|
quote:And, hold up, have you actually asked your boss your common question? I can't imagine asking my boss for acceptable stories to tell my friends about work. No. It's a common question that you might ask yourself in the moment, not a question that you'd ask your boss. Mofabio posted:Um, I was actually in that situation: there was no hesitation, he was extremely proud of being on the legal defense research team for loving Exxon-Valdez. My oil friends talk about their excel macros and pipeline software optimizations in excruciating detail. I have not experienced any of the hesitation you're describing, just them struggling to come up with literally anything interesting about working in oil and gas. I don't give a poo poo about that legal team guy, I'm talking about your friends who "struggle" to find an answer to your question: Mofabio posted:I've got a lot of friends in energy and they're all thoroughly miserable. I like to ask them what their proudest moment was at work, and then I giggle to myself as they struggle to think of whatever crappy little project they last did. If your friends are bragging about excel macros then they're probably just idiots, but my point still stands: anyone who works with trade secrets or confidential information is probably going to struggle to find a good answer to that kind of question irrespective of how proud they might be of their work. To bring this back to Monsanto, it'd be like asking a scientist who works on developing new plant genome modification techniques to describe their proudest moment at work. Their proudest moment at work is probably related to something that they're not allowed to discuss with you, and it would be pretty stupid to assume that they're not proud of what they do simply because it takes them some time to think of a discussion-safe response. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 10:38 on Dec 21, 2015 |
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 10:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:51 |
|
|
ghetto wormhole posted:This is really what it comes down to for nearly all of the poo poo in this thread. Big bad industry X is only there to deceive you and steal your money! It's all lies! Now if you'll just buy this book and our alternative product that costs twice as much you'll see much better results! TBF quite often quack treatment is cheaper than proper treatment. The only problem there is that it doesn't do anything. One if the sad things is that a lot of the customers of quacks are poor, uninsured, sods who can't afford proper care and then go for whatever home cures they can get their hands on. That and the people for whom there is no cure and quacks target to squeeze out the last bit of their money before they croak. Btw, QuarkJets, I do think that is a fairly reasonable question to ask and I have both been asked it and asked it myself. And lol if you can't describe something confidential you achieved without disclosing the privileged information. They only want to know the broad brush stuff and don't expect a detailed description of the new formulation you came up with that you're so proud of as it can dispose of orphans 20% faster than the existing one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 13:23
|
|
|
Munin posted:Btw, QuarkJets, I do think that is a fairly reasonable question to ask and I have both been asked it and asked it myself. And lol if you can't describe something confidential you achieved without disclosing the privileged information. They only want to know the broad brush stuff and don't expect a detailed description of the new formulation you came up with that you're so proud of as it can dispose of orphans 20% faster than the existing one. Yes, I've encountered that situation as well; that's why I say that it's a common issue. But your answer to it should depend strongly on how much is safe to divulge. In some fields it might be safe to divulge the broad strokes stuff; in other fields, that would not be safe. Let's use scientific publication as another example: countless papers and discoveries have been scooped because otherwise brilliant scientists have been a little too loose-lipped in a social setting. It happened quite frequently during the golden age of particle physics. In many of these cases nothing more than the "broad strokes" were divulged
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Yes, I've encountered that situation as well; that's why I say that it's a common issue. But your answer to it should depend strongly on how much is safe to divulge. In some fields it might be safe to divulge the broad strokes stuff; in other fields, that would not be safe. To add to this: imagine that you're talking to someone who works in the CIA. They wouldn't be able to tell you even the broadest strokes of anything they've done in the last 25 years. Anyone with a strict NDA and respect for their workplace is going to face the same issue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Um, I was actually in that situation: there was no hesitation, he was extremely proud of being on the legal defense research team for loving Exxon-Valdez. My oil friends talk about their excel macros and pipeline software optimizations in excruciating detail. I have not experienced any of the hesitation you're describing, just them struggling to come up with literally anything interesting about working in oil and gas. Umm oil and gas encompasses a huge amount of fantastically interesting things and have arguably been more innovative and disruptive in the last decade than tech. Whether a job is interesting or not has nothing to do with what industry its in. You can have a really really tedious job working for a circus or be really satisfied by the challenge of your business/finance job in [insert nominally boring industry that you didn't know existed until you heard it].
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Umm oil and gas encompasses a huge amount of fantastically interesting things and have arguably been more innovative and disruptive in the last decade than tech. You have to be joking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You have to be joking. I don't know, BP was pretty disruptive a couple years back.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
The Larch posted:I don't know, BP was pretty disruptive a couple years back. This is probably the most correct usage of the term in a decade as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You have to be joking. Umm no. Which part. Obviously oil and gas is about as interesting as any industry could be. It involves things like deep sea exploration and constructing floating structures the size of a skyscraper (arguably Petronius was the tallest structure in the world until 2007) and generally cutting edge engineering across a range of disciplines (materials, geology, computer modeling). In terms of innovation fracking has a larger impact on geo-politics than the iPhone 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Umm no. Which part. No they are not and the American Enterprise Institute's Neo-Conservstive blog is not a valid source. Scouring the Earth for new sources of the same old energy sources is not innovative or ground breaking, its like praising the whip and buggy industry for their advances on horse motivation systems.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No they are not and the American Enterprise Institute's Neo-Conservstive blog is not a valid source. You're disputing that north american oil production has significantly increased, downplaying the implications of that and clearly don't know what innovation is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:You're disputing that north american oil production has significantly increased, downplaying the implications of that and clearly don't know what innovation is. So what? That's not innovative. Increasing petroleum Independence is not innovative, especially considering our unhealthy need for it is part of the massive issue. This is a really stupid way to argue something is innovative. Of all the innovative things: Improvements in energy efficiency, electric vehicles, hybrid vehicles, quantum computing, improved batteries, and your best thing you can come up with is: Well, we can drill for fossil fuels in even more places! CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Dec 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:So what? That's not innovative. Increasing petroleum Independence is not innovative, especially considering our unhealthy need for it is part of the massive issue. Sorry that you can't disentangle what you like and don't like from what's actually happening in the world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Sorry that you can't disentangle what you like and don't like from what's actually happening in the world. He's right, it really wasn't that innovative, and it's weird you're picking it as an example.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Sorry that you can't disentangle what you like and don't like from what's actually happening in the world. Doing the same old same old isn't innovation. I can't wait for your post praising strip mining as innovative. Slash and burn agriculture: Farming of the FUTURE.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Doing the same old same old isn't innovation. What's the same about completely new ways to extract oil from areas that were ruled out as impossible a few decades ago with far reaching geo-political consequences? Like you know renewable power has been around for millennia and electric cars are over a century old?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Like you know renewable power has been around for millennia and electric cars are over a century old? Not in these new and innovative forms they were not. And deep sea drilling has been a thing for like 40 years. Way to jump on that innovation train. You are really bad at this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
Innovation has nothing to do with morality, and innovation can apply to both old and new technologies. It seems pretty straightforward to me that a new strip mining technique could be a very interesting innovation, even if it just means a slightly higher mining yield and even if you don't like strip mining.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Not in these new and innovative forms they were not. Correct. New windmills are innovative because they do the same old (thousands of years old) thing in a new and better way. Like the new ways we're extracting North American oil.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Felix_Cat posted:Innovation has nothing to do with morality, and innovation can apply to both old and new technologies. It seems pretty straightforward to me that a new strip mining technique could be a very interesting innovation, even if it just means a slightly higher mining yield and even if you don't like strip mining. Except the problem is still that nothing the oil industry has done in the past few years is incredibly innovative. And the fact that Asdf is getting his information from a Neo-Conservstive Think Tank blog. asdf32 posted:Correct. New windmills are innovative because they do the same old (thousands of years old) thing in a new and better way. Again: Open ocean drilling and rigs are not new or innovative and your loving source was a right wing think tank.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Except the problem is still that nothing the oil industry has done in the past few years is incredibly innovative. And the fact that Asdf is getting his information from a Neo-Conservstive Think Tank blog. Ok I don't poo poo about the oil industry so I can't speak to that. But if that's the case you should just argue that, whereas your previous posts seemed to be suggesting that innovation in the oil industry doesn't count because it's not moral/environmental or because it's an old industry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:What's the same about completely new ways to extract oil from areas that were ruled out as impossible a few decades ago with far reaching geo-political consequences? Yet they still can't do it without making GBS threads up the environment. It's an impressive iteration of mining technology, to go along with the literally thousands of impressive iterations of technology like the LifeSciences genome sequencer (which I'd say is far better than it). It is nothing on the level of, say, protease inhibitors, or the loving large hadron collider. On the off chance that by 'tech' you're restricting yourself to only computing, the computing in the LHC is goddamn staggering. Beyond that, rsync and its variants are both an innovative idea and innovative executions. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Dec 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Yet they still can't do it without making GBS threads up the environment. It's an impressive iteration of mining technology, to go along with the literally thousands of impressive iterations of technology the LifeSciences genome sequencer (which I'd say is far better than it). It is nothing on the level of, say, protease inhibitors, or the loving large hadron collider. On the off chance that by 'tech' you're restricting yourself to only computing, the computing in the LHC is goddamn staggering. Beyond that, rsync and its variants are both an innovative idea and innovative executions. Hell, freaking Cray has released some damned impressive stuff in the last year, we landed a rocket on a return ballistic flight, and genome sequencing and editing is becoming cheaper and more available. Self-driving cars, cheaper electric vehicles, anything CERN does... Hell, deep sea mining would be damned innovative. But the oil industry doing the same poo poo it's been doing since the 1970s? That innovation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Except the problem is still that nothing the oil industry has done in the past few years is incredibly innovative. And the fact that Asdf is getting his information from a Neo-Conservstive Think Tank blog. Everybody knows US oil production is way up and imports down in the last 10 years. For my amusement (probably others too), try defining innovation in a way that includes wind farms but excludes fracking. Or explain the spike in oil production without innovation. You get that Americans have liked oil for a long time right? So when production spikes it probably means something new happened?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Everybody knows US oil production is way up and imports down in the last 10 years. How about you trying defining innovation, at all. What is your metric?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:How about you trying defining innovation, at all. What is your metric? The dictionary. Sometimes it's difficukt but when something actually causes a very large visible change in the real world, like the increased production I'm talking about, its obvious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:The dictionary. Sometimes it's difficukt but when something actually causes a very large visible change in the real world, like the increased production I'm talking about, its obvious. Yes, and as I said, there's thousands and thousands of other innovations out there, many of which--most of which--seem on the face of them more impressive. "The dictionary' as your criteria makes it seem like you're just poking fun at yourself, because obviously you know that the dictionary contains multiple definitions, and that it isn't a metric you could actually use to measure anything. In this case, you compared one portion of an industry (oil and gas) with an entire industry (tech), and not just that, an industry entirely built on innovation, both on the default level of 'do what we did before, but faster/better/more completely', and on the level of 'do thing that nobody even considered doing before'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:How about you trying defining innovation, at all. What is your metric? Lol @ asking for metrics for innovation. It's a buzzword which can't be linked to objective metrics. Reams of bad books and thought pieces have been written all of which use different definitions and frameworks behind the word.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
Munin posted:Lol @ asking for metrics for innovation. Obviously there's no objective metric. I just want a consistent subjective one we can apply to both gas and oil and 'tech'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Obviously there's no objective metric. I just want a consistent subjective one we can apply to both gas and oil and 'tech'. Significant changes in techniques used which lead to a sea-change in the industry? By that definition both have seen a lot of innovation over the past decade but with tech having more individual instances since it is much more diverse and should really not be conceived of as a single monolithic industry. Of course a large number of business theorists and MBA woo merchants would be appalled at that imprecise short hand definition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Obviously there's no objective metric. I just want a consistent subjective one we can apply to both gas and oil and 'tech'. Doing new things and/or doing old things in new ways. You're falling into the specificity trap by assuming that because the large scale thing (drilling) is old that the details are too. Oil and gas exploitation is doing lots of new things (driven in part by pricing capabilities.) Think of it like cars. Cars are old! But lots of innovation in modern cars (e.g., improved emission control pathways, engine controls, materials, ways to lie to the EPA, etc.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
Munin posted:Significant changes in techniques used which lead to a sea-change in the industry? What is a 'sea-change in the industry'? You're just shuffling poo poo around. Kalman posted:Doing new things and/or doing old things in new ways. I'm not doing anything of the kind. I know that it's innovative. I'm saying it's not especially innovative compared to any other industry, and to claim that would need proof. To claim that about gas and oil vs. the entirety of tech would require extraordinary proof. quote:Think of it like cars. Cars are old! But lots of innovation in modern cars (e.g., improved emission control pathways, engine controls, materials, ways to lie to the EPA, etc.) Are you attempting to be massively patronizing or is this some side effect of what you're otherwise trying to do? Did you mean to post this to someone else? What I'm saying is that it's unlikely that gas and oil is more innovative than other fields, and if we're going to claim it is, you need to define 'innovative' and then show how it is according to that definition. The operationalization you've chosen is far too broad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
You all need to calm down and have this discussion in another thread. Isn't there an energy generation megathread? Or you could set up your own thread, asdf: "Innovation in petroleum extraction in the 21st Century" or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
Would you just let this die already?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
Sorry, everyone, for misidentifying McGavin's Big Six as the supermajor Big Six. It's funny, this thread moves from chummy to sharks in the water in like, 2 posts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:It's funny, this thread moves from chummy to sharks in the water in like, 2 posts. Can you find even a single article from a respectable journal to back up this preposterous claim?!
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:What is a 'sea-change in the industry'? You're just shuffling poo poo around. Sorry, oversold the concept slightly. That should have been a mere "change". Strictly speaking it should be noticeable but *shrug* since "noticeable" is merely in the eye of the beholder and hence not fit your refined standards of rigour.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 03:14
|
|
Mofabio posted:Sorry, everyone, for misidentifying McGavin's Big Six as the supermajor Big Six. Well, chumminess does that.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Well, chumminess does that. When you're a hammerhead the whole world is a nailfish.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:51 |
|
|
blowfish posted:If you listen to what Taleb says outside of even semi-scientific channels, he also likes taking on the role of a guru who secretes wisdom for his followers to lap up, and he also likes his personal echo chamber where anyone who criticises anything he says or anyone he quotes gets shut out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 19:22
|
|