Re: emphasis on the last syllable
1568 posts • joined 6 Feb 2015
Which only goes to prove how subjective the whole thing is.
Telling someone to do their job is not bullying. Telling them repeatedly to do their job, if they're still not doing it, is still not bullying.
Telling someone repeatedly to do their job, when they are doing their job, that's probably bullying. It could also be simple management misperception, looking at the wrong KPIs or whatever.
Anyone on the receiving end of that may well feel like they're being bullied, even if they really aren't.
That's why this kind of highly subjective survey, with no definition or data control, is not so helpful.
Without defining the framework or any data validation, it's impossible to see how this survey could possibly yield informed, balanced, policy decisions.
At best it indicates a lot of people feel there is a problem, possibly involving bullying, possibly involving people feeling hard done by. But that's all it indicates, which doesn't make it very useful and that's a shame. Genuine bullying at any stage of life is a problem which needs to be erradicated.
Hydrogen may be one solution to the fill-up time, grid-capacity and charging-availability problems of BEV, and so it could be a viable alternative for transport.
But it's a pig to store in useful volume and/or density, and likes to make its way through many solid materials. It's odourless and invisible when burning. Could solve those with a tiny amount of additives, but that may have other utility and environmental problems.
Personally I'd happily trade environmentally sound but less range for fill-up times and availablilty similar to current petrol/diesel. BEV are just about usable now, because hardly anyone has one. I sure don't go over the grid-capacity, charge times, charging availability, lack of off-road parking problems again that will come with mass adoption.
Smells like Boeing beancounters in action. Again.
"Logic" (I use the term generously) that perhaps went something like this: Why have the cost of machining two differently shaped holes and corresponding differently shaped pins, when a single hole and pin shape will suffice?
Classic failure to understand the vital reason for the differences. Just another line item to be cut.
Absolutely not. Just need vehicle to vehicle comms within a speed-dependent radius, and better sensors than just relying on cameras i.e. radar, lidar.
There's simply no need for some kind of overlord watchdog system to know where all vehicles are at all times. There's enough of that with ANPR as is.
I think we can all understand the point you're trying to make here, but that statement is a bit of a stretch.
There's no racist assumptions in the design, it's just that dark anything reflects significantly less light than pale anything. Elementary physics. Cameras either need a longer exposure to properly image dark things, which will affect image quality in other ways, or need higher gain which can lead to image noise and overexposure of brighter image regions.
There's no easy answer. It's not like this is an already-solved problem whose solution is being deliberately ignored because racism.
Physics isn't racist, it's simply physics.
Oh God, no! Just NO.
I don't need or want personalised in-store marketing. I want to buy what I want/need from the store without being hassled. I want customer service that is available and responsive when I need help finding or returning something.
AFR solves none of that. Fuck off with it already.
[Icon = what should be done with AFR, especially in retail environments as a customer experience tool]
Not sure anyone is forced to work for ol' Beardy. Yeah he should've given credit where it's due, but had VG spent their "money to burn" on salaries, surely they'd not have a product to build (setting aside whether or not said product is a worthwhile endeavour or simply a "because I can" vanity piece). No product = no reason to employ anyone.
No such thing as "rapid" when building space telescopes. It took 4 years just to develop a test demonstrator for a single mirror segment:
Now they have it, things could go faster in the future. Maybe. The mirrors still take a lot of time to grind, for example. Maybe loft a few more JWST-class 'scopes pointing in different directions, if orbital dynamics permit.
But that's just keeping like for like. Going bigger, better, more capable means pushing the envelope still further, which means long leads times, technical demonstrators, designing and trying different approaches.
Doing it the first place should be a criminal offence, with mandatory serious jail time for the directors and executives of any company committing said offence.
Minimum 5 years, no early release. Sentence scales by a year per million calls made, to a maximum of 10 years, again with no chance of early release.
Where do you draw the line between poor software, and tried really hard to check as much as possible but stil missing something?
I've been doing this 30-odd years and while I'm always generally improving, I'd never claim my code is completely bug free, vuln free, 100% tested and audited.
We have design reviews, unit tests, functional tests, smoke tests, security audits with hundreds of rules covering a wide range of possible vulnerabilities. Can that cover anything? Hell no. 100% coverage is impossible, and chasing it rapidly hits diminishing returns.
Occasionally something still sneaks through, or a new problem is discovered that none of the checks and audits could find as it wasn't even a recognised problem.
How much mitigation would that provide us under your "bunch of liability"?
Some places a happy to bang out shitty code. A lot of places are not. Quality is important as a driving factor for customer adoption and retention. Other places sit somewhere in between. It's a continuum, and painting the situation as black and white feels deliberately disingenuous. Or should that be ingenuous...? I guess either can work. This wholy black and white perspective is certainly naive.
If you want to quickly sort companies that are good to work for, from companies no one should touch with a 10ft dogshit-tipped barge pole, that kind of invasive surveillance seems an ideal tool.
Trust people to do their job and mostly it'll happen. You'll quickly identify unproductive workers, because, well, they'll be unproductive.
Micromanaging staff into a state of paranoid fear is not the way to get good results.
More that kids used to be taught to question things, instead of blindly following whatever drivel is spouted.
But that leads to older kids and adults daring to question what teachers and "authority" tell them, and teachers and "authority" figures don't like that.
Oh, the temerity. The very idea that someone might dare question their betters!
People are far easy to manage, manipulate and control when they are taught from an early age not to look behind the curtain.
Au contraire, starfish hair... maintaining the ICE is but one aspect. Brakes, suspension, steering, tyres, heating, cooling, AC, bodywork, trim, interior, safety features, electronics... EV have all of these which still need to be maintained.
The motor still connects to a powertrain, just it's electric instead of dino-juice. It still needs to be maintained, though it's arguable simplier than an ICE. But, there is still the transmission system: driveshafts, differentials, axles, ball joints, control arms, linkages, possibly a gearbox. Plus, an EV has a bunch of complex power electronics not found in pure ICE cars. Or you may have multiple electric motors, per axle or per wheel, which eliminates some transmission complexity but adds others.
So, no. EV's haven't removed complexity. Just some aspects are different. The vast majority is unchanged.
Most likely referring to the perception of uselessness, obsolecence and underperformance that phone companies and network providers want consumers to believe. If Joe Public believes their current phone will be perfectly good for many more years, where's the compulsion to buy a new one, sign up for a new X-year contract?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021