I’ll repeat my point that a good bodyguard stops shit rather than starting it. That idiot meatsack shouldn’t have been let anywhere near a bodyguard job. He failed at every aspect of the role, including getting his ass kicked.
Your continued reference to “ex-stabber” and the like make much of your dialog sound like a political dog whistle. E.g., repeated caricatures of opposition, like “all violence is supposedly the system’s fault.” It makes it rather exhausting to try to engage with good faith.
Ok, I watched the video, and it’s not at all as you describe. Some guy walks closely by the bodyguard, and the bodyguard responds by shoving them through a display stand of products and onto the ground. The bodyguard was clearly the instigator of violence.
Maybe the guy said nasty stuff to the bodyguard, but I saw no contact or physical threat. It’s only bad bodyguards and bouncers that get into fights. Good ones deescalate instead, just to avoid this sort of thing, because they realize they’re guarding a political reputation as well as a person.
”We get training data.” E.g., photos of your children, an inventory of your books, the contents of your medicine cabinet. They may not have plans to sell this stuff, but whoever acquires them certainly will.
Government-issued IDs work and human verification of them is largely successful. This is not about correct verification, it’s about cheap machine-based verification. The dehumanization of it is part of how they plan to make money.
So yes verification is needed. We can do that just fine without more facial recognition intruding into everyday affairs.
> Dayton is not the first city to cover its Flock cameras with trash bags because they can’t figure out how to immediately terminate the use of the cameras. Late last year, the city of Evanston, Illinois also covered its cameras with trash bags while it was waiting for the company to remove them from the city.
We were just discussing “1984” and “We” a few days ago, books primarily about mass surveillance and the attendant harms. Neither of those books saw profit motive, though, they were all about top-down political power making use of surveillance.
I suppose at the time of reading those I thought that would be the origin — a government decides and starts putting up cameras, like London. A for-profit entity festooning the landscape with these things, though, damn. Clearly the powers-that-be can do the math on how easy it is exfiltrate this data from private to government hands. This sympathetic cooperation between governments and corps smells very much like early fascism to me.
Teachers don’t make those decisions, school boards do. School boards are elected or appointed political entities.
Teachers are humans just like you, and like or dislike work for the same reasons you do, including your unoriginal display of classic American anti-intellectualism.
Ferrari clearly aren’t doing it to save costs. I don’t think they’re doing it for principled driver-centered reasons, either, but more because the market expects it. Cars are appliances, and appliances are generally built to be sold (i.e., to look good) rather than to be used. Microwaves, washers, cars — the same for all of them.
The design exterior looks glued together from more interesting electric cars, so no surprise the interior does too.
EDIT: I just learned that Jony Ive did the interior. Further proof that without Steve Jobs goading him, Ive is just a stylist.
Yes, preach it! But … I think in fact it does make a huge difference economically. I don’t know what the bill of materials is, but imagine the difference between wiring into place (a) a touch screen, or (b) 40 physical controls.
I believe another motivation for manufacturers is that they can turn the car’s UI into a software problem, which from a human-centered design perspective means that they can throw it in the trash and never spend a dime on it.
I can easily list in my head many people I’ve worked with who’ve expressed dissatisfaction at the lack of regular contact with their coworkers. I’ve seen this universally across engineers, designers, sales people … and yes, managers and recruiters. (Not as often as I’ve heard “We have too _many_ meetings,” I’ll grant you).
If you claim only to have seen this in those limited roles then I still believe that you are filtering your inputs.
“In all that time, I’ve never met a single person who sincerely wanted more dailies, syncs, and meetings.” Oh, I guarantee that OP has met these people, and that they have told him this multiple times in ways that he does not understand.
Oh, I have typed that acronym thousands of times. Thousands. And I’d be surprised if I got it right 90% of the time. I have just enough dyslexia, I think, to make it very hard to be perfect. So perhaps OP is similar.
Yes, exactly, the rules are intentionally broad and vague. You can wave paper at most of them and technically succeed. And then when you release accidentally PHI for the first time and your bullshit comes to light, your chickens will come home to roost. Doing a good job on compliance is less about security and more about staying out of jail.
Thank you, that was new to me. I always felt a connection between those three books — We, Brave New World, 1984 — but this review really is the missing piece. He opens the review by describing the similarities between We and Brave New World, closes the review contrasting them politically. I can almost hear the wheels turning in his head, it feels like this review is an early treatment for 1984.
I’d like to subscribe to stick™ pro! I tried a piece of string and it waved around in the wind and didn’t work, so I think I may need a paid service for this.
Yes, I agree, the skills are orthogonal. Digital typesetting is vastly quicker than manually putting down metal type, and since you’re exposed to more type you have the opportunity to learn faster. But getting good at typography with digital tools will help you very little if you need to lay out type manually.
Your continued reference to “ex-stabber” and the like make much of your dialog sound like a political dog whistle. E.g., repeated caricatures of opposition, like “all violence is supposedly the system’s fault.” It makes it rather exhausting to try to engage with good faith.