figseed

Both examples are systemic of a couple of sociological concepts that continue to be very popular in the American sociopolitical venue.

1) Moral Entrepreneurs - People (like politicians) that build their reputations by clearly defining an enemy (i.e. drugs, sexual "deviants", etc) and then work against the defined problem as their heroic stance for good in the face of the Evil that has been created. And their primary tool:

2) Moral Panics - Created by those who fear or stand to benefit from what they consider deviant or wrong, these are campaigns to alert and threaten the public with an apparently deviant behavior and popularize sentiment against those who practice it.

>a thing we wrongly criminalize that won't immediately turn the majority of the population against you

20 years ago talking about drugs in a favorable light would have turned the majority of the population against you because the moral panic was still in effect. There are currently minors being charged with manufacturing and distributing child pornography for taking a picture of themselves and MMS'ing it to their girl/boyfriend and being labelled as pedophiles. In another 15 years it will probably be understood that sexual preferences do not necessarily dictate sexual abuse and that many people labeled as pedophiles have been wrongly labeled in largely the same way as the guy who was found to be in possession of less than a gram of weed while walking past a school and hit with charges as a drug dealer with intent to distribute to minors or the gay man charged with sodomy 50 years ago. It's all a matter of the time and context of issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic

If you're using Lollipop, bring up Google Now, then swipe from left of the screen to the right to bring up the menu.

From there, you can click "Customize" which allows you to update your card preferences.

In your case you'd want to update the work location under "Places". Tap your work place, tap the address and update it with any place you are interested in travelling to on a daily basis. (This is actually the "Daily Commute" location, it's just automatically labelled as work) Alternatively, you could just relabel it from "Work" to "McDonalds" and then you'd at least overcome the 100% failure rate issue.

This is Customize menu is also where you can give Now your local cable provider for TV schedules, sports teams and stocks for tracking and aggregated access to all your general preferences for Now as well.

I understand the frustration of Google Now not noticing you're riding public transit and automatically learning your preferences, but I'm using Google Now and it defaults to telling me public transit times just fine.

If you're using Lollipop, just above the travel time card there should be a small ellipsis icon (...) where you can change your preferred travel method to biking, driving, walking, public transit or tell it you don't care about travel times at all. It even lets you configure preferred routes if you take PT.

Also, travel time is only one of the features of Google Now, it can tell you current weather, nearby dining and entertainment, upcoming appointments, travel information such as flight data for trips it has learned about through gmail or your calendar.

I'm not saying Google Now is great and that you should use it, whether or not it has enough value is completely dependent on your use-case. But if you're having a 100% failure rate, it's likely due to configuration or exclusivity agreements as mentioned in other comments. (Unless your phone isn't running Lollipop which would be a completely different conversation)

I edited my reply to vacri since your comment was posted which better explains my thinking on the subject so I don't want to be redundant but a funny thing happened.

I was looking for the the some of the articles and videos I saw that had pissed me off because their titles implied optical illusions explain this phenomena with science so I could explain that my "because science" comment wasn't meant to be dismissive or refute proven scientific theories but was based more on the fact that they were "proving" things with untested hypotheses with regard to this scenario, and as I started watching one of the videos, the dress appeared black and blue to me. And I realized I was watching the video on my phone vs the laptop I had previously used. Unlike my laptop, my phone's screen dims based on ambient light and lower levels were bringing out different hues in the image. My laptop also has auto color temperature adjustment based on the time of day which was affecting my perception.

Based on different screens I could see the exact same image side by side looking both black and blue and white and gold and realized there may be exogenous variables not included in the explanations that had previously upset me.

In my original comment to the article, I was reacting to the fact that people were trying to explain how why people were incorrectly interpreting the black and blue dress as white and gold because their mind is playing tricks on them based on optical illusions which generally work the opposite way.

Like you, I saw white and gold, I have been tested as having perfect color vision, know that fashion designers commonly rip styles off and given the contextual lighting, the image looked like it could have been of a knock-off in tiajuana and I didn't like that the only evidence that the dress is black and blue were the claims and evidence presented by a satirical musician submitting content on a blog representing another woman and a company with an identical dress who stands to profit quite a bit from this publicity this has generated and as honest Abe said, you can't believe everything on the internet.

But after seeing the image side by side looking differently on different screens, I am at peace with dressgate and think everyone is right about the two sets of colors seen, though I still think other explanations like solarization, the dress actually being white and gold but photographed to capture a blue hue, or screen discrepency should not be dismissed because optical illusions are a real thing and disagree with one hypothesis being advertised to summarily explain such a contentious phenomena because there is proven evidence to make that one idea plausible.

Well the main article shows a bunch of demonstrations of how objects can appear lighter than they are when contrasted against a dark background which makes logical sense.

In the disputed image however, you have a bright background (so bright in fact that it causes glare on the lens over the right shoulder of the dress) supposedly making the dress appear lighter than it is. If anything I would say that the optical illusions offer evidence of why the dress would generally appear darker than it actually is than why it would appear lighter.

My problem with the "because science" isn't meant to be dismissive or imply that the principles that are argued aren't valid or plausible, my problem with "because science" is that a lot of the articles and videos made to describe the phenomena are titled something to the tune of "Science explains why people see different colors" and offer one of a varied set of plausible hypotheses, but they are explaining something without any controls.

I see it like being told you have cancer, asking the doctor "why?" and her saying "have you ever smoked cigarettes?" you saying yes, and her saying, "Well it's widely known and has been repeatedly proven that cigarettes are carcinogenic, there's your explanation."

In the same light, to me, saying the dress is interpreted differently because our brain plays tricks on us such as in optical illusions (which I don't refute at all) and that's why people are seeing it as different colors is completely unscientific to me because it doesn't have controls for things such as the type of screen people are viewing things from (glass vs matte), the color temperature of the screen (anyone running f.lux?), the viewing angle, auto-dimming screens based on ambient light, the effects of anti-glare material in some screens all of which may contribute to why not only different people see the image differently, but why the same people see the image differently based on different times/environments.

And given the amount of time and energy people have devoted to discussing this, I don't see why asking for evidence of one globally debated outlier example is comparable to redoing experiments that have been widely reproduced.

The thing is, I don't have a problem with people using previously proven concepts to expose potential explanations, I have a problem with people saying that one hypothesis "scientifically explains" a phenomena because it's a scientifically viable hypothesis.

--- On a side note, thanks for disagreeing with me via a reply instead of just arbitrarily down voting me because you don't like my opinion. I wish more people on here shared the views you expressed on your about blob.

So the popular hypothesis is that the dress is black and blue.

I have now seen so many different sites and authors try to explain the phenomenon, all based on the "proof" that some random woman named Caitlin McNeil who first offered the disputed picture originally claiming she saw it as white and gold in the picture, saw it some days later in person, said it was definitely black and blue and offered a picture of an indisputably black and blue dress that appeared to be identical or at least too similar to be able to tell a difference definitely.

The issue to me is that I'm seeing sites like Wired and I fking love science explain how the dispute is possible based on optical illusions and ultimately say that the dress is black and blue because of the other image and the claims of a dress manufacturer with no credence to possibility that the dress in one picture may be different than the dress in the others and that dressgate might just be an elaborate hoax.

The thing is, you can just as easily explain why the dress is white and gold and appears blue and black to some people given the intense back lighting in the disputed image implying sunlight in the background and the effects of reflected UV light can play on shaded white objects (think black uv lights) or effects like solarization that can happen in digital imagery.

The thing is, I'm sick of hearing the dress is blue and black because "science", when science hasn't been involved in anyone's "proof" of the effect. What you have is a hypothesis. Want to make it a viable theory? Take the black and blue dress or one of the identical ones from the designer claiming that's their black and blue dress and recreate an identical image that appears white and gold with the same tonal qualities and environmental lighting. Until someone does that, I don't think there's any reason to continue "proving" why the dispute exists with non-science or arguing about this nonsensical bullshieza as it has become a gargantuan distraction from reality whether or not it was originally meant to be.

The candidate may have solved the problem, but failed the task.

At the outset, the interviewer placed a premium on time which the candidate ignored. The candidate made assumptions that the question was contrived therefore the solution offered was simply a place to make speaking points as well as test the interviewer's code literacy and as a result, spent the entire interview rewriting the system rather than filling in the blanks and moving on as asked.

Did the candidate prove adequate experience? Sure. But at the day of the day, I feel the interviewer made a very reasonable decision to dismiss the candidate based on the fact that the response ignored the implied time constraint for the sake of adding superfluous nonsense.

If I ask someone to fix a simple bug in some of my code and come back to see the code completely rewritten, 3 times the length with prince of darkness and tortoise and hare stuff mixed in, that would likely be the last time I ask them to touch my code.