Gen Z falls for online scams more than their boomer grandparents do
I would love to see their sample group. Do their subjects share other aspects in common too, or do they just share a generation? Do they all have similar income? Do they all have similar access to the internet? Do they all have the same educational background? Do they use technology equally? Were the actual poll questions biased? What defines "scam" in this scenario? Who paid what as a result of these scams? Are they of the same political background? Are disabilities and minorities represented fairly across age groups? Were any profits gained as a result from this poll? Do the participants live similar lifestyles at home?
I'm always suspicious when they don't list these things. It can be very easy to create biased results.
They list these things, but education for example, is just overall rated by the country. If we're making statements about age groups, I think the individual age groups should have equal representation. This would help avoid cherry picking. Otherwise, they could just pick a Gen Z who has poor education and compare them with a Gen X who has a good education. You wouldn't see it, because they're from the same country.
That kind of comes down to values, though. Does a person value Oreos over honesty and integrity, or do they just enjoy Oreos? Someone might also enjoy most foods, they might prefer to fence, or they might prefer to knit.
TBH if I was filthy rich, I would help my loved ones, keep a decent retirement savings (reasonable), and then probably give the rest away. I would feel pretty bad keeping that kind of money if I knew that other people were starving and homeless. Happier people make for a better society too, imo.
Let's hope they start making it easier for those mechanics then, lmao.
I used to want to get into the industry, but that stopped when I heard about all of the ridiculous things you have to move around to preform basic maintenance. That was bad before, but now? Woof.
My buddy had to do a recall replacement, that took many hours. The manufacturer however, decided that it should only take less than half of that time, so they only paid him for the time that they wanted to pay for. Not for the actual number of hours that it physically took to disassemble and reassemble the thing, but instead what was convenient to them. Nope.
You also can want safety improvements before something becomes widespread without also "hating" it overall, you know.
The choice doesn't have to be between "absolutely everything now", and "never". There's a lot of room in between the two, and I see no reason to rush something, when unnecessarily rushing it could cost lives.
At the current level of autonomous vehicle abilities, I agree with you, in a broad sense. Vehicles will need to still be able to differentiate between shapes, even during bad weather. Weather like blizzards, sudden downpours, heavy fog, dust storms, and the like. You still have to be able to see to safely pull off of the road.
Until we can guarantee with 100% certainty that they can truly drive without aid, I completely agree that these vehicles would not be safe on their own. Weather is very well known for being unpredictable at times. Life in general is also known for being unpredictable at times.
What happens if the sensors are unknowingly damaged? What happens if someone is wearing a costume that makes them look like a giant cereal box instead of human-shaped? What happens if there's a software glitch at a bad time? What protections are there to guarantee that it doesn't happen? Are those protections temporary? How often should they be reviewed?
It should be OK to acknowledge that we aren't quite there yet. Yes, it seems cool and all, but it's silly to risk lives over impatience. If it will happen, it will happen. Forcing it to happen sooner than it should could very well lead to it being banned altogether, especially if enough people die or get injured as a result.
IMO, anyone who causes serious crashes from using these things in "fully autonomous" mode should be charged as if the vehicle wasn't autonomous. As if the accident was caused by sleeping behind the wheel or texting while driving. The company should be charged similarly in that scenario, as their programming and marketing would also play a part in the crash.
Hey, if they're truly safe, none of these charges would actually happen. If there isn't an "oops" death in the first place, there won't be an "oops" death to investigate.
Historically speaking, it's sadly far from uncommon.
They just cross their fingers and hope that it never happens. Companies have a bad habit of deciding that they would keep more money paying for a lawsuit than they would keep by paying employees. If a company is worth billions, a few million is a drop in the bucket.
There's a VERY good reason for many safety regulations. A lot of these regulations have been paid for with blood and death.
I wish we were better as a species, but here we are.
I think that a lot of people here are confusing "introversion" with having social anxiety.
Being an introvert doesn't mean that you're scared of socialization. It means you generally prefer quiet time over socializing.
From Merriam Webster:
A person whose personality is characterized by introversion : a typically reserved or quiet person who tends to be introspective and enjoys spending time alone.
You can be both, but they are definitely not the same thing.
microdosing [ˈmīkrōˌdōsiNG] NOUN
the action or practice of taking or administering very small amounts of a drug in order to test or benefit from its physiological action while minimizing undesirable side effects:
"microdosing would allow tiny amounts of new drugs to be safely given to human volunteers"
It's a method currently being used to test very small doses of psychedelics, to see the effects on mental disorders.
"Truly" is the whole catch here. The problem is that Elon could very well prey on the people who have no other options. We are far from having evidence that it truly works.
This is definitely one of those procedures that should need solid proof to be legal. It would be tragic for these people to die over some guy's "trust me bro".
The bombing that happened when he was 8, or was there another one?
It's so vile. I detest that so many people are so willingly and freely hateful of complete and utter strangers, over things that don't effect anyone else.
This is slowly turning into everything history lessons warned me of, and it's insane. We are in 2023, we have the damned WORLD at our fingertips, yet people happily choose blind hatred, even if it means they also get harmed in the process themselves.
I hate all of this. I used to believe that way more people were actually caring and intelligent, but it seems like many are very eager to prove that as wrong as possible.
If you ask me, it's fuckin' ironic that "facts over feelings" is a point that they try to make. Science supports transitioning, so that doesn't even make sense. Many animals change their full bio sex in nature. It really shouldn't be rocket science that humans change genders. It's not a new thing either, historically speaking. We've been transitioning for a pretty long time, throughout many years and cultures.
I don't disagree with that. For some reason, a lot of places think that Gen Z will put up with it like their parents and grandparents did. They treat them like crud, then they're shocked when they leave.
Of course Gen Z might change jobs within 2 years. Most people don't have their entire life plan figured out in their 20's, which I think is fair. It's even more understandable with the craziness of everything going on around the world.
I don't disagree with you in the slightest.
In my mind, no one really asked to exist. On that basis, we should all be treated equally and fairly. You can't pick your birth year, home country, etc. In my opinion, it would be wong to judge someone on those aspects, or to treat them differently. In ny workplace, we're all just people trying to get by.
Poor lady. Her labia was physically fused together from the heat, but she was still called dramatic. I can't imagine everything that she had to go through.
It's scary seeing how many people also don't understand that these laws protect you from government entities.
IYoutube is considered a private company, as it isn't run by the government. So, protective laws against government rules don't really apply. Proper court proceeding would be good, yes, but youtube is not the Court. Youtube can and does control what is on their platform. They are contract bound to advertiser interests, and their advertisers don't want to risk encouraging him if he is guilty. That is also their right, as they are also private entities. There is nothing that obligates them to continue funding someone. They could also decide to stop funding because the guy like bagels.
As a private entity, google could theoretically stop every single youtube channel today, if they chose to do so. They can decide to not host your content just because you like potatoes over radishes. It's their private platform.
I don't get why that's complex. Private vs public.
I think I'm suited to answer this. I manage multiple people, including Gen Z. I am also Gen Z. People are actively trying to work here.
One of the biggest factors is employee appreciation and respect. A lot of companies will half-ass that front through just giving their employees an occasional pizza party. The problem with that style of management, is that it removes the human aspect. It kind of just turns it into another thing to just "check off the list" for corporate. It's something commonly thrown back at employees who complain. We've seen that happen enough to not want to deal with it.
It's also important to focus on the little things. Small details are what make up the big picture. If you leave those out, the big picture will be incomplete. Congratulate them when they reach a new goal. Tell them when they do work that would make the company proud, within reason. Encourage them, and actually work alongside them sometimes. If you want to throw free food on top, maybe poll your staff for their opinions on restaurants/food trucks. Show them you care.
Regarding the human aspect, a happy employee stays, and a happy employee is also usually a productive employee. Get to know your staff a bit, casually. Try to give reasonable allowances for time off during stressful life situations, like when their home floods or their sibling dies. Most companies will only allow the legal minimum.
Don't expect more from them than what you are willing to do yourself.
Accept their imperfections and work with them towards improvement. Instead of shouting, go straight towards the solution, and include them in the process. Allow them to learn how to avoid the mistake and learn how to fix it with you. Don't baby step it, but maybe show them a cool trick for that process if you have one. Remember that they are human and that there was also a time where you didn't know how to do it.
I'll be frank with you. Many of us don't see a great future over the horizon, so we're kind of making the best with what we have. We want to enjoy as much of the time in-between as we can. We've seen our grandparents, parents, siblings, and other family members become burnt out and emotionally overwhelmed, and we don't want that for ourselves.
The best way to not have that, is to not go along with it. So, hypothetically, I would go to the next job that treats it's employees well, even if the wage is the same. Why would I waste my efforts and hard labor on someone who doesn't value it? Why not spend it somewhere where I can learn, improve, and thrive?
Nah, it's because the comment went from 1 to 100 really fast.
This disease isn't known to be airborne.
This disease isn't known to be untreatable. (Antibiotics FTW.)
This disease isn't known to cause death.
This disease hasn't lead to countless animals suffering in facilities underequipped to handle them. (Many people bought puppies to "help with loneliness" during covid, only to abandon them later, after they were all grown up.)
This disease hasn't shut down multiple cities or countries.
This disease doesn't threaten the food chain.
This disease hasn't lead governments to mandate the general public to wear PPE.
This disease hasn't helped overwhelm hospitals.
Could you please explain why you think this will be the same as what happened in those places during covid? The scenarios are very different in multiple ways.
It's referring to that meme with the astronauts.
In this case, one would be in the background, in front of the earth saying "Both of these religions are controlling and toxic".
The second astronaut would be in the foreground, with his gun aimed towards the first astronaut, saying "Always have been".
I think it's a meme from a movie.
The point is that religious zealots have always been bad like this, but the commenter put that into a meme.
It would be nice to see their sample grouping though. If someone leaves a finding statement to fit something as broad as an entire generation, it leaves questions as to who exactly was polled. I don't just mean overall, I would like assurance that every age group has it's own equal representation.
I would expect that a very large number of people across various countries, ethnicities, education levels, health levels, and more for these findings to be at all legitimate. It would be silly to try to define the entire planet's worth of a generation off of a relatively small sample size, like 500 people from across 3 countries.
I would also love to see if the actual questions were biased or not, and if this group has any incentives for certain findings. I can't really say that VOX is one of my go-to sources for serious stuff either, though.
Learning about media bias was HUGE when I was in school. It's everywhere.