You parsed it wrong. "Sense of humor" here does not indicate that the words are funny; it indicates that the words are goofy or foolish, and that Google was willing to let a thing be named that way.
I recommend checking a dictionary. There are about a dozen meanings of the word humor, and probably half of them cover this particular usage. One advantage of a computer parser is that it is unlikely to reject a valid statement merely because it didn't consider all of the known patterns.
It all read just fine to me. The only mistake I noticed was that
natural-language understanding software
should have been
natural-language-understanding software
since it is the software doing the understanding, not the language. The quote itself is clear and concise. If you didn't understand it that probably just means you lack the technical vocabulary to even make use of the tool.
The reason employees making iphones kill themselves is that there are over 100,000 workers in the plant, it is a small city. If you have 100,000 humans, you have enough to guarantee that some are going to commit suicide. The actual suicide rate is low compared to a US, European, or Chinese city.
A friend of my wife spent 4 years in Taiwan working in one of these factories. It is a really great job, she saved lots of money and was able to take an extended vacation afterwards, and still saved more than she would have even earned in a decade at home in Thailand. The hours are long, but there are also lots of holiday days. The total hours worked per year is lower than what a lot of Americans work.
What I find funny is that the perks are the very things that I've heard as accusations; they "have to live at the factory" for example. Yes, indeed, housing is often provided for free. When 100,000 people work in a giant factory complex, forcing them to live off-site would take away all their free hours. And they're all migrant workers who will eventually go home to their families. Free basic food too, but also due to the size of the factory, "they have to eat in the company cafeteria." You don't have to go all the way to a recycling center to find a worse job than making cell phones because those are actually good jobs.
Not surprised so many people beat me on that one, but I was surprised to see it in the first post. App guy must have stayed home today.
I was surprised 2 thirds of it stayed in the US. Great to see so much of the recycling done here!
I am a bit confused why the authors think that electronics recycled overseas wasn't recycled.
But a two-year investigation by the Basel Action Network, a Seattle-based e-waste watchdog group, concluded that sometimes businesses are exporting electronics rather than recycling them.
Makes me think they exported the writing of the article.;)
It's also got scare quotes, where there is no reason at all for quotation marks.
And the actual result of the investigation seems to be, "yes, the electronic waste was delivered to overseas recyclers." They seem to be under the impression that it is somehow improper to refurbish a "recycled" printer to resell it. Can somebody tell these clowns that melting everything down to base materials is not better than taking the device apart and re-using the parts that have value as they are?
Also, including the ground water stuff was pretty lame. That wasn't connected to this story, and they give the impression it is.
They're also manufacturing some hay with the "Unlicensed And Unregulated" bullshit. They may indeed be unlicensed; China has every right to decide which industries do or do not need a "license." But unregulated? Everything in China is covered by vast regulations. If they violate the wrong regulations, they could be put to death!
And who told these clowns that 100% of the materials in a printer are recyclable, that none of it will be waste? Is that actually a claim by anybody? No, the claim is that the electronic devices will be recycled; it is implied that only the majority of the actual parts will be able to be put to another use.
And it would be great if they had indoor storage for everything. But being stored in a field doesn't actually tell you anything at all other than that the storage doesn't have a roof. It doesn't mean that it isn't still in a recycling pipeline. Glass that is recycled is often stored outdoors multiple times before being melted down. Same for metals and plastics. For electronics it is obviously non-optimal... but the same is true with metal.
Also, this part is misleading:
Oregon regulators have also asked the state Department of Justice to open an investigation into whether Total Reclaim violated consumer protection laws.
As an Oregonian I can report that the State is really awesome about investigating complaints. If I tell the State that some business scammed me out of $1, and I make the complaint to the right place, they will investigate. In that case, it would be a very short investigation, but the company would get either a phone call or a letter and they would have to give their side of the story. Of course Oregon regulators ask the DoJ to investigate; the people behind the story were asking them to do that! Here in Oregon, the State doesn't decide if there is a problem before they investigate! I know that is done in some places. But here, we decide if the rules were broken after investigating! They make it sound like the State believes there is some problem, but that is just not true and they know it. But it didn't stop them from writing it that way.
I care about waste and pollution, but I feel like those fights would be better off without these clowns. Things have improved a lot the past 15 years, and these guys are back to attack the companies that have improved things! I just don't see how that helps. If they did the exact same investigation, but instead of using it to throw mud at recycling companies, they used to try to improve practices, they'd have a positive impact. The way they're doing it is just going to make people think maybe it isn't important to get their electronics to these companies. Nobody el
Indeed. I'm sure you can find dozens of other words that I also mean, that are implied by my statement, that I didn't type out. Even as long-winded as I am, there is no limit to the amount of redundant filler words that it is possible to add to any statement without changing the meaning.
So, yeah. Obviously I meant that. But no, you're incorrect in your implication that adding it corrects or clarifies anything.
Don't forget to include an idea with your insults next time. I mean, two insults, and not a single idea, no analysis, not even an attempt to identify what you're complaining about.
For example, you use the word "hateful." What was it you thought I was "hating?"
I accused you of engaging in moral relativism in an inappropriate context. How is that "hateful?" Don't be afraid to use a dictionary to check what the words mean.
You don't even show know what relativism means; you made no attempt to support your statement, or disagree with my analysis. Maybe you just "hate" that somebody called you on a bullshit attempt to claim that a desert being hot is the same type of thing as an outbreak of disease?
By "the rest" you mean, what? 2 out of 10 steps? Pressing two buttons, one inside the car before parking, and then pressing the wrong button on the phone app or key fob, and the car drives off and crashes.
It is exceptionally misleading to spell out a huge number of steps where over 50% of the "steps" are not actually steps in that process, but rather things that you're required to have done if you were not trying to activate the feature. If any of those are considered activation steps, then the feature is designed in a grossly negligent way. Having the car drive off and park itself is a serious physical action. They do not have ANY step that guarantees the driver is present, even though they obviously believe that the driver must be present to supervise the action.
I don't think you realize even what sort of car it is, how much it costs, how many are made, and how many accidents they should be having that involve a "beta" self-driving feature.
Qatar isn't even in Brazil. Not your strong suit, that part I believe. But you didn't quite find the right question to clear up your confusion, either.
The funny part is that most of these things are required steps in parking manually, like placing the vehicle in "park," removing your foot from the brake pedal, opening the door, exiting the vehicle, and closing the door. "ignore Cancellation dialog" is specious; you don't "ignore" what you didn't see, and it is not normal to need to stare at the center console touchscreen to park or exit the vehicle. Almost all of this is either steps that are part of manual parking, or passive things not active things the driver "did."
That's a log. If there was a sensor bug that caused the problem, all of that might still be in the log. The feature is in beta, you can't just believe whatever the log says without investigating the bug report. And it appears that no engineers were assigned to this.
I would expect that if they had actually looked that closely at the logs, they would have also called him instead of sending the letter. That they merely sent the letter indicates to me that it probably did not actually leave the call center and make it to an analysis by technical personnel.
I'd also expect that had it been properly escalated, they would have been very helpful and the problem would have never gone to the press... regardless of whose fault it was, because the feature at issue is in beta and so if the user experienced a problem, it might very well be their fault even if he did press the wrong buttons.
It doesn't really matter if he made a minor mistake in the settings. He wasn't in the vehicle, and it drove off and crashed. Tesla needs to own up to their liability.
The letter Tesla sent him blames him for not safely controlling the vehicle at all times; but nobody is expected to "control" the vehicle while it is parked. Furthermore, part of the activation sequence of the "summon" feature is to place the vehicle in park; something you have to do to park manually, and potentially a major design flaw in the feature. Additionally, the feature is in "beta" testing; they don't even claim it works right yet. This is on Tesla, even if the driver did make mistakes.
Yeah, Sherlock, but were you clever enough to notice that the car was in "summon mode" which would not have been the case if he had simply crashed and then made an excuse?
You didn't find any problem with his story, you simply speculated in contradiction to the given details.
Nobody is asking you to give a crap. Diarrhea is caused by other diseases, not Zika. You're being asked to not give a puke, by Brazil not giving you Zika via a pandemic.
Please, don't give a crap. Please, don't give a puke.
Once you count up the cost of the event, and the actual limit to how many people can tour the ship, and the value of the equipment on the ship, it might turn out to cost more to have the ship parked for tours than you're actually making off of it.
People seem to just presume that popularity = dollars, but that isn't automatically true. If it was a cargo ship, they could almost certainly make more than the operating costs of the tour, but perhaps still not enough to justify parking the ship to do the tour.
Gosh, that's a great theory. "Gee Judge, see, the cops weren't even allowed to investigate, because I claim they don't understand hyperbole."
That is just a bunch of fail. You didn't address any of the points I made, or any of the legal issues. Believing the cops don't understand hyperbole just proves they were being reasonable to investigate. Who fucking cares if I "understand" the hyperbole or not? Why do you care? I don't care. The cops don't care. You're the only one who cares if I understand hyperbole, and you're the only one who thinks that you know about it.
You don't have to think it is a threat to understand that the cops are allowed to investigate.
No, you didn't win or lose an argument, because you didn't understand anything well enough to have one.
Wrong. I'm sorry but when it comes to the law, I believe police
Police receive no training in the law. All of their legal "knowledge" is inferred from department policies about who to arrest when, and what codes to use.
Feds do receive a small amount of legal training, and usually have college degrees.
Also, lawyers speak in narrow terms. That link isn't talking about if threats are legal. It is talking about if they amount to assault. Words have meaning... even legal words!
Yes, when they come to your door you can refuse to answer questions. That is your right. Absolutely.
No, techdirt cannot refuse to give up whatever information they have about a 3rd party. They will have to comply with the subpoena unless they go to court and get it quashed.
A warrant is required to do a search, but isn't the only legal process available to acquire business records, such as website logs containing an IP address. A warrant in that case is only required if they want to walk in the door and remove the records themselves.
That is just a fact; information about you in somebody else's possession is not in your possession.
The Constitution is not a free-form source of ideas where the challenge is to just phrase things in a way that is convenient to your argument. Opinion is not relevant. What is relevant is existing precedent. The 4th amendment doesn't help, because they're not searching this "digger" guy, they're requesting documents from Techdirt. And the information isn't about techdirt, and they're not being investigated, so their 4th amendment concerns don't stand up. Stop worrying about how you wish it was, that isn't relevant to understanding what the actual extant rights are. Business records about other people are simply not covered.
Slashdot Mirror
You parsed it wrong. "Sense of humor" here does not indicate that the words are funny; it indicates that the words are goofy or foolish, and that Google was willing to let a thing be named that way.
I recommend checking a dictionary. There are about a dozen meanings of the word humor, and probably half of them cover this particular usage. One advantage of a computer parser is that it is unlikely to reject a valid statement merely because it didn't consider all of the known patterns.
It should be easy enough to set it up to parse that sort of thing as "blah blah blah" and leave it at that. ;)
I'd also want anything more than triple negated to equal "blah blah blah."
It all read just fine to me. The only mistake I noticed was that
should have been
since it is the software doing the understanding, not the language. The quote itself is clear and concise. If you didn't understand it that probably just means you lack the technical vocabulary to even make use of the tool.
The reason employees making iphones kill themselves is that there are over 100,000 workers in the plant, it is a small city. If you have 100,000 humans, you have enough to guarantee that some are going to commit suicide. The actual suicide rate is low compared to a US, European, or Chinese city.
A friend of my wife spent 4 years in Taiwan working in one of these factories. It is a really great job, she saved lots of money and was able to take an extended vacation afterwards, and still saved more than she would have even earned in a decade at home in Thailand. The hours are long, but there are also lots of holiday days. The total hours worked per year is lower than what a lot of Americans work.
What I find funny is that the perks are the very things that I've heard as accusations; they "have to live at the factory" for example. Yes, indeed, housing is often provided for free. When 100,000 people work in a giant factory complex, forcing them to live off-site would take away all their free hours. And they're all migrant workers who will eventually go home to their families. Free basic food too, but also due to the size of the factory, "they have to eat in the company cafeteria." You don't have to go all the way to a recycling center to find a worse job than making cell phones because those are actually good jobs.
No, silly rabbit, those changes would have to happen in a totally different market. Not a reasonable expectation.
Not surprised so many people beat me on that one, but I was surprised to see it in the first post. App guy must have stayed home today.
I was surprised 2 thirds of it stayed in the US. Great to see so much of the recycling done here!
I am a bit confused why the authors think that electronics recycled overseas wasn't recycled.
Makes me think they exported the writing of the article. ;)
It's also got scare quotes, where there is no reason at all for quotation marks.
And the actual result of the investigation seems to be, "yes, the electronic waste was delivered to overseas recyclers." They seem to be under the impression that it is somehow improper to refurbish a "recycled" printer to resell it. Can somebody tell these clowns that melting everything down to base materials is not better than taking the device apart and re-using the parts that have value as they are?
Also, including the ground water stuff was pretty lame. That wasn't connected to this story, and they give the impression it is.
They're also manufacturing some hay with the "Unlicensed And Unregulated" bullshit. They may indeed be unlicensed; China has every right to decide which industries do or do not need a "license." But unregulated? Everything in China is covered by vast regulations. If they violate the wrong regulations, they could be put to death!
And who told these clowns that 100% of the materials in a printer are recyclable, that none of it will be waste? Is that actually a claim by anybody? No, the claim is that the electronic devices will be recycled; it is implied that only the majority of the actual parts will be able to be put to another use.
And it would be great if they had indoor storage for everything. But being stored in a field doesn't actually tell you anything at all other than that the storage doesn't have a roof. It doesn't mean that it isn't still in a recycling pipeline. Glass that is recycled is often stored outdoors multiple times before being melted down. Same for metals and plastics. For electronics it is obviously non-optimal... but the same is true with metal.
Also, this part is misleading:
As an Oregonian I can report that the State is really awesome about investigating complaints. If I tell the State that some business scammed me out of $1, and I make the complaint to the right place, they will investigate. In that case, it would be a very short investigation, but the company would get either a phone call or a letter and they would have to give their side of the story. Of course Oregon regulators ask the DoJ to investigate; the people behind the story were asking them to do that! Here in Oregon, the State doesn't decide if there is a problem before they investigate! I know that is done in some places. But here, we decide if the rules were broken after investigating! They make it sound like the State believes there is some problem, but that is just not true and they know it. But it didn't stop them from writing it that way.
I care about waste and pollution, but I feel like those fights would be better off without these clowns. Things have improved a lot the past 15 years, and these guys are back to attack the companies that have improved things! I just don't see how that helps. If they did the exact same investigation, but instead of using it to throw mud at recycling companies, they used to try to improve practices, they'd have a positive impact. The way they're doing it is just going to make people think maybe it isn't important to get their electronics to these companies. Nobody el
You mean what he claims to have witnessed.
Indeed. I'm sure you can find dozens of other words that I also mean, that are implied by my statement, that I didn't type out. Even as long-winded as I am, there is no limit to the amount of redundant filler words that it is possible to add to any statement without changing the meaning.
So, yeah. Obviously I meant that. But no, you're incorrect in your implication that adding it corrects or clarifies anything.
Qatar isn't even in Brazil.
So where's Dubai?
Not in Brazil.
Don't forget to include an idea with your insults next time. I mean, two insults, and not a single idea, no analysis, not even an attempt to identify what you're complaining about.
For example, you use the word "hateful." What was it you thought I was "hating?"
I accused you of engaging in moral relativism in an inappropriate context. How is that "hateful?" Don't be afraid to use a dictionary to check what the words mean.
You don't even show know what relativism means; you made no attempt to support your statement, or disagree with my analysis. Maybe you just "hate" that somebody called you on a bullshit attempt to claim that a desert being hot is the same type of thing as an outbreak of disease?
By "the rest" you mean, what? 2 out of 10 steps? Pressing two buttons, one inside the car before parking, and then pressing the wrong button on the phone app or key fob, and the car drives off and crashes.
It is exceptionally misleading to spell out a huge number of steps where over 50% of the "steps" are not actually steps in that process, but rather things that you're required to have done if you were not trying to activate the feature. If any of those are considered activation steps, then the feature is designed in a grossly negligent way. Having the car drive off and park itself is a serious physical action. They do not have ANY step that guarantees the driver is present, even though they obviously believe that the driver must be present to supervise the action.
Why would they call him?
Wow. Just... wow.
I don't think you realize even what sort of car it is, how much it costs, how many are made, and how many accidents they should be having that involve a "beta" self-driving feature.
Just... wow.
Qatar isn't even in Brazil. Not your strong suit, that part I believe. But you didn't quite find the right question to clear up your confusion, either.
The funny part is that most of these things are required steps in parking manually, like placing the vehicle in "park," removing your foot from the brake pedal, opening the door, exiting the vehicle, and closing the door. "ignore Cancellation dialog" is specious; you don't "ignore" what you didn't see, and it is not normal to need to stare at the center console touchscreen to park or exit the vehicle. Almost all of this is either steps that are part of manual parking, or passive things not active things the driver "did."
That's a log. If there was a sensor bug that caused the problem, all of that might still be in the log. The feature is in beta, you can't just believe whatever the log says without investigating the bug report. And it appears that no engineers were assigned to this.
I would expect that if they had actually looked that closely at the logs, they would have also called him instead of sending the letter. That they merely sent the letter indicates to me that it probably did not actually leave the call center and make it to an analysis by technical personnel.
I'd also expect that had it been properly escalated, they would have been very helpful and the problem would have never gone to the press... regardless of whose fault it was, because the feature at issue is in beta and so if the user experienced a problem, it might very well be their fault even if he did press the wrong buttons.
Nothing in any of the information about this incident indicates that an engineer was assigned to the problem.
Actually, that is the story; he was sent a PR blame-the-driver letter, and received no other contact, and the letter contradicted what he witnessed.
It doesn't really matter if he made a minor mistake in the settings. He wasn't in the vehicle, and it drove off and crashed. Tesla needs to own up to their liability.
The letter Tesla sent him blames him for not safely controlling the vehicle at all times; but nobody is expected to "control" the vehicle while it is parked. Furthermore, part of the activation sequence of the "summon" feature is to place the vehicle in park; something you have to do to park manually, and potentially a major design flaw in the feature. Additionally, the feature is in "beta" testing; they don't even claim it works right yet. This is on Tesla, even if the driver did make mistakes.
Yeah, Sherlock, but were you clever enough to notice that the car was in "summon mode" which would not have been the case if he had simply crashed and then made an excuse?
You didn't find any problem with his story, you simply speculated in contradiction to the given details.
Lets see, desert heat, government corruption, and Zika virus. Which of these can be spread by returning tourists?
Relativism fail.
Nobody is asking you to give a crap. Diarrhea is caused by other diseases, not Zika. You're being asked to not give a puke, by Brazil not giving you Zika via a pandemic.
Please, don't give a crap. Please, don't give a puke.
Stay healthy, stay safe.
I recommend a 6 month quarantine before letting anybody return, if Brazil doesn't have the sense to cancel. Or just leave them there.
Once you count up the cost of the event, and the actual limit to how many people can tour the ship, and the value of the equipment on the ship, it might turn out to cost more to have the ship parked for tours than you're actually making off of it.
People seem to just presume that popularity = dollars, but that isn't automatically true. If it was a cargo ship, they could almost certainly make more than the operating costs of the tour, but perhaps still not enough to justify parking the ship to do the tour.
Gosh, that's a great theory. "Gee Judge, see, the cops weren't even allowed to investigate, because I claim they don't understand hyperbole."
That is just a bunch of fail. You didn't address any of the points I made, or any of the legal issues. Believing the cops don't understand hyperbole just proves they were being reasonable to investigate. Who fucking cares if I "understand" the hyperbole or not? Why do you care? I don't care. The cops don't care. You're the only one who cares if I understand hyperbole, and you're the only one who thinks that you know about it.
You don't have to think it is a threat to understand that the cops are allowed to investigate.
No, you didn't win or lose an argument, because you didn't understand anything well enough to have one.
Wrong. I'm sorry but when it comes to the law, I believe police
Police receive no training in the law. All of their legal "knowledge" is inferred from department policies about who to arrest when, and what codes to use.
Feds do receive a small amount of legal training, and usually have college degrees.
Also, lawyers speak in narrow terms. That link isn't talking about if threats are legal. It is talking about if they amount to assault. Words have meaning... even legal words!
Yes, when they come to your door you can refuse to answer questions. That is your right. Absolutely.
No, techdirt cannot refuse to give up whatever information they have about a 3rd party. They will have to comply with the subpoena unless they go to court and get it quashed.
A warrant is required to do a search, but isn't the only legal process available to acquire business records, such as website logs containing an IP address. A warrant in that case is only required if they want to walk in the door and remove the records themselves.
That is just a fact; information about you in somebody else's possession is not in your possession.
The Constitution is not a free-form source of ideas where the challenge is to just phrase things in a way that is convenient to your argument. Opinion is not relevant. What is relevant is existing precedent. The 4th amendment doesn't help, because they're not searching this "digger" guy, they're requesting documents from Techdirt. And the information isn't about techdirt, and they're not being investigated, so their 4th amendment concerns don't stand up. Stop worrying about how you wish it was, that isn't relevant to understanding what the actual extant rights are. Business records about other people are simply not covered.