|
Pretty common in seasonal industries. I spent 5 years in management at a seasonal amusement park. Would spend a week in early November signing the lay-off/separation paperwork for the 400 people in my department, then sign my own separation paperwork and then get re-hired in February to start the process of hiring staff for the spring opening. It's amazing the lengths that companies will go to avoid having to provide benefits to workers.
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 02:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 18:37 |
|
|
America Inc. posted:Sorry for being anal but your post was hard to read. Apologies. I only post when I'm between sloshed and wasted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 03:04
|
|
|
somewhat related to the penny-wise pound-foolishj chat of mega corps sucking and firing and maybe rehiring the same group of people to avoid giving benefits or pay raises. Wasnt there a news piece a few years ago about a life gaurd at a major water park that got "promoted" but didnt get the promised raise or benefits, and him quiting cost the park several dozen times over the cost of the tiny raise/benefits? oh and them hiring an untrained highschooler lead to a lost of life accident and a massive multimillion dollar incident. lol lost millions of dollars just to save a few thousand dollars.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 03:29
|
|
|
Eh, it still looked good on the quarterly reports so as far as they're concerned it was a win and they'll do it again in a heartbeat. The executives probably got a bonus for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 03:41
|
|
|
I missed Tesla chat, but I wanted to ask, why is Musk allowed to sell his "technology" using names like "Autopilot" and "Full Self-Driving" if it not actually capable of driving itself. Like, words have meaning, right? "Full Self-Driving" has a clear, unambiguous meaning. Not even "self-driving", but "FULL self-driving". But his story to the government to allow its use on city streets is to say "oh, it's assistive tech only". The TrashFuture podcast mentioned something the other day that stuck with me. I imagine most of you have heard the story about how the streets in America were taken away from pedestrians and changed to suit cars. Since self-driving cars cannot navigate our current messy, cross-walk and pedestrian-ridden streets, will our streets be simplified again to suit self-driving cars? When a man gets hit by a car, will the response just be "Oh, he tried to cross at a non-designated crossing zone/he wasn't wearing his high visibility pedestrian jacket"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 05:29
|
|
|
Nebrilos posted:"Oh, he tried to cross at a non-designated crossing zone/he wasn't wearing his high visibility pedestrian jacket"? Wasn't that the response when the Uber test car killed a women in Arizona a few years back? From what I recall the car didn't even recognize her as a person since it was too dark out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 05:54
|
|
|
Nebrilos posted:When a man gets hit by a car, will the response just be "Oh, he tried to cross at a non-designated crossing zone/he wasn't wearing his high visibility pedestrian jacket"? You don't need to ask. It already happened four years ago with a self-driving Uber.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Elaine_Herzberg quote:The recorded telemetry showed the system had detected Herzberg six seconds before the crash, and classified her first as an unknown object, then as a vehicle, and finally as a bicycle, each of which had a different predicted path according to the autonomy logic. 1.3 seconds prior to the impact, the system determined that emergency braking was required, which is normally performed by the vehicle operator. However, the system was not designed to alert the operator, and did not make an emergency stop on its own accord, as "emergency braking maneuvers are not enabled while the vehicle is under computer control, to reduce the potential for erratic vehicle behavior", according to NTSB. quote:Tempe Police Chief Sylvia Moir was quoted stating the collision was "unavoidable" based on the initial police investigation, which included a review of the video captured by an onboard camera. Moir faulted Herzberg for crossing the road in an unsafe manner: "It is dangerous to cross roadways in the evening hour when well-illuminated, managed crosswalks are available."
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 05:56
|
|
|
Doggles posted:"It is dangerous to cross roadways in the evening hour when well-illuminated, managed crosswalks are available." Motherfucker I've witnessed three cyclists hit at my street corner in broad daylight in only two years. Drivers don't give a gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 14:06
|
|
|
It'd be easier to avoid dangerous roadways if they weren't built loving everywhere. There is a dark humor that the state's legal defense here was predicated on the idea that while Elaine was crossing at a brick crossover in the median with vertical curbs and signage, the brickway was somehow technically also a road. This location is adjacent to a park and within a kilometer of the heart of downtown Tempe. Sure she might have been within about 400 feet of a crosswalk, but barely any of them are button-actuated anymore and people get hit in crosswalks all the time. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 16:05
|
|
|
q_k posted:Wasn't that the response when the Uber test car killed a women in Arizona a few years back? From what I recall the car didn't even recognize her as a person since it was too dark out. Nope, the car saw her just fine. It was equipped with radar and lidar, which wouldn't be affected by the darkness. The reason the car didn't recognize her as a person is because she was walking her bike across the street, so the car saw the bike and classified her as a bicycle rather than as a pedestrian. This may have influenced how quickly the system reacted, since it predicted her path incorrectly... ...but the system did determine in time that it needed to carry out an emergency braking maneuver. The ultimate problem is that the emergency braking system was disabled, a common issue in "self-driving" vehicles. If the vehicle slammed the brakes every time it didn't know what the hell was going on, it'd shatter the marketing illusion and make absolutely clear that these vehicles are nowhere near road-ready. So the self-driving companies make it overly difficult for the system to trigger the "oh gently caress, stomp the brake" systems, and instead rely on the human drivers to be that final point of defense. Except, of course, that human drivers don't really see the point in self-driving systems if they still have to pay attention just as much as if they were actually driving. The Uber safety driver was either monitoring the self-driving system's data or watching Hulu.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 16:14
|
|
|
Nebrilos posted:I missed Tesla chat, but I wanted to ask, why is Musk allowed to sell his "technology" using names like "Autopilot" and "Full Self-Driving" if it not actually capable of driving itself. Like, words have meaning, right? "Full Self-Driving" has a clear, unambiguous meaning. Not even "self-driving", but "FULL self-driving". But his story to the government to allow its use on city streets is to say "oh, it's assistive tech only". there aren't laws around how you are legally allowed to describe features of a vehicle like there are laws about how you are allowed to describe the contents of a food item what musk is doing calling tesla's self driving "autopilot" is basically liability bait for a lawsuit but it isn't itself illegal Nebrilos posted:The TrashFuture podcast mentioned something the other day that stuck with me. I imagine most of you have heard the story about how the streets in America were taken away from pedestrians and changed to suit cars. Since self-driving cars cannot navigate our current messy, cross-walk and pedestrian-ridden streets, will our streets be simplified again to suit self-driving cars? When a man gets hit by a car, will the response just be "Oh, he tried to cross at a non-designated crossing zone/he wasn't wearing his high visibility pedestrian jacket"? the "taking streets away from pedestrians" thing is commonly misinterpreted by the ecosystem of pop history podcasts and clickfarms and so on - this is the same media ecosystem which likes to talk about how public transit was dismantled by corporations which is 100% a factually incorrect but currently politically popular take. so i dont know what trashfuture claimed specifically but i'm going to assume it was a poor argument presented badly for the sake of entertainment. it is correct to note that spaces where automation are allowed and spaces where humans are allowed to wander freely should not both be the same space. however, the context of the introduction of automobiles in industrial era cities, and the laws which arose determining how streets should be used, is a very different context than pedestrianism today. there is a recognition now that traffic calming and safe streets are a desirable goal itself, and little support for further eroding pedestrian and cyclist safety by protecting self driving vehicles and their operators from liability
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 16:30
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:the "taking streets away from pedestrians" thing is commonly misinterpreted by the ecosystem of pop history podcasts and clickfarms and so on - this is the same media ecosystem which likes to talk about how public transit was dismantled by corporations which is 100% a factually incorrect but currently politically popular take. so i dont know what trashfuture claimed specifically but i'm going to assume it was a poor argument presented badly for the sake of entertainment. They may not have conspired to do it, but they heavily benefitted from it and even formed companies and lobbying around benefiting from car infrastructure that has not only undermined public transit funding but encouraged continued buildout of automotive infrastructure that never solves the issues because it cannot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Highway_Users_Alliance Worth noting these same groups oppose the Kyoto Agreement and Renewable funding on Highway Taxes 
CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Jun 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 16:46
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:They may not have conspired to do it do what, make walking in the street illegal (already regulated varyingly depending on local conditions) or dismantling public transit (which they didn't do and which wasn't really public at the time) people can go back and point at corporate lobbying laws which do... something, and support the thing which is bad (cars) but this is a much more vague and handwavy argument than the bold wrongness of "corporations made walking in the street illegal" or "public streetcars would still exist if corporations hadn't killed them" which are easily falsifiable the problem with the fashionable but wrong clinical depression of podcasts like trashfuture is that they distort the listener's perspective into believing odd things like "wearing hi-vis in public will be mandatory" as an inevitability
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 16:59
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:do what, make walking in the street illegal (already regulated varyingly depending on local conditions) or dismantling public transit (which they didn't do and which wasn't really public at the time) So address the rest of my post then rather than picking the piece you want to argue about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 17:02
|
|
|
Kaal posted:It'd be easier to avoid dangerous roadways if they weren't built loving everywhere. There is a dark humor that the state's legal defense here was predicated on the idea that while Elaine was crossing at a brick crossover in the median with vertical curbs and signage, the brickway was somehow technically also a road. This location is adjacent to a park and within a kilometer of the heart of downtown Tempe. Sure she might have been within about 400 feet of a crosswalk, but barely any of them are button-actuated anymore and people get hit in crosswalks all the time. There was no legal defense predicated on the idea that the victim was at fault. The local PD certainly went to great pains to insinuate to reporters that it was anyone's fault but Uber's, but no one ever took that argument to court, and attorneys didn't mention it when they decided not to bring criminal charges. It was pure PR, not a legal defense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 17:20
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:There was no legal defense predicated on the idea that the victim was at fault. The local PD certainly went to great pains to insinuate to reporters that it was anyone's fault but Uber's, but no one ever took that argument to court, and attorneys didn't mention it when they decided not to bring criminal charges. It was pure PR, not a legal defense. Or rather, the legal defense that a broad brick path across a highway median didn't constitute a pedestrian crossing was considered such a slamdunk there was no need to mount it. Of course they then immediately ripped up the pathway after her death, so maybe they weren't so confident about it as all that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 17:59
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Or rather, the legal defense that a broad brick path across a highway median didn't constitute a pedestrian crossing was considered such a slamdunk there was no need to mount it. Of course they then immediately ripped up the pathway after her death, so maybe they weren't so confident about it as all that. ...no? There's no indication that the nature of the crossing had anything to do with any of the legal decision-making surrounding that case. The degree to which the police department was in bed with Uber is certainly cause for concern, but the actual lawyers who got called in all know that running over a pedestrian is still illegal even if the pedestrian was jaywalking. The state's lawyers didn't blame the victim - it blamed the driver. No, not the self-driving computer, but rather the Uber employee behind the wheel who was supposed to be responsible for monitoring the car and the system. The state filed criminal charges against the safety driver, not against Uber.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 18:21
|
|
|
Not exactly news, but sadly not a surprise: Researcher Hacks Into Backend for Network of Smart Jacuzzis https://www.vice.com/en/article/88q9b5/researcher-hacks-into-backend-for-network-of-smart-jacuzzis quote:A security researcher discovered a security vulnerability in SmartTubs that gave him access to the personal information of anyone in the world who used the software. This is basically criminal level gross incompetence/negligence. And it just keeps on happening.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 18:41
|
|
|
Nebrilos posted:I missed Tesla chat, but I wanted to ask, why is Musk allowed to sell his "technology" using names like "Autopilot" and "Full Self-Driving" if it not actually capable of driving itself. Like, words have meaning, right? "Full Self-Driving" has a clear, unambiguous meaning. Not even "self-driving", but "FULL self-driving". But his story to the government to allow its use on city streets is to say "oh, it's assistive tech only". You see, in Elong's native Afrikaans 'auto' just means car and 'pilot' means navigator. And 'full self-driving' translates to pedestrian-murdering killbot. It's just a misunderstanding! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 18:52
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:So address the rest of my post then rather than picking the piece you want to argue about. i was asking for clarification as to what you were talking about but if you're unwilling to explain your argument, that's cool too i guess e: if you're just talking about "well lobbying groups exist" yes they do but that has nothing to do with my original point so i bid you a fine afternoon Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Jun 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 19:04
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:i was asking for clarification as to what you were talking about but if you're unwilling to explain your argument, that's cool too i guess No you cited one part of my post and attacked that and ignored everything else showing that, conspiracy or no, Automotive manufacturers and associated industry have directly benefitted and encouraged shifting away from public transit. You didn't address that at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 19:07
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No you cited one part of my post and attacked that and ignored everything else showing that, conspiracy or no, Automotive manufacturers and associated industry have directly benefitted and encouraged shifting away from public transit. ok (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 19:07
|
|
|
The Tech Won’t Save Us podcast had an episode about the Uber crash with some interesting details I’d not heard before, including the fact that Uber had recently reduced the number of human drivers in each car from two to one, which IIRC was opposed by the drivers themselves since they knew full well it’s impossible to stay alert all day just watching a car do laps of a little route all day long.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 21:21
|
|
|
I seem to recall that the built in software/drive assistance of the Volvo would have been able to stop this from happening but of course that was disabled along with their own software sensitivity for that sort of thing off/broken/whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 21:37
|
|
|
Karia posted:Those are good, but none of them beat the fruit truck. Can't say I was expecting that, this guy seems insane in the best way possible. Although despite everything going on here the thing that gives me the most pause is convincing anyone your fruit truck that's driving to the middle of this clearing is legit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 22:29
|
|
|
Motronic posted:I seem to recall that the built in software/drive assistance of the Volvo would have been able to stop this from happening but of course that was disabled along with their own software sensitivity for that sort of thing off/broken/whatever. yeah the volvo's built in automatic braking would have triggered but that feature was disabled on the test cars because it kept loving with the data
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 23:06
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1539647212506038275?s=20&t=8OMaOKpr586bOFwxAwd-4A
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 17:49
|
|
|
He shouldn’t anthropomorphize computers. They hate that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 20:47
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I saw this now you have to suffer as well https://youtu.be/KGg5rfBfWT4 Because I have to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 21:00
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/1539721451753938965
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 15:19
|
|
|
Yep, it's shotgun time
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 15:22
|
|
|
I'm usually pretty open to voice assistant/smart device stuff, however Nooooooope kill it with fire.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 15:28
|
|
|
I keep telling you people, Butlerian Jihad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 15:37
|
|
|
This was a Black Mirror episode.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 15:47
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:I keep telling you people, Butlerian Jihad. Only if I can take enough drugs to do actual space travel. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 16:20
|
|
|
How the hell do those weird nerds think this would go over well?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 17:00
|
|
blunt posted:I'm usually pretty open to voice assistant/smart device stuff, however Has anyone linked the torment nexus tweet here yet
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 17:01
|
|
|
Nebrilos posted:I missed Tesla chat, but I wanted to ask, why is Musk allowed to sell his "technology" using names like "Autopilot" and "Full Self-Driving" if it not actually capable of driving itself. Like, words have meaning, right? "Full Self-Driving" has a clear, unambiguous meaning. Not even "self-driving", but "FULL self-driving". But his story to the government to allow its use on city streets is to say "oh, it's assistive tech only". Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:there aren't laws around how you are legally allowed to describe features of a vehicle like there are laws about how you are allowed to describe the contents of a food item This has been the wildest part for me, honestly. If you had asked me a decade ago, I definitely would have thought that regulatory agencies had much more latitude to look at a situation like Tesla (naming driver assist features "Autopilot" and "Full Self Driving," putting a massive screen in the dash capable of playing movies and video games, retractable door handles that might fail if, you know, your car catches on fire, etc.) and say "hey, we see what you're doing, as does anyone with eyes. Knock it off now" and have the enforcement power to get them to comply. Instead you mostly get mealy-mouthed statements about their "serious concerns," and then maybe something changes when a wrongful death suit gets in front of a judge 3 years later. You can see a lot of parallels in other malignant tech companies that have so successfully cowed the enforcement arm of the US government with a combination of sheer audacity and obscene sums of money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 17:13
|
|
|
That's not really a tech-specific issue, you might note that "small government" has been the explicit goal of the one of our major political parties that is willing to do things for some time now. Enforcement is borderline impossible for most agencies, and the ones that still have some sort of power are on the defensive to keep it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 17:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 18:37 |
|
|
Irony.or.Death posted:Enforcement is borderline impossible for most agencies, and the ones that still have some sort of power are on the defensive to keep it. https://twitter.com/USCPSC/status/1539942174267265024
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 17:48
|
|
