If you work in 'the industry', surely it would not be a big deal to carry around an adapter a long with the other standard tools of your trade? I imagine it'll be about as inconvenient as carrying around ear buds.
281 karma · joined March 16, 2012
> '...to conduct a thorough and objective review regarding “the specific issues relating to the work place environment raised by Susan Fowler, as well as diversity and inclusion at Uber more broadly.”'
Note the bit about "diversity and inclusion at Uber more broadly." So you are derailing and it is you who is missing the focus. The report is clearly not just about sexual harassment. You would know that if you read the report.
He likely also applied to jobs that he wasn't super pumped up about, in case the job (or other factors regarding the job) turned out to be awesome.
Unsolicited advice: I'm not sure if you're actually looking for a job (or will be in the future), but try not to limit yourself so much before even starting. It feels like your comment had a lot of excuses/reasons why it won't work for you/your industry. It's not true: getting a job can be a grind. Sometimes that's just what you have to do. When you've applied to dozens of companies, or turned down dozens of offers, you'll have a much much better idea of what's possible what isn't worth the effort (plus you'll have a ton of very useful experience and skills because of it, to boot).
But
nobody is arguing we live in a society of optional lawsI'm trying to point out that a) This situation is not crazy, at all. It's an extension of how our society and the law works. b) Pretending that it's okay to ignore a law because the majority are not affected is short sighted.
Yep, sometimes it's hard/expensive to abide by laws catered towards minorities. Tough shit. That's exactly the reason the law exists in the first place, because it's too expensive for society to do the right thing by default.
I think it would be hard to argue that the ADA is a bad law, however. If it's not a bad law, it should not be optional. Otherwise it's not, by definition, a law.
When your life is filled with stress (because you have to work two jobs) and you are constantly on the verge of being homeless/going hungry (despite working 50-80 hours a week), the choice is simple. Choosing between some brief happiness and luxury given by an iPhone, satellite TV, tasty junk food,a nice pair of sneakers, or even a hit of heroin versus more AGONY, STRESS and PAIN provided by real life is a no brainer.
It's hard to fault someone for choosing to take a slice of happiness for themselves in between long stretches of crappy existence. Is it not obvious that one should think twice about judging someone else's motivation and behavior without context? What do you know about their life and why they do the things they do?
There is even related research that has repeatedly demonstrated[1] that being poor is /not/ due to laziness or being a lesser human. When poor/disadvantaged people are provided funds (with no strings attached!) they do the right thing and improve their own lives. They don't just "spend it all" on "booze and drugs". With the money their lives improve significantly and permanently.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_cash_transfer , https://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2013/05/28/why-goog... , etc
That statement you quote is referring to the still image in the article, below the video, which is of an entirely different star and system of planets (Fomahault b).
The video has a time legend /embedded in the movie/, at the bottom of the frame clearly showing when the observation for each frame of the video was taken.
NASA was being plenty up front here, I think you maybe just skimmed the article slightly too quickly.
We can only see in retrospect that it was doomed to failure.
The only question I have is: So?
Why do you feel the need to compare what the US did to other atrocities? You can always find something worse to compare a bad act to.
Nothing you said changes the fact that what the US did here was just plain wrong, it definitely shouldn't have happened, and we should do everything in our power to ensure it doesn't happen again. If you feel the need to make what the US did look slightly "less bad" by comparing it to other heinous events in the world, it might be worth reflecting on why you feel that need.
This stuff sounds like it already works in the field. Nice.
[1]: Tests are run and performance is usually quite horrible, until they make them way way easier than real world conditions. https://www.google.com/search?q=missile+defense+effectivenes...
Hopefully they test for this stuff and have a firm idea of where they want their thresholds but, then again, sometimes bugs happen. https://www.wired.com/2007/10/robot-cannon-ki/
That said, the time required to calculate an intercept point is not the hard problem, so 1-2 seconds versus 30 minutes is not really super relevant.
Arguably more relevant factors are detection, precision, accuracy and ultimate intercept effectiveness.
In the case of ICBM you're essentially trying to hit one bullet with another bullet... hundreds of miles away. It doesn't matter that you have 30 minutes to think about it. It's still ridiculously hard to actually know there's an icbm, where it is, and then be able to hit it with another missile (and have that make a difference).
RPGs around a armored vehicle are way more straightforward by comparison. The projectile is easier to detect, it's a much smaller volume of space (easier to scan continuously) and the projectiles are traveling slower!
Still I imagine it's quite a trick detecting incoming then swiveling, aiming and firing (accurately) your defense auto-cannon all in 1-2 seconds. It would be very impressive to see that in action.
This also works for every other website in existence, I think.