|
Local Weather posted:When I used to work in Keller, TX I know at least 4 or 5 of my colleagues were armed at work every day. At a management consulting firm, the most dangerous of jobs. They loved to talk about stopping power and poo poo like that, it was nauseating. I worked at a Raising Cane's and one employee and two managers were constantly strapped "to keep us safe." I asked and they straight up said yes, they'd rather die for the dog's chicken profits than hand over the money to an armed robber. poo poo man that's even against company policy, the most sacred law there is!
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 14:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 23:18 |
|
|
*rakes entire staff and dining area with line of fire while drawing on would-be thief* Nice try, thug. Drop the chicken. *thief runs off, leaving the chicken* That coulda been bad, good thing there's folks like me around to keep order. *dumps chicken in garbage, and also dumps two-thirds of the day's food prep into the garbage*
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 14:27
|
|
|
Managers carrying guns to protect the cash register of the place they work at is utterly insane to me, talk about a petty tyrant. You don't own the business, man. That isn't your money. You're just an unpaid security guard on top of being a manager.Edgar Allen Ho posted:I worked at a Raising Cane's and one employee and two managers were constantly strapped "to keep us safe." I asked and they straight up said yes, they'd rather die for the dog's chicken profits than hand over the money to an armed robber. I'm sorry but if you asked me what a company called Raising Canes sold then I would start at gimp suits and then make 300 other guesses before I got to chicken.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 14:32
|
|
|
CuddleCryptid posted:Managers carrying guns to protect the cash register of the place they work at is utterly insane to me, talk about a petty tyrant. You don't own the business, man. That isn't your money. You're just an unpaid security guard on top of being a manager. The restaurant I worked at explicitly said don't ever try and stop a thief. It's a) not your money and b) they have insurance for exactly that situation. At most they said make a mental note of their appearance, clothes, type of car etc to pass on to the police.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 14:38
|
|
|
Spalec posted:The restaurant I worked at explicitly said don't ever try and stop a thief. It's a) not your money and b) they have insurance for exactly that situation. At most they said make a mental note of their appearance, clothes, type of car etc to pass on to the police. Someone I worked with got a write up and formal reprimand for stepping outside to try to catch the license plate of the guy who robbed us.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 14:51
|
|
|
The worst part is if any of those assholes did die for the CEO's profits, it would gently caress over their families because the company would just say "He was acting against company policy, therefore we don't have to pay any benefits to you."
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 14:54
|
|
|
Chasing after thieves can result in an employee getting shot, etc, and the company having to pay huge settlements and medical bills.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 14:57
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:Chasing after thieves can result in an employee getting shot, etc, and the company having to pay huge settlements and medical bills. Sure, there's this massive list of completely reasonable and rational reasons why you shouldn't try to play hero, but have you considered that if you DO stop the robber, you'll totally be a hero on the news and everyone will see how tough and manly you are?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 15:25
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:I worked at a Raising Cane's and one employee and two managers were constantly strapped "to keep us safe." I asked and they straight up said yes, they'd rather die for the dog's chicken profits than hand over the money to an armed robber. The funny thing is, they'd probably feel very emasculated if they'd be forced to give the companies' money to an armed robber, which is why they'd rather die for some lovely company's profits instead, which is, for lack of a better term, insanely cucked.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 15:44
|
|
|
Hovering above your dying body, upon which a brightly-colored chicken franchise tee shirt darkens with arterial blood. Two teenagers look on as a supervisor with adderall in her nostrils holds you tenderly, like the Pietà.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 15:50
|
|
|
the_steve posted:Sure, there's this massive list of completely reasonable and rational reasons why you shouldn't try to play hero, but have you considered that if you DO stop the robber, you'll totally be a hero on the news and everyone will see how tough and manly you are? What is more American Dream than having your name in the news with the chyron "local hero kills man over $50"
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 15:51
|
|
|
GrunkleStalin posted:My personal definition which is really completely irrelevant to the conversation is the risk doesn't actually exist it's too nebulous of a concept to actually be paired into an idea. I'm sure it varies in context, but I am in an engineering role that deals with safety, equipment damage, and loss of production and learning that Risk = (Likelihood or Probability) * (Hazard or Consequence) really helped me understand risk analysis specifically in my role, but also in life in general. So often I hear people argue that Risk = Consequence (without stating it that way of course). That is how you end up with insane arguments like a spoon is just as dangerous as a gun because you could kill someone with a spoon or you can still die in a car accident if you are wearing a seatbelt, so it doesn't provide any benefit. As someone else already noted, we perform risk analysis all the time in our daily lives, even if we don't think of it that way. jjack229 fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Jan 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 16:07
|
|
|
jjack229 posted:I'm sure it varies in context, but I am in an engineering role that deals with safety, equipment damage, and loss of production and learning that Risk = (Likelihood/Probability) * (Hazard/Consequence) really helped me understand risk analysis specifically in my role, but also in life in general. Yup A meteor strike is devastating to a planet, but very low probability (one every few hundred million years maybe). A fire is usually limited to one building, but they happen all the time. There's a reason most people have fire insurance and not meteor insurance. It's also why doomsday preppers that don't keep a fire extinguisher are laughable. When analyzing risk a simple method is to plot things in a 3x3 grid with likelihood on one axis and severity on another with low/medium/high. Both (Low probability but high severity) and (high probability but low severity) should have similar attention paid to mitigation strategies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 16:20
|
|
|
***** ***** ***** Me - How would you express risk mathematically? TheLogicalOne - i wouldnt Me - Do you think an accident has a probability of occurring? TheLogicalOne - Depends on the circumstances for example you are likely to be more accident prone while receiving training so jobs with a high rate of turnover are going to see more accidents until they manage to get somebody who has sufficiently gone through the training. Meanwhile if a job has a high rate of turnover and managers for example won't raise the entry level cost the likelihood of getting hires that will have sufficient experience to effectively use the training may disappear resulting in less incentive and less ability to provide proper training in the future. If we assume all accidents regardless of their circumstances have an innate ability to reproduce themselves over time then we miss the nuances we miss the real problems underlying the issue again playing into that concept of individualization of safety and safety accountability rules ***** ***** *****  I’m not sure what they are trying to say with that last line. We can assume on a long enough time scale accident will occur. This assumption means we miss the nuances and real problems of the underlying issue.  Individual accountability
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 16:25
|
|
|
Weird, I always thought logic had fairly straightforward structure with stated propositions leading to clear conclusions but I guess it's just hemming and hawing and saying nothing
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 16:29
|
|
|
I might be missing a thread, is TheLogicalOne a person of note or is that just an arguement with some Maga dipshit online
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 16:38
|
|
|
GrunkleStalin posted:***** ***** ***** Reminds me of a dumb argument I had last year with a COVID denier - when I pointed out that their argument about people dying from/with COVID is really irrelevant seeing as aggregate deaths had jumped from 2.7M / year to 3.4M / year, they tried to make the point that we couldn’t possibly draw any conclusions from that, as population-level data could only be analyzed on a long-term trend basis. I guess we will only be able to draw conclusions on whether COVID drove an increase in deaths in ten years or so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 16:47
|
|
|
CuddleCryptid posted:I might be missing a thread, is TheLogicalOne a person of note or is that just an arguement with some Maga dipshit online While they are someone I know, it’s basically an interview with a MAGA dipshit. I can’t say it’s an argument because I haven’t really stated any opinions and they have never asked me a question. I keep asking TheLogicalOne questions because they help me see beyond the NYT safari interviews and into their actual thought process.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 16:49
|
|
|
morothar posted:I guess we will only be able to draw conclusions on whether COVID drove an increase in deaths in ten years or so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 16:50
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:The funny thing is, they'd probably feel very emasculated if they'd be forced to give the companies' money to an armed robber, which is why they'd rather die for some lovely company's profits instead, which is, for lack of a better term, insanely cucked. This is basically it. A lot of this rhetoric has to do with the fact that they think the people who got shot or robbed were victims, and thus by proxy losers. You see hints of this in response to mass shootings- obviously that could never happen to THEM because they'd be strapped and giving the shooter a lethal case of lead poisoning. So in their mind these things happened only because people allowed it, and by 'allowed it' they mean liberals prevented them from carrying guns in the place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 17:12
|
|
|
Those people don't care about company money or whatever they just want to be able to shoot someone without getting punished for it. That's it. Anything else is overthinking it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 17:38
|
|
|
I didn't read all that pseudoinellectual drivel, but I'm still wowza-ing over the guy saying OSHA regulations are bad because they're just a way for companies to blame you for accidents and get out of paying if you don't follow regulations. As though without the regulations the greedy callous company that's so eager to use regulations against you would just generously pay your medical bills out of the goodness of their heart.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 17:53
|
|
|
Child sacrifices,  , and more in this one.***** ***** ***** Me - How do you decide how risky something is? TheLogicalOne - Again I wouldn't there are too many variables for mathematical equation to be anything but inaccurate at best and detrimental at worst. The assessment of risk is tied directly into individual values not ethics but instead morality it's not a matter of the things that you prefer or how you prefer things to work but a matter of essentially your epistemological basis for determining value in a system. For example throughout history child sacrifice was fairly common inside and outside of religious dogma largely this was an assessment by the individuals that their child's life was something that they could give up but a lack of rain for their crops wasn't. TheLogicalOne - Essentially at the core of who we are everybody has those things and they're almost always different what you can live with and what I can live with at the end of the day are certainly two very different things. Especially when it comes to men who are biologically and evolutionarily hardwired for sacrificing their own lives instead of anybody else ever having to make such a sacrifice this is why the most dangerous jobs are populated by men they're the only ones with the proclivity to take on that additional risk. TheLogicalOne - That's why I almost all of the essential workers were men I almost all of the jobs that were s*** canned during covid were jobs largely held by women and why men were more affected by the coronavirus because they could not afford to quarantine based on the myriad of social rules required in our society of men none of which are required of women thus they are capable of quarantining for 14 days and being financially secure at the end never being shamed for spending all day watching nurses do tick tock videos. ***** ***** ***** Risk tolerance is based on the ethics/values/morality of the risk taker. Parents allowed their children to be sacrificed because they personally valued rain over their children. Because of men take on more dangerous jobs than women.Most essential workers were men. Most of the jobs lost during COVID were performed by women. COVID had a larger impact on men more because  SOCIETIES RULES won’t let men quarantine. get to quarantine, watch Tik Tok, and be financially secure at the end without shame.Their thoughts society’s rules boil down to screaming you’re not my real dad at the world. I don’t really understand their interpretation of ethics/morality/values and how they relate to the individual vs society. Did they differentiate between societal and personal ethics at first, only to merge the concepts by the end?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 18:47
|
|
|
jjack229 posted:Risk = (Likelihood/Probability) * (Hazard/Consequence) Is the first one, Risk = (Likelihood or Probability) * (Hazard or Consequence) or there actual division occurring? I’m going to ask them which they think is more accurate. Ngl though, needing to ask for clarification over this has me worried TheLogicalOne is making me dumber.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 18:54
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:What if my car had its brake lines cut by some rear end in a top hat? Now the risk is too great because even if I need food, not being able to stop the car makes driving it far more dangerous than driving it under optimal conditions. The risk has increased dramatically, and now the risk is no longer worth it. Uh it's called not being a pussy! Brakes are just a way for insurance companies to blame accidents on you and refuse to pay, if you didn't have brakes then a failure to stop in time wouldn't be your fault. And anyway brakes make driving more dangerous because people rely on their brakes to save them rather than appropriately controlling their acceleration to ensure they can always coast to a stop when needed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 19:01
|
|
|
The absolute fear of being perceived as a pussy to the point where threatening to do so is enough to risk grave bodily harm points to this, also, being a product of toxic masculinity. That's not overthinking it lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 19:06
|
|
|
TheLongWindedOne
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 19:09
|
|
|
Toxic masculinity, the century of the self, "there's no such thing as society", and the erosion of trust in earned authority and expertise. "Oh this bench says it only holds 100kg, well mathematicians have been wrong before and the metric system was invented by a queer, we'll see whose right when my feet are being amputated."
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 19:12
|
|
|
BONGHITZ posted:TheLongWindedOne Right? GrunkleStalin, Why are you engaging so much with this person? All they're doing is trying to out word you. That Logical One dude uses a whole lot of words to say bascially nothing beyond "poo poo happens. People get hurt sometimes. Gotta make money and progress. What are ya gonna do? Seatbelts and airbags exist because brave people like me got their heads caved in a few times. Who's to really say for sure what's dangerous? Everything is dangerous. Did you brush your teeth this morning? Some psycho may have laced it with cyanide. Remember the Tylenol murders? And BLAH BLAH loving blah." And does he actually use that moniker? Because right there you got a problem. There's a dude on another forum I used to post in named "Truth Bomb" who liked to drop mad science on everyone and wreck the joint because none of us plebes could handle his down to earth, politically incorrect truth telling abilities, he was too busy keep in it real and that's why it was everyone else who had the problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 21:00
|
|
|
yeah like, why are you giving this guy so much attention, and furthermore why are you subjecting us to it as well
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 21:49
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:The absolute fear of being perceived as a pussy to the point where threatening to do so is enough to risk grave bodily harm points to this, also, being a product of toxic masculinity. But also the need to not acknowledge they are risking harm and death out of fear of being judged by others as unmanly, therefore the elaborate rationalizations that safety precautions are ineffective or actively harmful. I'm not being a reckless idiot for not wearing work gloves, because it's really all the weenies who are scared to get hurt who make things more dangerous by insisting on 'safety'. See also covid: how precautions like masks and vaccines were labeled unmanly and only for weaklings who are living in fear. But whoa wouldn't that mean more of them will live and more of us will die for literally no reason other than not wanting to look like a weenie? No, not if masks actually suffocate you and trap the viruses and bacteria in your lungs! Not if vaccines actually kill you! Now they are the dummies dying because they're acting on emotion and I am the rational one. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Jan 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 22:20
|
|
|
GrunkleStalin posted:Is the first one, Risk = (Likelihood or Probability) * (Hazard or Consequence) or there actual division occurring? Sorry, I meant it as I've heard both terms used for the same thing. I realize now that that is confusing in an equation. I've also heard people use "hazard" and "consequence" to mean different distinct things in terms of risk, but "likelihood" and "probability" always seem to be interchangeable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 22:35
|
|
|
moonmazed posted:yeah like, why are you giving this guy so much attention, and furthermore why are you subjecting us to it as well Yeah, at this point I just scroll past because it's TLDR and it isn't even being presented in an entertaining meme format.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 22:43
|
|
|
moonmazed posted:yeah like, why are you giving this guy so much attention, and furthermore why are you subjecting us to it as well https://youtu.be/P_SlAzsXa7E
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 22:45
|
|
|
GrunkleStalin posted:Me - How do you decide how risky something is? As someone else said before, this is bullshit. He decides how risky things are every loving day. He probably gets into a car no problem, but if someone said "Here is a car that has no brakes, you can have it for free, just drive it back to your place" he wouldn't because he knows it's too dangerous. He didn't do a math equation in his head but he knows that driving a car around with no brakes is going to result in an accident. And sure, there's some risks that exist that it would probably be considered unreasonable to try and avoid. BiggerBoat brought up the Tylenol murders and so yeah, based on that, we can assume that any time you take otc medications there's a risk they've been tampered with and it might kill you. But the risk is extremely low, so low that anyone who's worried about it is pretty much overreacting. But (to reference a recent RLM episode) the risk of flipping over a forklift and damaging it or injuring/killing yourself is a lot higher, and so necessary precautions need to be taken so forklift drivers don't flip them over constantly. quote:The assessment of risk is tied directly into individual values not ethics but instead morality it's not a matter of the things that you prefer or how you prefer things to work but a matter of essentially your epistemological basis for determining value in a system. https://qwantz.com/index.php?comic=1081 Hey, he correctly stated the difference between ethics and morals! I mean, it's all pointless drivel with no relation to risk analysis, but gotta take those wins when you can! Because again, flipping a forklift isn't based on your individual values and morals, it's based on loving physics and how forklifts operate. And Jesus, all that nonsense about child sacrifice and how AKSHUALLY men have it worse than women in society, that's just its own thing I'm not even going to touch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 22:55
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:The funny thing is, they'd probably feel very emasculated if they'd be forced to give the companies' money to an armed robber, which is why they'd rather die for some lovely company's profits instead, which is, for lack of a better term, insanely cucked. Cucked in my Head by my Own Internalized Normativity
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 23:31
|
|
|
That part. Where TheLogicalOne says the probability of a probability depends on the circumstances. Just GTFO. Eat all of the poo poo, poo poo-eater.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 03:31
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 03:39
|
|
|
He's right we should forgive all debt AGM
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 03:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 23:18 |
|
|
I agree, abolish money. Except the person who posted that doesn't actually want people's lease payments on trucks to be forgiven, they just want to stop the conversation about student loan payments.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 03:44
|
|