|
Midjack posted:The Memento approach to a history class is something I kicked around too but like you could never come up with a way to present it that wouldn’t lose half the students. Not to mention the permission slips for the body tattoos and awkward field trips. RE: Not knowing a phrase from history. I wouldn't put knowing that phrase in the top 10% of important information from the Holocaust, or from WW2, or from the year 1945. That snippet, in and of itself, will have tremendous meaning for some individuals because of the trauma or empathy with the trauma. For many others, that they recall that piece of information due to a particularly effective lecture, the luck of being interested at the time it was given, or it having been reinforced through active recall or sufficient exposure to encourage long term memory. I cannot be mad at someone anecdotally not recognizing a phrase (make a statistic out of it, and then we can start to investigate whether its indicative of a failure). Imagine a doctor that cannot remember the name of the disease that ails you. That doctor bites his lip, wrestles with the memory, shakes his head and then looks it up. "Ah, [i]metaphor syndrome[i]," he says embarrassed, then proceeds to prescribe medication that cures your illness. That's still a good doctor, though it may shake the patient's confidence. What we have here are people willing towrite down slogans on a sign that they heard online or someone told them to write, and take them into public without investigating those slogans. Even this was once conceivably a bridge to far, if you had to go down to the library, go into the stacks, and try to find a book with the title, "Almanac of Terrible Slogans Linked to Human Atrocity To Never Reuse Less you Look Like a Nazi." But that's not the price for investigation any more. Type it into the chrome bar on your cell phone--you don't even have hit tab any more. The failure here isn't that they don't have in their recall a translation of a phrase put to terrible purpose. It's that they don't know enough to look things up before they accept them or that they have been rendered unable to care.
|
#
¿
May 1, 2020 22:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
DAS Super! posted:Russia is known for its dangerous windows. Asked for masks, should have asked for nets.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2020 07:16
|
|
|
Generation Internet posted:if that's the case she's also trolling ol' musky I know this is a million years ago in CE time, but what a trap sprung.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2020 00:04
|
|
|
"Oh dear!" "Don't call me dear."
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2020 19:56
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:First recruiting ad. Have you considered Space Org instead? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Y800s8y9Zg
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2020 21:22
|
|
|
Goddamnit, I haven't gotten to that part of the FF7 remake it.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2020 22:10
|
|
|
Instead of  you should Woof.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2020 15:34
|
|
|
I don't think you should stop calling it a lynch mob, you do you, but I do find it interesting that we wouldn't consider it appropriate to say they committed an extrajudicial killing because nobody killed anybody, but it is comfortable for more people to say it's a lynch mob. Since a mob is, by definition unruly, a mob certainly doesn't assemble by a purpose. Lynch mob as a phrase has a meaning independent of it's origin. As a child, I had learned the phrase before I knew what lynching was. To me, it carried its own independent linguistic meaning that was sufficient to communicate with, if potentially ambiguous. All words have different interpretations to different interpreters. I suspect the distinction arises here--the word had meaning that I ascribed to it and then corrected once I had greater context later. It doesn't feel like a linguistic violation because of that. I think if the first time you heard of a lynch mob, it was in context of a lynching, and you understood that context, any use outside of that would feel less appropriate. Is this a problem? Will joat mon solve it? Seems unlikely. Language. Language changes. Edit: Milo and POTUS posted:You could just say neo nazi band. The death is implied. Also the metal Presumptive neo nazi bands: Death metal Arm Roving Unable to post (because you were) piL fucked around with this message at 21:58 on May 12, 2020 |
|
#
¿
May 12, 2020 21:56
|
|
|
Lemniscate Blue posted:This right here is the dumbest take in the whole dumb argument. That's mean. You're mean. Edit: I mean, it's an erroneous definition now that I look it up, so I guess so. piL fucked around with this message at 22:54 on May 12, 2020 |
|
#
¿
May 12, 2020 22:50
|
|
|
Probably concerned about a runaway debt selloff.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2020 23:08
|
|
|
A Bad Poster posted:Gotta wonder how much of that debt could be eliminated if they gave that loan money to the debtors instead of the creditors. None if it's a loan.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2020 23:20
|
|
|
Internet Wizard posted:It's interesting comparing these guys and the chud protesters in how comfortable they look wearing their gear and how reasonable their loadout is. Looks like a professional, not a cosplayer.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2020 23:30
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:How much of it will be paid back? I'd love to see the data and assumptions used to craft this policy, but I don't think there's a requirement for that to exist prior to drafting a resolution, so maybe aren't any. If there is a report by staffers or a think tank, it may be public, but I don't really know how to find that.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2020 23:35
|
|
|
bulletsponge13 posted:When the expanded Patriot Act passes for warrantless search engine records, I'll let you guys know how my local FBI field office thinks of me. Dear Congress, Please take it back, I didn't want to see any of that poo poo. Very respectfully, The FBI
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2020 18:09
|
|
|
Searched the forums, found very little anti-Duckworth sentiment--mostly some meh-ing and most of it in D&D. Unless there's some sort of codeword for poo poo-talking Duckworth I don't know about.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2020 20:04
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:The hero's name is Jake Cardigan. Decendant of James Burdell perhaps.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2020 10:06
|
|
|
Death of the author. Its not a sex doll unless you gently caress it. Also, Fit Form Function joke.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2020 18:59
|
|
|
That would read awkwardly if you were citing a source, but they've never noticed.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2020 20:08
|
|
|
This policy seems like a good transition strategy. Facebook stays in Pal Alto, because the city itself attracts the talent. People want to be there--if they tried to move the entire campus to Oklahoma people would bail for other work--which is why they want to live in Palo Alto. Believe me, if these companies knew they could keep the talent and continue to access it, they'd already have move to Tennessee and convinced the state to build their campus for them. If you want to escape this tie to location, there's some percentage of staff you can't afford to lose. Drop that wage for everyone, and you have half your talent leaving to join local firms so they can keep the house they mortgaged or not move their kids, or keep their friend/lover/yoga instructor. It's like how everyone in the Navy buys a house, keeps it for six years and then grumbles 'bullshit' about getting moved to Japan, like 'Get Sent Around The World' was tiny font on the package or something. People naturally just start setting up roots. Instead, what you can do is start offering a value inbetween to incentivise. If you live in San Francisco, after living expenses you walk away with 50,000 a year. If you live in Reno, you get paid less, but, after adjusting for cost of living, you leave with 70,000 a year. You split the difference with the employee to encourage them to move out and take the remote choice, and you tune that number. Just because we've been remote for six months doesn't mean everyone believes in 100% remote work, even if the companies are offering it. There are still many advantages to working in person for both the employee and the employer, and if you spread out too much you're going to lose those advantages that are not well studied. You can even pick a couple of cities and add higher incentive to aggregate some more. You can use bonuses or housing allowances to tune your in-person and remote workforce, as well as the location of those workers.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2020 05:30
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:If any employer values their work equally, then they’d be compensated equally. But you don't just pay an employee, and you don't just pay an employee for their declared function. That's treating employee's like commodities--and even then, a barrel of oil costs different amounts in different places because if I buy a barrel of oil in Saudi Arabia, it doesn't do anything for me until I get it to my plant in America. So you provide various incentives--lifestyle (a bustling city), job security (adjacency to other firms), community, health insurance, a coffee machine, etc because who you're courting values these comforts more than they value the 120,001st dollar in their salary. You might find you value local employees more, since local employees can be used to turn-it-off-and-turn-it-on-again, or will brainstorm ideas with each other at the campus coffee shop during their relaxation time or because information and cyber security is easier to assure at a centralized location. Remote employees might have other costs as you open yourself more to cyber threat, have to negotiate benefits, taxes, and labor laws across 50 states instead of one (i.e. more lawyers). It doesn't necessarily scale directly. Maybe you find you value the remote employees more, because local geographic effects are more spread out or because they're easier to keep happy for less money. Maybe you want some of one and some of another. Because long term data is quite sparse on the relative effectiveness of remote and local employees, you perhaps want a mix so you can get that data but without your firm immediately folding, and maybe you then tune your incentives based upon what is most likely to both keep the business profitable. For a business like Facebook, profitability is very much tied to talent and access to funds. A mass exodus is going to tank the valuation and you could very quickly lose both.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2020 05:45
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:what would make sense is compensating people in proportion to the value they give the company, which presumably doesn't vary too much depending on their zip code. My intuition is that this isn't true and that the effects aren't as simple--otherwise there never would have been all of this investment into Silicon Valley campuses to begin with. People don't even value each dollar or benefit the same, they certainly interpret each quality of life feature differently.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2020 05:49
|
|
|
We've already learned this through globalization. We are all overvalued based on the circumstances of our time and location. An hour is an hour, from New Zealand to India to Germany to Indonesia. If for some reason a San Franciscian developer's labor is worth 30 Bengaloreans' effort, I promise you its not because of some natural right or power, but has circumstance as some component.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2020 07:35
|
|
|
That Works posted:Now call me crazy but I think Facebook was making a tidy profit before the remote work started. Since the remote work started they are still turning a profit and can probably even increase that profit by running smaller offices, using less utilities etc. Ad revenue is expected to drop. http://swexperts.com/news/software-engineer-salaries-by-country/ Increasing that profit by running smaller offices would require selling your campus (this is a bad time to sell) and firing support staff. I dont think people will be happy about it. This isn't exactly liquid. Utilities ( within the offices--server requirements don't change) are probably barely a drop in the bucket. The common assumption seems to be that an employer gets the same work done by remote work, and I don't think thats been demonstrated.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2020 14:10
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:Do you own stock in facebook or something No, I just listen to economics podcasts a lot, and the arguments people are making in this thread really seem to be, "this is bad because Facebook is evil" (which is true) "and here's a bunch of poorly thought out arguments for why. Assume they're true because the outcome they're supporting is true." Like, they should pay people with a median salary of $240,000 more because the electrical bills are lower is absurd. Whats the electrical bill delta spread across the workforce, $3/month?
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2020 14:30
|
|
|
That Works posted:Ad revenue drops will be an issue irrespective of remote vs proximal work environments. My lovely assumption was that your post implied a 'right the hell now' which it doesn't. So my bad. Re: lower costs: I think costs can go either way--people will want more money for a hire without the campus amenities, insurance may not be cheaper since the cyber risk is much higher, etc. Accounting/legal costs across state and national lines. I dont know if its settled. quote:Fair, but has the inverse been demonstrated instead? I think by changing pay based on location,, Facebook is keeping the road open to capitalize on the back of their employees who want to move* but they still won't want to lose those employees. Location scaling let's them adapt that pay based on the outcome of the data they haven't collected yet. Zuck wants to give people options but wants to have some input on the decision so not all of his executives and engineers don't move away. He wants to give them options for a totally greedy reason: he doesn't want to hemmorage talent to firms that do give options. *again, those in senior positions at a company with a median pay of a quarter million. piL fucked around with this message at 14:48 on May 22, 2020 |
|
#
¿
May 22, 2020 14:45
|
|
|
egyptian rat race posted:Gonna be an embarassing few months until the election Internal monologue: There's no way he said that, people are paraphrasing with quotation marks and taking poo poo out of context. Ugh. Let me watch this and see what people are overreacting to. ... Yeah, nope, not a paraphrase. Pretty direct.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2020 15:20
|
|
|
Internet Wizard posted:Less an assumption and more the actual data judging by googling "work from home productivity" https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/15259-working-from-home-more-productive.html Ah. quote:A 2019 survey by Airtasker says yes. Researchers polled 1,004 full-time employees throughout the U.S. about their productivity, their commutes and other facets of their lives. I'm sure that survey by an online tasking app used a rigorous methodology to back up broad statements using only the most reliable form of data collection: self reporting. I should be able to safely use its rather broad conclusions to predict outcomes in a variety of distinct and nuanced challenges. But the truth is, while what you linked is scientifically meaningless and has zero predictive power (even if it's true, is there an interaction between what proportion of the workforce is remote? Between which positions, etc), I haven't really dived through the literature to see if there are any meaningful studies. My assumption here is people tasked to risk millions of dollars, some of it their own, have done so and are not, as many would suggest, just trying to stick it to the common everyman (millionaire silicon valley engineer and executive).
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2020 15:57
|
|
|
Internet Wizard posted:Perhaps the second or third google results then That was disingenuous of me, I was trying to type up a response before I had an appointment and didn't give it the nuance it deserved. I didn't mean to play a game of find-a-more-convincing-article-nope-not-good-enough. I know it's not known at a rigorous level because it's very difficult to know at a rigorous level. You can't design an experiment to determine meaningful broad conclusion because the question is too generic to clearly demonstrate an all-cases fundamental truth. You need bodies of literature which will likely determine a complicated answer. The way to analyze these kinds of effects will be to consider a variety of inputs and determine based on either experiment or analogous data how each of those effects appear to have influenced outcomes. I believe there is evidence that supports that working from home increases productivity in many cases--I believe most for office-type work. But I'm confident that the proportions of the benefits change from case to case. So, lets break down that Stanford article to show what I mean: quote:That research was based on a randomized control trial on 1,000 employees of Ctrip, a Chinese travel company. quote:The experiment revealed that working from home during a nine-month period led to a 13 percent increase in performance – almost an extra day of output per week – plus a 50 percent drop in employee-quit rates. quote:The Ctrip experiment also explicitly asked employees to work from home four days a week and come into the office every fifth day. quote:The element of personal choice is a final factor contributing to the success of Ctrip’s work-from-home policy that is absent in the current situation. Of the 1,000 Ctrip employees offered the choice to work from home, only 500 volunteered. The others wanted to remain in the office. quote:After nine months of allowing those employees to do their jobs at home, Ctrip asked the original volunteers whether they wanted to keep working remotely or return to the office. Half of them requested to return to the office, despite their average commute being 40 minutes each way. And long term qualitative review of the study suggests that this implementation of remote work is problematic. A model to determine what kinds of jobs improve would be huge, require invasive and massive survey and experimentation, would need to be performed outside of the current context, and would also be limited in descriptive power to the technological and social contexts it was measured in--the experiment would need to be repeated to adjust for changes in: -social perception (i.e. workers may be more receptive now than they were last year), -legal requirements and ramifications (10 years ago, there was zero liability for data compromise, now there is some, though little, 10 years from now there may be more), -technology (will advances in VR and our willingness/ability to engage in online leisure more generally allow us to reap the benefits that Bloom ascribes to face-to-face meetings?) -other factors That's how I can feel confident that a study without sufficient resolution and predictive power doesn't exist. But you don't need one. We don't learn to ride a bike by learning how all bikes work, how all physics work, and how we can manipulate those properties by contorting our bodies in real time. We learn to ride a bike by starting to ride a bike and detecting deviation and making small adjustments. When you limit your question from "Is remote work good?" to "Is a particular implementation of remote work effective for this particular firm" you can make changes, perform local experiments, and determine how those affect local metrics. I believe that if we completely abolish local work tomorrow forever, there's a lot of risk associated with that decision. I think not recognizing that remote work has benefits would be a mistake as well. And if some people prefer to work remotely, sufficiently such that they're willing to take pay cuts to remotely work full-time, then that's a good indication that if you do not implement a policy and a framework to support those people that do, you're leaving valuable talent on the table. Personally, I advocate for more remote work and more remote work options. The reason has less to do with productivity and cost benefit, but with a desire to be more free, with people more in charge of their own happiness. If this becomes true, it wont be because it's more effective. It'll be because it's at least acceptably less effective, but the worker prefers it. But we also have to solve a lot of other issues before that would be true in all cases. Enough of all that. I think what this is, more than anything, is Zuck opening his mouth and mangling HR imperatives through the eyes of a soulless robot. What he said is, (paraphrased in an ominous voice)You don't have to come back to work, but we're paying you less if you move and if you lie there will be consequences. The same policy could have been described as, For employees local to the bay area, we're considering a remote-work intensive employment option, allowing employees to work from home 90% of the time if they wish. Because the infrastructure that supports this could support work elsewhere, and Facebook (TM) is an employee-oriented company that wants to support the desires of our talent, and even though we don't yet fully know the costs and benefits of working remotely, when we get back to work we're considering employment outside our concentration areas as well! Our implementation plan is tentative and likely to change as we learn more, but because this is a person-oriented business and I'm a person with blood and emotion and all of those things you real humans have, we'll be offering generous renegotiation for employees who prefer to utilize this remote work infrastructure and operate from outside our primary employment area. But Zuck isn't programmed to do that, so here we are. piL fucked around with this message at 18:09 on May 22, 2020 |
|
#
¿
May 22, 2020 18:01
|
|
|
Woofer posted:Random question but is there a study or does anyone have any insights on how much of our ~$700bn defense funding could be cut without affecting our national defense? I know I saw a LOT of wasteful spending when I was in and I was just a lowly enlisted scum. I can’t imagine the waste at like... the G-level. https://www.gao.gov/mobile/products/GAO-20-440SP This is probably the best and the closest, but because GAO desires high confidence, its probably very conservative. You'd have to select which data and correct annually. As for contribution of the clearly destructive bits to the economy, that's always a bit fuzzy, because, like how the perception of value is what gives a currency any value, the ability of a country to keep the war elsewhere is what gives the Fed's creation of money any value. That we "print" only so much, (combined with that anything outside of that created for any purpose except control of interest is paired to investment bonds), is what gives the dollar its international staying power. This increases the value of the dollar I would think, and since its perception not just of near-peer threats, but of civilians of every country in the wlrld, burning cash to make the number bigger probably has some value. But any analysis, in this case, landing on a specific number will be greatly influenced by its assumptions. piL fucked around with this message at 21:57 on May 26, 2020 |
|
#
¿
May 26, 2020 14:22
|
|
|
Apathetic Medic posted:Love to rationalize bloodshed by claiming that it's progress in the name of science! None of this is what the original question was, which was, "Is there a statistic on how much money spent by the DoD is waste?" The answers were, "Here's a source, but it's incomplete because that's a complex question.", "All of it's going to include some waste because the practice of building armaments is inherently wasteful since you're building an object not just to be destroyed."* The became "A lot of good things happen as a result of our bad things." Which evolved into, "Look at these murder junkies." Because, you know, the internet. Part of why waste continues is that you can't talk about it. And I say you can't talk about it, it's not only because people in black vans** might shut you up if you get too specific, but also because conversations on the subject quickly become visceral. * To me, this is an interesting challenge of society that we avoid asking ourselves--how does that compare to other goods/services not made to facilitate production or survival. E.g. toys, music, literature, video games, internet comedy, massages, fine dining, theatre, homes larger than the minimum square footage required to sustain life, candy, liquor, amenities, lawns, poetry, speech therapy, posters, liberal arts educations, personal lubricant, twitch streams, food delivery, decorative plants, spices, packaging, food for pets, goods for pets, pets, creatine, dead internet comedy forums, fans only accounts, board games, recreational drugs, and paint-used-for-non-preservation purposes? A lot of those improve society (many of them may harm it), some provide little or nothing of direct value. But I suspect the most conversation that will come from that will accusations of equating cluster munitions and baby toys. **not skateboarders
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2020 21:43
|
|
|
That Works posted:They could have just asked what the Marines budget is. piL posted:This is probably the best and the closest, but it's probably very conservative. You'd have to select which data and correct annually.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2020 21:57
|
|
|
I would say that China maneuvered for a pin and nobody stopped it. Either we don't and China cracks down with no negative repercussion or we do and China cracks down like they were going to anyway. Whats happening now is a formality, a natural outcome of not acting when the streets were full of protestors which is probably the outcome of a campaign that's been in progress since 1997. China's economic zones are caught up, the only reason to keep Hong Kong is the interest of the Hong Kongese, and that isn't Bejing's gane.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2020 00:26
|
|
|
egyptian rat race posted:Dunno how complete the Cspam / GiP overlap is, but I stole this from the photo thread. It's making me giggle Pro link but, uh https://twitter.com/FlagsMashupBot/status/1265744599961698305
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2020 03:09
|
|
|
Midjack posted:That just moves the threshold. Illegal to make orders stop two days or less to the line? Now they all stop three days short. The only way to address that is eliminate the thresholds and pay benefits regardless of duration. I think you could do it if you required a mean or median length of orders. If you establish that the median order length shall be 91 days, then for every 89 day order, you have to have a 91 day order somewhere anyway. This can be controlled by using quartiles (40% must be over, 70% must be over, etc). The fiscal min-max strategy I see emerging there becomes low-travel-cost short term orders in high quantity for and longer term sets of orders. This might be good because you can bank continuity and turnover of duties into the role, or pad out positions with workups and debriefs/reporting requirements. This could have a negative effect on how many short-term orders would be available for those that want them (do people want them?). There might be less options for the flexibility. But you do have have to ask, what is the point of the reserves? It appears there are two benefits to a reservist over adding another full-time billet: A part-timer is cheaper to employ as necessary than keeping someone on full time; and having people trained up and ready to flex offers a threat of rapid plussing up/option in times of need. I personally also think there's a benefit to having people work a civilian job where they can get outside skills and ideas and bring them back into the military, but I don't know if that's an organizational objective.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2020 17:55
|
|
|
Fallom posted:the president of the United States switched to his alt to keep shitposting Another  for the Treasury?
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2020 17:24
|
|
|
Woofer posted:You cannot watch George Floyd get tortured to death for ten minutes by a cop who looked casual while doing it, with other cops standing by while he casually loving tortured a man to death who was begging for his life on video with witnesses, and justify it. Lets not find a way to legally institute ad hoc implementations of capital punishment. More and more I think: write a UCMJ for cops, make law enforcement violations a federal crime. Let Terre Haute sort it out.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2020 17:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
facialimpediment posted:This one's from Louisville. I. Uh. Look. I dont know if NBC has really held to journalistic integrity, and maybe there's a point to be had about what it means to place press organizations on a pedestal when everyone has a camera in your pocket. I get it. But now isn't the time for your loving anti media performance piece. The Louisville Police do not need enemies. That said, I'm a little more scared when this happens in NYC.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2020 03:26
|
|