maxheadroom

>Partially, nobody in the US knows how to value vacation, I think.

It's partly engrained into the culture and partly to do with the prohibitively expensive means of travel.

For example, you could probably find a flight from London to Paris (return trip) for under 50 quid (for one). In the states, there's no way you're traveling that same distance and paying less than 300 quid, I'd say.

So, it's a combination of both but I think the expense contributes, or lends itself directly, to the social stigmatisation.

>And you can use cash for sensitive purchases.

This isn't always a viable option.

For example, in Sweden, we have stores that are kontantfri (cash-free) and it's projected that almost all of Sweden will be cash-free by 2023[0] to 2025[1]. (Sorry the links are in Swedish but you should be able to use <your chosen provider here> to translate them to your language.)

Given that the nordics tend to trend together, I imagine that Denmark is relatively along the same path to being cash-free, as well.

I think a better (but more complicated) alternative would be to use two different SIMs for separating those apps from an every-day number; however, that comes with the problem of carrying a second phone. Dual-SIM would just present a surface to tie the two numbers together but so would the two phones being in the same area (in proximity of each other) almost all of the time.

In other words, I don't really know how to solve this problem because it depends on everyone else not jumping on the bandwagon; however, to your suggestion, cash will not be a viable option for any purchases - much less, sensitive ones - in the very near future.

[0] - https://computersweden.idg.se/2.2683/1.690197/kontanter-slut...

[1] - https://www.compricer.se/nyheter/artikel/24-mars-2023--da-ar...

I have to disagree: When you're hiring a person, you're hiring someone to join your team. Hopefully, we can agree that the majority of people in our field have the capacity to learn.

In fact, in many FAANGs, your first performance review year is "freebie" because they know that you're not going to come in and know the role and the tools used intnerally.

So, then, what is the technical aptitude test (is it really anything other than that?) for? Well, it could be used to measure a baseline for basic programming skills; however, this isn't how most technical interviews are designed.

Interviews aren't designed around the premise that knowledge on the internet exists or that your colleagues could, oft, be your first line of support (or code reviews, if the company has a good culture). Hell, there are interviews where the candidate has to code in notepad (or other text editor equivalent) because they don't want the candidate availing of things like Intellisense.

If we look at it from a different perspective, though, we live in a time when we can now put our source code online for the world to see. We can publish packages for the world to consume. We can make changes to production software (FOSS) and documentation and that's easily traceable (if you're not obfuscating your identity through sixty different handles).

It seems we don't consider these viable avenues of purview to view the candidate's ability before even asking them questions.

With that being said, are you really hiring the candidate because they would be good for the team or are you just hiring the candidate who can check off some interview-type question boxes?

I have interviewed a number of people in my day and the most excelled candidate that we interviewed and hired, because he checked all of the technical boxes, ended-up being a raging asshole and bringing the team morale down, considerably.

So, at the end of the day, you're not just hiring someone to fill a role. A single role is all but mostly dead, anymore. You're hiring someone to join a team and the human aspect should outweigh the technical aspect.

After all, just because someone checks all of the boxes, it doesn't imply that they would "be a good fit".

>On the other hand, why don't they go a step further? Sharp tools, electricity, hallucinogenic drugs, etc. would go a long way towards getting a confession sooner.

Chicago[0] beat you to that idea, my friend.

[0] - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/homan-square

>Can there really be consequences for contradicting the other witness, without other indications pointing to who's right?

Yes. The end-goal is to infer that the suspect is being deceptive and/or lying and that, in turn, would make any statements that give the suspect any "good light" weighted less credible to their own defence.

"You said you didn't shoot the suspect but you also said you wore an off-blue shirt. 'X' said the shirt they say you in was solid blue. Why would you lie about the colour of your shirt!? And, since you're lying about that, how do we know you're not lying about shooting the victim?"

>More than a quarter of the 365 people exonerated in recent decades by the nonprofit Innocence Project had confessed to their alleged crime.

Using guessimation, x would be the numer of people that confessed that were innocent, so 91.25 < x < 182.5, and that, alone, was the principally driving force (assumptive, I'm aware) to convict them - and these are the numbers that we're aware of because of the overturned convictions.

Whilst I can understand the reprieve it must give police and the district attorneys in the efforts of building a case, it almost seems as if they just kind of give up applying any further scrutiny, once any confession is had - whether the person actually committed the crime or not.

I'm not sure why this breakdown, for lack of a better vernacular at present, occurs though.

Is it antipathy? Is it because numbers are more important than anything else (e.g.: for elected positions such as Sheriffs)? Is it because we ply the path of least of resistance to the investigating demeanor?

I'm sure a lot of the convictions in the past are biased for varying other degrees but this seems to infer that even without those other degrees of influence, we have a high margin of error for putting innocent people away.

Add those varying degrees referenced above into the equation and I'm not so sure that the deflection, "It's not a perfect system but it works," is really applicable, anymore.

>SWAT-ing has an imminent intent to invoke deleterious action

To be fair, if the incidence of escalation to use of lethal force weren't so prevalent as to be an almost guarantee in the states, the results of SWAT'ing wouldn't even be a problem but more of a nuissance, in the first place, yeah?

In other words, if the resultant actions of the police forces - whether believing they were acting in the interests of public safety or not - weren't so haphazardly deleterious to the public at-large (see the baby with burns because of tear gas thrown in it's crib, as an example), this wouldn't have been a viably dangerous exploitation surface to begin with.

Whilst I can understand that such an action (SWAT'ing) is bad and I am not trying to argue against, dissuade, nor assuage the realities of it, I'm merely trying to point out that the realities of the dangers of it's byproduct solely exist due to societial declination; particularly, in the devaluation of human life, as a whole - which has given carte blance, as it were, to the use of lethal force.

In other words, if lethal force weren't such a foreseeable outcome of SWAT'ing, would it even be something considered deleterious or would it be moreso considered merely a waste of time and resources (which, in and of itself, could have secondary or tertiary effects that are possibly damaging [e.g.: we couldn't respond to 'x' critical situation because we were dealing with 'y' critical situation])?

My only qualm is with this portion:

>...and/ or individuals who are inspired by the subject posting

That's a very overarching goal as it would, in theory, require continued surveillance of all subjects to determine inspiration - either in the past, present, or even the future, yeah?

I mean, you can't just take a snapshot of time,

time_t now = time(0); tm *gmtm = gmtime(&now);

and consider that no other people would be "inspired" in the future by this event, yeah?

>In other words: this is all speculation, there's no evidence of coordination other than it looking like it for people who are already wanting that as their narrative.

It's amazing that people cannot see beyond their own self-righteous indignation enough to discern that this is what's happening.

Any American "standards" for what a journalist is or isn't isn't really applicable to an international defendent, which Assange is, yeah?

If so, then you must admit that America is imposing it's own (subjective and ever-changing, depending on the parties in power) view on the international theatre and that's where the concern starts to get exacerbated.

You're treading a very dangerous line, here.

To an oppressive regime, any "fighters" against that regime could be labelled "terrorism", for pragmatic approaches to dealing with the people who no longer want to be extorted, brutalised, tortured, murdered, what-have-you.

If all you have to do is label a tool as 'x' to block it and shut it down, then - in premise - you're denying all of the users of that service one of the inalienable rights that you're supposed to enjoy: Which is the right to peacefully assemble and/or protest.

That seems like a very large, oppressive, back-handed means to quash the few that you're actually having problems with.

By that logic, the "birther" movement resulted merely from the "nature of politics", yeah?

At some point, we have to concede that misinformation campaigns can be quite dangerous - like with yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

>...but then there is no deterrent...

The deterrent premise is as old as at least the Inquisition (12th century) and has worked out quite well to reduce crime and recidivism rates in the world to nigh zero levels in the centuries since... /s

>Treating prisoners as subhuman is a management practice.

Slight correction: Treating prisoners as subhuman is a societal practice. (At least, in the societal context that this discussion and the article are about.)

Dehumanisation. Once a criminal and in prison, you have no rights. Even afterwards. It is an absolute shitshow.

Neither does (æ or Æ).

>...judiciary must acquiesce to the official class (which is synonymous with the party), whose opinion is the only one that matters.

Since we've gone down this rabbit-hole, doesn't that mean or infer that the states is no longer a "rule of law" country, since the current idyllic seems to be overturning laws - based purely on political alignment (e.g.: the "sudden rash" of states banning abortion because the end-goal is to overturn Roe v. Wade)?

>Turns out they rejected me as I was `overqualified`.

I applied for a helpdesk position like this, once. Was required to take an IQ test and one of the questions during the interview was about what IRQ the keyboard was assigned to (you know, in the plug-n-play era, when IRQ and COM ports no longer were a "thing" to configure).

Got a response back, later, that I was overqualified.

I easily translated it to, "Wasn't willing to put up with our shit for so little pay."

Bullet dodged but there are some truly caustic employers out there, who will try to gatekeep every possible variance that they can think of, to keep the line toed[0].

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_the_line

>...could be used for medical treatment by motivating earlier intervention...

and

>...could include stronger recommendations for better diet and exercise, closer monitoring programs, or more precise prescriptions...

and

>...could reduce disease burden...

This is where the problem delineates for me: We're being massively assumptive in moving from "could" to "is" and "will".

I will, generally, concede the could portion but to assert that it is emphatically happening or going to happen is still far from fruition and to label this science as such, just yet, is overreaching and giving false hope where none should really be given because, then, you'll taint it's benefits with the drawbacks.

Remember: Anonymised data (e.g.: 23andme) only allows a survey of what's relatively known or can be inferred from the anonymised dataset.

To arrive at what you're suggesting, it would have to move into a different realm (I believe), like UK BioBank or GEDMatch but, even then, we're still basing things on speculative science - gambles of percentages that aren't, emphatically, true or false but a kind of "maybe, kind of, sort of, in a way, definitely could or defintely could not" muddied waters.

That, to me, is a far stretch from saying that the data in 23andme is - actually - helping medicine; which I believe is what the OC I replied to emphatically said.

Ah, yes, polygenic scoring and the heart disease increase rate. Did you happen to catch this[0] refutation of the single source's work?

[0] - https://twitter.com/cecilejanssens/status/103135930540723404...

Also, you're posing prediction and targeted treatment but you haven't posited how Bob's mapped genome sitting in 23andme will be used for medical treatment.

As we know, genes are not an emphatic, "this will happen to you," but an increase in likelihood; which still doesn't translate to any emphatic treatments from the genes, themselves, yeah?

>...they feel compelled to switch tracks to management to continue to make progress, regardless of whether they have any innate ability or desire to excel at management.

Can confirm: Once you "plateau" in a division, the only options are lateralling to a technology you don't know (with the same expectations exacted upon you) or simply going management and that assumes that there's room in management.

Given how frequently "organisational shifts/changes" occur, that could leave you out in the cold, just as well.

>My resume has always been one page. I hate looking over 3 page resumes. I don’t care what you did in the 90s.

This is very culture specific.

Example: Like you, I usually keep a revolving ~10 years history on my CV. As the years progress, I drop anything > 10 years, as it's really no longer relevant.

Anyways, I was pointedly asked one time during an interview, recently, for a company in a different country, "Where's the rest of your work history since university?"

That was almost 20 years ago, now. You have any idea just how long my CV would be, now, with all of that information?

/tableflip.gif

>...but I think medicine does need vast amounts of genetic data available to actually make some progress.

How does more genetic data equate to better progress with medicine? Are we testing medicine against specific genome sequences, now? If so, how are we doing that without the source host[s] to test against?

>Medical progress is not advancing fast enough by some very real metrics...

Again, I'm not seeing how these two equate, whatsoever.

For what you're talking about the genomes would have to be reproduced, such as the markers that are the precursors for breastcancer. Then, the tissues, themselves, would have to be reproduced and then you'd have an effective field with which to test new medicines against (unless you just use the people with the markers to test).

How you're getting from a mapped sequence to better medicine is... ...we're simply not there, yet, technologically, I believe. Unless you know something I don't? (Which could very well be the case, admittedly, but I doubt we're at the stage of computer models for genome engineering, tissue growth, cellular division, etc. all in one.)

Short-answer: The debugger (in Windows) sits between the first and second and chances, if I recall correctly, to "help" the user by displaying a dialogue notifying them that 'x' is unhandled. Anything in second chance has reached the kernel for handling and is no longer in the user space.

You'll often see this (second chance) as exception entries in the Windows Event Log for things like kernelbase.dll, which points to the offending instruction set. The handler in this space typically invokes Watson to generate Watson reports because it was unhandled elsewhere.

The debugger prevents all of that.

Of course, in JIT, you have things like read-ahead for first-chance exceptions...

A good book, in the Windows space, that cannot recommend enough, is Windows Internals[0]. They include how the managed and user spaces interact and coincide with the native and kernel spaces and how all of that transpires, such as how an exception in user mode transitions to kernel before Watson report is created.

There's other in-depth resources[1], as well, if books aren't your thing.

[0] - https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/learn/windows-...

[1] - https://doar-e.github.io/blog/2013/10/12/having-a-look-at-th...

>...and not thought much about what is going on under the hood.

This doesn't make sense to me, the way you've worded this. A person needn't have ever been exposed to linked lists to understand "what's going on under the hood" - which is a far bigger picture than you're trying to get something as confined as linked lists to fill.

You're seemingly saying, "You don't know fruit because you know fuck-all about dragonfruit," and that - to me - is a pretty myopic take on things; especially, in a growing cloud-centric world.

For example, I would expect that someone who could tell me how the debugger knows where their exception handler is (to be able to handle their exception) would be a better caliber for determining whether they've "thought much about what is going on under the hood" than someone who could just tell me how performant a linked list is, yeah? In the former, it's actually having had to understand what it's doing. In the latter, it's just 'x' type that - maybe - you get exposure to because of uni settings.

...but, to give credit, maybe I'm misunderstanding your intentions, as you've worded them?

>...where I've done several different positions instead of getting better at one and I'm wondering if I made a mistake.

Allow me to try to help alleviate that mistake feeling. :)

I specialised the feck out of my role[s] over the last x > decade, becoming an "expert" in Exchange in a FAANG (one guess as to which one).

It got to the point where I was debugging native code issues in Windows and making code changes to the Exchange product (as a whole), which was distributed across the world.

Now, during this time, the "cloud" went from being a niche thing to being the predominant player in the market. So, whilst I was !pde.deep in a thread, people were learning CI/CD, Azure, AWS, etc.

So, imagine my dismay at having one day been asked to seek opportunities elsewhere and, resultantly, coming to find the descriptions and requirements for "Software Developer" or "SRE" positions in the "real world".

Niche skills are good because they take years to develop and you learn skills that can help you understand/rationalise other areas that you may not have gotten before that experience occurred - but those skills can also become antiquated, quite quickly.

No one's looking for anyone who can debug native or managed software clients, anymore. No one's even looking for SDETs, anymore, it seems.

In other words, on paper, code changes/fixes that have been delivered to millions of people might be somewhat impressive but the lack of any CI/CD in production use (because other teams owned that) means an even more glaring "hole" in my experience - that someone else has and could more easily fill that role.

Companies want "right now", not "has the potential to learn this skill very easily and very quickly".

So, I had to have a huge learning curve transitioning back to the common market (and that's not a complaint, by the way, just an observation), which hindered my ability to obtain gainful employment for quite some time.

So, don't think of it as a mistake. Compared to you, I think that I've made the mistake: I'm envious of those who shifted around the start-ups and amassed quite a bit of skills, which made them far more relevant and marketable to the current market.

Video av mer om detta. :)

https://youtu.be/EugciUdAmSs

>A doomsday future is not inevitable! But without immediate drastic action our prospects are poor.

So, what you're saying is: Unless we (immediately and drastically) change our behaviour, it's a doomsday scenario[0,1,2]...

Doesn't that make it inevitable because it seems that nobody has or is changing their behaviour drastically enough - any time in the recent past or the nearest enough future - to prevent it (based on projections)?

I mean, it's not as if this realisation struck us just yesterday, yeah? We've had some time to prepare and/or give enough of a shit about this to try to affect it, right?

Also, you're expecting (almost) the entirety of an egocentric species - one that was entirely ok with the mass extinctions that it has caused so far - to suddenly, overnight give a rat's ass about the future state of the entire world and everything within it...?

They're so far up their own asses about 'x' trivial thing (compared to the literal death of the species/planet) that they're seeing teeth and loving it.

I - for one - welcome the end times.

Fucking shake that etch-a-sketch, biology, let's try this shit again.

[0] - https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/food-insecurity-index/

[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/apr/13/c...

[2] - https://www.scidev.net/global/climate-change/news/put-agricu...

>I personally don't have a problem with it, but I am not a communist.

The way this reads to me is: If you were against it, it could only be because you were a communist. #mcCarthyism

>Windows Exploitation Tricks: Abusing the User-Mode Debugger

...and...

>Nothing I’ve described here is a security vulnerability, but the behavior is interesting and it’s worth looking out for cases where it could be used.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this newfangled internets but isn't exploitation generally synonymous with security vulnerability?

JFYI, for anyone who's interested, the equivalent debugging API methods in .NET could be found in ClrMd[0] but it's as unyielding a beast as the native methods.

[0] - https://github.com/microsoft/clrmd