge to ruin your career and having it taken seriously). The tech industry is seen as a 'clean office job, and probably not that demanding, so easy money'. So it's seen as a political thing to get people into cushy jobs. Many that go into it and actually get to realise that it's not a cushy job then leave. The women (and, well, generally everyone) that is actually passionate about it accept that it's pretty gruelling and get on with the job. There are outliers of jerks, same as there are in every job, but that's not the main factor. My other half's an engineer (mechanical engineering), but went into finance, simply because she preferred it as an interest. She does marvellously; the precision and conscientiousness of an Engineer working on figures. Currently, she's doing very nicely with it, just has no real intention of working in Engineering (though her DIY projects are absolutely awesomely engineered).
That's the joy of science. You can think research is shit, then you get to disprove their assertion. If you _think_ it's shit, but can't disprove the science behind it, then it's valid. If you think it's shit and you _can_ disprove it, then it's objectively shit. Would be interesting to see another PhD rebuttal to it in scientific terms, rather than the name calling and witch hunting.
All of that is absolutely true.. However, what we often get hit with is "except if you are a person of colour, or if you're a woman". In those cases, you're exempt from that, and you can't possibly be discriminatory. Which is absolute cods, and only increases tension in the targeted group (white/male), so increases undesirable traits in them. Continue cycle and increase polarisation.
I hope that's just part of a larger (hundred plus) set of questions they're using, with a weighting of 'opinion'.. On the record is a more formal one, and has less 'chance to hide'.. But as part of a larger system, it has a place.. But it needs to be a weighted place.
Except the question is "which of these people entering the shop is the most risky, based on an established risk analysis set of factors. Now we've blurred the picture so you can't see what sex they are, or the colour of their skin, but here, look at the risks.. Tell me which you have a problem with". The correct answer should be the one that's modelled to be more risky, if that model is an accurate assessment. Models improve all the time, and it's possible that some risk factors are now no longer as strong as they used to be, as society may well have adjusted to be better at 'curing' those recidivist traits. Overall, the challenge would be to them, how they could improve the mathematical modelling of the system, such that it has a more accurate outcome from initial risk factors (could be altering weighting to better fit the long term wider outcomes).. If they can't improve the model (rather than make some interesting claims, when if you read deeply, it shows that they're making some of those claims based on analysis of some extremely low population counts in a particular category), then they've not added much of use. These models need to be kept up to date, so I'd be wondering how old their statistics are, and how well they're being researched these days..
According to a lot of black people, they can't be racist if they're black. Not long ago, if you even did a google search for "can black people be racist", it was full of "No they can't, because 'reverse racism'". That seems to be declining a bit now, but it's still an entrenched view, even if it lacks any grounding.
No, AI doesn't learn from our biases. This one is built from statistical risk models, which work largely pretty well. And when you go through their research and find that they've taken as percentage error, only the people that were predicted to reoffend (and basing it off that number), rather than including the ones that were discarded from their analysis, things could well get more interesting. They're showing errors in the statistical modelling, which could be looked at more closely, but overall, their statistics show that the software has it generally in the right area (they're showing a high statistical variance in a low population sample as being similar to a slightly lower variance in a population an order of magnitude greater; when you're dealing with a population set of 2, and trying to show stastical chances of things happening, getting it wrong once, is pretty big, whereas one in ten is a much better resolution). The poverty to violence link is an interesting one, with so many confounding factors, it's a real task to get things done.. Black people (of African descent) started out as _indentured servants_. Many of these became slave owners themselves and made hefty profits from that, and were incidentally quite fond of the progression towards chattel slavery while it earned them more cash, with a few being instrumental in getting precedent set towards chattel. Yes, it can take generations to get out of poverty. The best way to get out of poverty is to become educated (which is free). However, there's a strong anti-rationalist movement going on, and it tends to be the poorer that engage more with this (the "It's all them edjumacated bastards, thinking the're better than us.. We don't need none of that. Mind control!" syndrome, with the current 'black culture' of focussing on 'gangsta' attitudes, and distinctly anti-rationalist, pushing them further away from opportunities they could otherwise have had). Personally, i think humans are a great way to start an AI.. Unless you mean all the humans that don't treat things statistically, mathematically and scientifically.. In which case, no, those probably aren't a great way to start an AI.. We have the scientific method to reduce the emotional and political input into a hypothesis. There are strong and weak scientific methods (lots of the social science 'scientific studies' are actually case reports, which are the least strong of scientific method. I don't think I've ever seen one do randomized controlled trials to back up their hypotheses). To do AI properly, you need to treat it scientifically, and with a good deal of input.. At a certain level of getting into artificial life, for example, I've seen people switch disciplines from computing to biology and vice versa. The guy that I really admired when I was doing my own thesis on AI has since become a professor of earth sciences as he got so far into the study of ecologies and such that he switched disciplines.. But they get there by following the science and the learning that we as a species have amassed. AI, done properly, is the best of us.
As I posted elsewhere, if you're employed for a 40 hour week, and still have the legs for an extra 20 hours, Spend those hours building your own company.
That way, you'll get what you're worth, build a client base, maybe employ others, and make a profit from all the work they do, plus the hours you put in. You will, in all probability, end up vastly further along the wealth curve in a decade than the person who pushes themselves to the limit working those extra 20 hours for a company that, to be honest, probably doesn't care that much.
Yes, but in the usual environment, you're working for someone else. So that extra productivity.. It makes a lot more money for your employer(s), but not necessarily more for you.
All the people he's mentioned have followed their interests and been pretty damn bright. If you're playing with something that interests you, and can (for many meanings of the word) be considered "playing", then spending all the hours under the sun, and many that aren't, is a great way to enjoy yourself. One in a few hundred million just happens to have something for which "play" is also worth a lot of money, and they find themselves on a rocket ride to riches.
Most, however, don't have that luxury.
If you're being _employed_ by someone to do some work, there's an incredibly large chance that it's not "play". It's a job. Doing that "eternal grind" that needs doing, irrespective of whether you like it or not, is not a recipe for fulfilment. It's a fast way to burnout, as the anxieties of being forced to do something without remit takes its toll.
So, what it could more reasonably be phrased as is: "If you're working for yourself, and love what you do, and consider it almost play, then keeping the nose to the grindstone and putting in endless hours may, if you're lucky, be a good way to get ahead, though you could lose everything if you get it wrong".
I did my time working for myself (quite lucratively, before I moved on for ethical reasons to a job in the health sector; I still get people coming to me to this day to see if I'll do extremely well paid work for them, which I occasionally do), and I always hark back to what my father told me many a year ago (he ran a very successful company and is comfortably retired, though he still works at a light pace, simply because he'd get bored if he didn't 'play'): "You'll never get rich working for someone else". And that's pretty much the crux. If you're working for someone else, they have to consider that what you're providing for them is worth MORE than what you're selling it to them for. Otherwise, how could they make a profit from it?
Having a salary coming in is a 'safer' option. Nothing wrong with that (I quite like it; far less frenetic than working for myself or running a small company with all the responsibilities that carries, and I'm no spring chicken anymore). However, all the EXTRA time you put in is effectively lining someone else's pocket. If you REALLY want to get ahead, what you should do is spend that extra time _working for yourself on your own small business_ until it gets running, and you have your own clients that pay you what you're worth. And when you scale up, and hire more people, you pay them a fair rate, but one from which you most certainly will be making a profit on.
Burning yourself out for an employer is NOT the way to get ahead. I'm afraid the chap has introduced a false dichotomy (you can work hard for your employer to get ahead, or you can get left behind). Choose option 3 if you want advancement, or else choose life and work a fair shift for fair recompense for an employer.
The model used for insurance payment is valid. If females drive less than males, so have less accidents, ,then overall, for a given set of money, a female driver is a safer bet in that slice of time.
Well, tell that to one of my white friends who escaped from Zimbabwe after her father was killed over the land they had. Her and her family escaped, but had a rather traumatic time getting out of the country (car jacked once, and her mother raped for being white).
Now that's racism.
Male drivers is also not protected. And statistically, males make up a greater proportion of the accidents, that's why the insurance premiums used to be smaller for women in the UK, until sex discrimination laws disallowed that, and made insurance companies charge the same as for male drivers.. Have to hate it when ideology trumps reality (I'm male, and was all for keeping the female discount, as that's exactly what reality was showing).
The company is responsible for process.. They should be continually having it as a background task (even in the back of their minds) of "how do we keep the wheels on this thing".
Just as important for a startup as it is for a big company (maybe moreso).
Starting point of everything is backups, backups and more backups! They're your lifeblood if you're a company using data for doing real things (hint, they all do).
If a backup isn't tested, it's not a backup. If you've not given your systems team time and resources to test backups, then the problem lies with a lack of understanding (or listening) further up the management chain.
Once you know you can recover, you know you can use your data safely... Then it's the process for letting someone loose in your systems...
If they're not authorised for prod, then they don't get the credentials for prod. And credentials should be stored in a nice encrypted file on a VERY well backed up area. Credentials should NEVER be in plain, or embedded in unencrypted documents.. That''s so much a 'no' that it fails the basic test of "do you understand what the word security means?".
Rough analysis of the situation is that there's a marked problem with process, and large problem with security and information governance, and an insane problem with backup processing. An accident waiting to happen..
The developer made a mistake.. Yep, a big telling off for not engaging the brain and being careful with the credentials is well in order. You need to treat systems carefully.. But us old grizzled systems farts got our caution from somewhere, and it's called experience.. And experience involves coming up through the ranks and seeing stuff go wrong. Even stuff that's almost guaranteed never to go wrong. I'm all for having young blood in a place.. They do bring new approaches, and new ideas.. But us old farts have seen many of the approaches before and can say why they're broken and/or dangerous.. It's just that little gap of new idea where we thing "Hey, that's actually new.." that means things move forward... But with us old farts around, it happens in a controlled and safe manner..
So, I'd say this guy is actually MORE valuable than he was before he made the screwup.. I can be fairly sure that they'll be MUCH less likely to be cavalier in the future, and put an awful lot of thought into safety of systems..
From the way it's set up, I'd actually say they're better off out of that environment anyway with the CTO having that lack of understanding of the root cause of the problem and/or management also not understanding/standing up for the dev and explaining root cause.
Alas, I'm not hiring at the mo, otherwise I'd have a serious chat with them and pick them up.. People getting through extremely bad screwups AND openly admitting they screwed up is a good sign of a person you want on your side.. Screwups happen.. It's the people that HIDE them that are dangerous..
Reverse discrimination is an intellectual abstract that's given a name. When you name something, you can use it as a weapon.
Just for example, I see a lot of people yelling and accusing people of "white entitlement" when they see something they don't like. On examining discussions, I've seen nothing entitled in the propositions.. In other words, it's mainly being used as a weapon by people not actually investigating anything, and used as a character attack (occasionally as an ad-hominem).
I've also seen minority rights activists yell out in discussions, and every single point struck home on a checklist for "entitlement syndrome". Yet you're not allowed to call it a "black entitlement", because, of course, that would be racist, and racism isn't something that the minorities are allowed to be (no matter how hard some try).
A closer approximation (from what I've observed) is that all sides of discussions have embedded entitlements, privileges and so on. Usually, the most "entitled" in each group yells the loudest that they want all the privileges of the other groups, along with keeping ones that are for 'their side' just for 'their side'.
And all of these groups yell at reasonably unbiased people and accuse them (usually unfairly) of exhibiting the various problem behaviours, simply because they don't agree with the biased frame of reference of the accuser.
There's interesting research going on now related to how bad this is, and how much it creates oversensitivity to the issues, dividing people and polarising issues, such that things like skin colour or sex (which in theory shouldn't matter in an equal society) become obsessed over, and are part of every decision, whether pro or con.
From what I've gleaned so far, there is an initial phase where a 'grand recalibration' needs to occur, in which case, activism can be beneficial. And a point that when momentum is gained, it heads to a reasonably balanced equilibrium.. Further activism at this point achieves very little, and is actually counterproductive, and can cause other problems to arise because of this behaviour.
So, I'd dispute the 'reverse discrimination' bit and simply say that 'Discrimination is like air'. Everyone uses it, some more than others.. You want to keep it clean and healthy and at a level that lets everyone get on with doing the job in hand.
You've never run a heterogenous enterprise setup, with hundreds of vendor systems in it?
That would be 'extremely stressful', you know, burnout level stress, not your ordinary every day stressor that makes you work better and gives you that bit of get up and go.. This is more the 'lie down and weep' kind.
Is really going to hurt then.. I doubt the world has had time to patch everything...
It's only if you distribute the kernel that you need to publish changes to it in source. As you're not about to distribute, nobody ever needs to get to see the kernel mods you made.
It's a piece of paper that says "You can work hard, study, make your own mind up and evaluate things critically, research and a whole host of other extremely advantageous traits while operating in a field of rigor and discipline". Coupled with the experience that also says "I can do the job you're asking me to do as described".
It's a piece of paper that says a lot...
I've run companies, managed people, and worked shop floor in my time. And there's one thing about management; they're hired to represent the company, and they're responsible for keeping track of the workers. This involves their health, physical and mental.
As this was extreme comorbid anxiety and depression, this would have been impossible for a manager not to notice. Which brings about the question of whether the lack of action was due to incompetence (not noticed extreme distress in employee) or negligence (noticed, but never did anything about it).
As the manager in question was acting on behalf of the company (that's what managers do, and why they carry authority), his actions are thus backed by the company..
If it's a lone manager that's failed, then they've got a heavy whack on the head to say "hire real managers, not spreadsheet pushers".
If it's endemic, then this may be uncovered by the investigation, and it could be a whole lot nastier.
While Uber may not have directly caused the death, they're culpable for it (the same way as bullying someone into suicide is an indirect way of killing). And when someone's as mentally compromised as he was, then the simple "get another job" just doesn't work. Things really aren't as simple as that.. Been there, got that tee shirt..
I don't like ambulance chasing, but Uber seem (from all available information presented) to be culpable as they have failed in their duty.