ArbitraryValue @ ArbitraryValue @sh.itjust.works

Posts

9

Comments

2,159

Joined

2 yr. ago

Employees shouldn't make public announcements (in their capacity as employees) unless authorized to do so by management. The official policy at my last job was that we weren't to say anything unless explicitly instructed otherwise by marketing. The places I've worked at that didn't have an official policy would have expected the same thing from me, just because it's common sense.

As an employee, you can speak about your own specific working conditions with your manager. You can, through private channels, contact upper management about the company's general strategy but that seems like a silly thing to do unless you know something that management doesn't. (And Tesla's upper management is well aware of what people think of Musk.) You definitely can't try to organize public pressure against upper management's decisions while you're being paid to obey those decisions.

It would be shooting the messenger if they were expressing their concerns privately through internal channels but that's not what they're doing. They're going to the public because management already knows what they want and chooses not to act on it.

Firing employees who organize a public campaign to discredit the CEO is generally the correct thing to do.

Their true purpose is sinister.

"Compelled by law" isn't a sufficient justification for Catholics in this case - they're supposed to die rather than reveal something that was said to them in confession, like Saint John of Nepomuk.

Confession is a sacrament of the Catholic Church - pretty much the definition of "religion" in Europe for two thousand years. It's clearly something the first amendment is intended to protect and this law is well over the line into unconstitutional.

readmit the priest after a penance

The priest actually has to repent - if he still thinks he did the right thing, he isn't forgiven.

It's like gorilla glue: made by gorillas for gorillas from gorillas.

I don't think they stomped loudly (except when they ran) but I don't see how they would be able to move through the undergrowth without snapping a lot of branches. (Or how they could move through dense forest at all.)

I wanted to conquer the world like Alexander the Great. I'm not sure why that appealed to me, in retrospect.

(A friend gave me some advice a few years ago. He said "You're much more normal than you like to think. You have normal needs and you will be happy if you live a normal life." I don't know if he's right.)

I have a hard time imagining a stealthy t-rex. He's going to be making some noise even if he tiptoes.

That lie was definitely inappropriate, but it would still have been inappropriate if it was told by a human. I think it's useful to distinguish between bad things that happen to be done by an AI and things that are bad specifically because they are done by an AI. How would you feel about an AI that didn't lie or deceive but also didn't announce itself as an AI?

ChangeMyView seems like the sort of topic where AI posts can actually be appropriate. If the goal is to hear arguments for an opposing point of view, the AI is contributing more than a human would if in fact the AI can generate more convincing arguments.

I used to imagine it would be sexy to shower with my partner but I've learned that even women who appear physically delicate in most other situations still temper themselves like steel when they shower. I think that I would get burns from sustained exposure to water that hot.

IRL I'd be worried that she would still be angry about this after she got sober. I've never dated anyone who liked being picked up at all and the one woman small enough for me to have carried easily would have been so mad.

No kid wants a toy Aquaman.

The interesting thing is that anatomically modern Homo sapiens appeared about 300,000 years ago and did live exclusively as hunter-gatherers for about 280,000 of those years.

I suspect that as Nate Silver says, Trump is doing this sort of thing because he wants to fight about immigration rather than his other, less popular policies - he thinks he has the public support to win on immigration.

That's my whole point. Might things be a lot worse in a couple of years? Yes. Are things as bad as this article is all about saying they are right now? No, clearly not.

"The American democratic republic is in danger of dying" is true.

"The American democratic republic has died" is histrionics, and histrionics are particularly counterproductive at a time when what's actually going on is so serious.

The U.S. is survived by a country of the same name, the United States of America, now a presidential dictatorship.

This gets an eye roll from me. The USA is certainly in a lot of danger but anyone who calls the current situation a dictatorship is ignorant of what a dictatorship is.

Here's a hint for the author: you wouldn't be getting an article like this one published in a dictatorship.