@rverghes's banner p

rverghes


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 January 31 03:42:33 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 2139

rverghes


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2023 January 31 03:42:33 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2139

Verified Email

Write stuff down. Keep personal records of everything. All your meetings, all the tasks you did, etc. Do it immediately after the fact. If you have to learn something, write a document detailing what you learned. If it's a meeting, note who was present, link important documents, and make short notes of the decisions.

This isn't to cover your bases or protect you or anything. It's just to keep everything straight. Don't count on just remembering things. Corporate can move very slowly, and being able to refer to what happened in a meeting a month ago is very useful. As well, it's very helpful to have a paper trail when it comes to things like getting promoted.

Even if RCV is actually a good idea for some reason, very few people can model it effectively and people absolutely will feel like their opponents just devised a system to cheat the first time that someone gets the most first-place votes and loses anyway.

In some ways, you could even say that the purpose of all these complicated systems is to ensure that the guy with the most votes loses.

What about 3 terms, all with a term in between? That clearly complies, the intention can't be to cap at 10 years overall.

I think this is correct on a post level. But reddit-style voting is often used for more than just posts. For example, the score often determines sorting, so high-agreement posts come first and are more likely to be read. Similarly, highly negative posts get hidden from view. Finally, on Reddit, post karma adds up to a total score for the user, which keeps people trying to get a higher score. Not to mention that some subreddits require certain karma levels to post.

It might be interesting to see explicit agree/disagree buttons and then show something like "18 votes, 86% agreement".

That's true. Maybe the shift also is from servers-as-pets to servers-as-cattle.

I just think there's a definite shift between the two types of admin, even if it occurs in parts. And because the change is large enough, we use two different words to describe the jobs.

Eh, I'd argue that sysadmin is maintaining running systems by hand, and DevOps is Infrastructure-as-Code. There is a qualitative difference when you switch from one to the other.

Yes, that's true.

I think that for the withdrawal to hurt Biden, there would need to be some proof of executive micromanaging, like overruling defence plans or imposing artificial restrictions on how the withdrawal was conducted.

Which probably didn't happen, other than maybe imposing a timeline over defence foot-dragging. (Though it might have, and both sides are keeping quiet to avoid burning each other.)

On its own, it won't hurt Biden, but it might as one element in a pattern. "Here are three times Biden's incompetence...."

But on its own, it runs into the problem that a lot of people agree with withdrawing from Afghanistan. So even if it docks points for execution, he gains from making the call. "Yes, the withdrawal didn't go perfectly, but he was only one who made the hard and correct decision".

I'm going to buck the trend and say you should sell. In my opinion, administrative overhead is greatly under-estimated. Simply not having to think about X is worth a lot.

To me, it feels like you aren't going to care about the house. At best, it's a source of small income. Cut it free, take the capital gains and the mortgage payment and do something else more relevant to you with the money.

Bro, just listen to your aunt, and take the arranged marriage.

I nominated this for an AAQC.

What are your feelings about weather? In particular, snow?

Personally I enjoy snow, but there is a big difference living somewhere which gets a fair amount and somewhere which doesn't have any.

My theory is that the modern culture war in the US stems from gay marriage. Basically, gay marriage did not win democratically in the US, it was imposed from above. Therefore blue tribe is deeply insecure in their victory. And they have responded by trying to crush any and all dissent.

It would have been healthier if blue tribe had to win gay marriage the old-fashioned way, through the formal constitutional amendment process. Win referendums state-by-state. It would have taken longer, but having your fellow citizens vote with you gives confidence in the result, that it's unlikely to be taken from you.

Perhaps the loss in the California referendum spooked blue tribe, and made them think the amendment path was impossible. Personally I do think Americans would have eventually voted for gay marriage. "The pursuit of happiness" is deeply entrenched in the American soul.

A couple analogous situations. Women's suffrage was rejected by the Supreme Court. So it had to be done via amendment. But doing so made it utterly accepted.

Canada passed gay marriage with two free votes in Parliament. One under a Liberal government and one under the subsequent Conservative government. Both votes passed, and thus gay marriage has iron-clad legitimacy in Canada. This is how the process is supposed to work, what Parliament is for.

A side note: I sometimes worry that modern spay/neuter campaigns are, on net, reversing the domestication process for cats. Practically the only individuals that are allowed to reproduce these days are 1) expensive purebreds and 2) feral cats so averse to humans that they escape TNR programs. If you have a snuggly, trainable one, let her make more!

Same thing for dogs, only with added bonus that it's the aggressive breeds which get to breed as their owners don't care enough to spay/neuter.

Am I the only one who feels sympathetic to the lawyers?

The media and the tech companies have been hyping GPT like crazy: "It's going to replace all our jobs." "You're foolish if you don't learn how to use GPT." "Google/Microsoft is replacing their search engine with GPT."

So these lawyers give it a try and it appears to work and live up to the hype, but it's really gaslighting them.

As the OP suggests, it's a question of numbers. Let's say 1 in 10,000 lawsuits are valid. But you don't know which one, so it takes some time to figure out. That's a massive amount of resources. Absolute immunity allows the court system to simply toss all those lawsuits out.

It's the frivolous lawsuit problem on steroids. Every person a judge ruled against or a prosecutor prosecutes has reason to file against that judge or prosecutor.

Personally, I prefer a system where you mark your PR comment with tag that explicitly calls out how important you think the issue is. It allows you to be complete, but also convey how much you care. I use:

MUST - I think this is an error of logic, not meeting requirements, or otherwise a major concern. I will fail the PR over this unless you convince me otherwise.

SHOULD - Probably should change this to make it more clear or adhere to standards. But if you feel strongly that your way is correct, I'm not really going to fuss.

MAYBE - random ideas, nitpicks, etc. Stuff that you can adopt or not at your leisure, and I don't really care at all.

Best theory I've seen is that normally radar filters out slow-moving objects to avoid false positives. After the large balloon last week, NORAD recalibrated and went looking for slow-moving objects and found several that were real.

The most interesting explanation along those lines is that it dates from the PMC increasing investment in the stock market. Mutual funds, 401ks, etc. All of that really started getting emphasized in the 90s. This investment aligned the PMC with capital, rather than labour. So the political beliefs shifted to something which capital could support, could pretend to be the good guys. Also labour could be weakened and outsourced, and this would be morally okay because of the their newly questionable beliefs.