86 karma · joined December 10, 2014
1. "But before we get ahead of ourselves, it hasn’t quite been confirmed yet. These claims of record-breaking heat are based on preliminary readings that will soon be subject to further analysis."
2. "That being said, it’s also important to remember that statistics on maximum nighttime temperature simply aren’t kept, and hourly temperature data has only been kept for about a decade or so. The record may still stand, but it also may not have much to be compared to."
And there is a mention of "backing of Microsoft" being part of the advantage: "With the rapid pace of VSCode development with the backing of Microsoft, I don’t see any other way SublimeText can keep up unless they make the editor open-source."
If cnn says something like "Pentagon has officially confirmed aliens are here." or "Pentagon has officially confirmed China has new stealth tech." then we can take a look.
Similarly, if you know you could take someone in a fight, and they challenge you in public...its easier in that case to "take the high road" and walk away than it would be if you knew you would lose the fight, or you weren't confident you would win. The people in the latter case are much more likely to feel shame and/or resentment towards the aggressor later on.
I think with "power" like that its easier to make the best choice in many cases. It's a shame too...I know a few people that are miserable because they don't have a "real job", even though they don't really need one financially. That lack of power keeps them from being happy and choosing the lifestyle that would obviously be best otherwise.
Extreme silly example to make my point:
DMV: "What does your car do to avoid running people over"
Waymo: "Its a trade secret, sorry".
* New law gets passed
DMV: "Ok now tell us"
Waymo: "Ok well...it honks the horn automatically and gives the person 5 seconds to get out the way. We believe that should be sufficient for the majority of cases and if you're too stupid to move, well...natural selection ftw."
DMV: "..............really? that's crazy...it should really be more like...10 seconds."
So, I'm not saying that firing the guy in this particular case was a mistake, but how do you arrive at the broad conclusion that rejecting people based on social norms (many of which are arbitrary or based on fear/ignorance/etc) is necessarily the best thing? The boundaries of the "envelope" change all the time, and arguably for the better sometimes.
Example: Was it a "good thing" when people could be fired (or not even considered) because of their race/religion/sex? Are we not better off when we overcome our differences and work together?
I think the situation how to handle the creep has less to do with evolution and more to do with what's good for business. If the guy had been valuable enough to the company, I think they probably would have made more of an effort to help him fit in. Thus the "need" to reconcile. Absent that, the only thing that can really save his job is the person who does the hiring/firing. Maybe they have a soft spot for creeps. And that would be where the boundary might get pushed a tiny bit. Or, maybe morale plummets and the company goes bankrupt.
But if someone discovers a way for alleged creeps to work in harmony alongside non-creeps, then your talent pool to choose from will expand, less people will be fired for just being who they are, and barring any unforeseen consequences, you will have made the world a little better.
Bonus: Did you know in Spain, its totally acceptable to stare? At least that's what I've been told. Imagine if the dude had just spent too much time in Spain and got used to staring at people. And they fired him without even taking the time to figure that out!
Ex: He's not lying.
1. He's not lying. (Someone else is lying)
2. He's not lying. (Same as original but more forceful)
3. He's not lying. (Depending on context, could mean "He's not technically lying, but perhaps I'll agree he's stretching the truth a little.", or it could mean "OMG c'mon this is Jim we're talking about, he's not LYING...are you crazy? He always tells the truth."
I wonder how many court transcript readings have totally screwed someone over because of something like this. Add sarcasm to the mix to take it up a notch.
"Computer facial recognition is simply digitising human workflow" I get that, but that one simple change comes with a tremendous increase in power and responsibility. And I'm not convinced the pros outweigh the cons. Maybe if there was an "opt-in" clause then I'd be a little less concerned. Like "If you want the government to keep an eye on you and a record of everywhere you go, sign here."
Suppose someone found a way to passively and remotely read people's minds. And as a result you can't go anywhere in public unless you were OK with your thoughts being captured and recorded. You could see how that would suck right? And the potential for abuse? Might be great for the police I suppose, and would probably lower the crime rate. But would you want to live like that? Facial recognition isn't that extreme of course, but they are both in the privacy ball park, at least in my opinion. So maybe its just a matter of degree...like what you're willing to put up with / feel comfortable with.