irotsoma @ irotsoma @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

721

Joined

2 yr. ago

It's just how HR does stuff in the US. Most applications have to go through an automated system for filtering before reaching a person, unless it's a pretty small company. That system usually requires very specific criteria to get through. Like I remember applying for a seasonal job at Target, around the end of 2010 when I was laid of, and having to fill out a really detailed application online and take a bunch of personality tests. Turns out I scored too high on leadership and had too much professional experience to be a stock person/cashier, so I was rejected before it was sent to the store manager.

It's not an accident or unintended consequence kind of thing either. It's how they can have a job position "open" and have hundreds of applications, but still be understaffed and thus force workers to work what should be extra people's jobs for no extra pay. It's just how the mega-corp culture is in the US for the most part.

As for the software and some other very technical industries, it's a similar cultural thing, but on top of that, most recruiters are not technically literate and so don't know how to judge a technical person, but are made to filter applications before passing then on. My last job had a position open the entire 10 years I worked there and there were no interviews at the hiring manager or team level in all that time. It was an analyst position and I would have hired basically anyone who had the one bit of specialized knowledge if it was up to me. But I did the job of two people the whole 10 years and was never able to move up I the company because of it.

Only reason I didn't leave sooner was that I didn't have the funds to get a degree when I was younger and fell into a time when the crazy unsecured loans were not as much of a thing, and most companies filter out software related candidates without a degree up front, regardless of experience. Finally got a degree when I found a program that I could handle while also doing two peoples' worth of work.

You do have to factor in waste for that long because it's only background radiation if it's properly stored. When the coffin cracks on the Chernobyl core, it will be dangerous AF. Also, as all the Russian soldiers who were stationed there and exposed because they don't know about the history of the meltdown at all, much less that it was there. It's not hard to google the half life of the materials. And if you think concentrated, enriched uranium or plutonium is the same danger level as natural uranium, maybe you should build a reactor yourself and get rich. Sorry to say, the energy output by enriched uranium, even the spent stuff, is exponentially higher than the stuff in the ground.

Finally, you may want to research the difference between alpha, beta, and gamma radiation. Just because the news only talks about gamma because it's the only one that would hurt you from outside your body, doesn't mean that the alpha and beta aren't way more deadly if they get into your body through your water supply, or into the ground and thus into the plants and animals you eat. And it's cumulative, you can't get rid of it easily and the longer it's in you, the more damage it does.

And this is just the very basics. I was trained by the Navy in all this stuff. It's not like I'm talking out my ass. Not to mention you can get it all from the NRC, NIH, and energy.gov websites if you want among many, many other resources as much of it is public knowledge outside of the specifics.

I think maybe you should take your own advice. All of the data is on the NRC and energy.gov websites. There's about 90,000 metric tons of waste in temporary storage in the US alone and the half life of the waste is around 20,000 years, meaning it will be about 1 million years before it's safe. There are no functional long term storage facilities and there's no permanent solution that will last 1 million years. Most are designed for about 10,000 years, which again, don't actually exist, just designed.

Edit: oh, and it was the US government who taught me all this information as I had training as part of my job in the Navy.

What are you talking about. The description in the parent site of the one I linked says specifically, "Currently, most spent nuclear fuel is safely stored in specially designed pools at individual reactor sites around the country."

And no sh*t it's not a long term storage method. But it's where most of our waste is right now in the US.

And no, I'm starkly anti-fossil-fuel, but nuclear is 100% not cleaner unless you ignore the waste entirely. There are so many renewables and other options for cheaper, cleaner energy. But companies don't count waste disposal as an operating cost (only short term storage), so nuclear looks cheap to investors because 1 million years kind of longterm isn't part of their investment strategy. And that's how long we need to be able to store a lot of this stuff unless it's fully reprocessed down to safe levels of radiation, which has proven totally unprofitable in the short-term (decades-term), so it's never been done.

https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage.html

What?????? Spent Fuel Pools (SFPs) are the most common place it's stored. They're what ended up getting flooded and spilling into the ocean in the Fukushima disaster.

https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/pools.html

And in 10,000 years, when the tectonic plates have moved enough to disrupt the deteriorating construction materials, who is going to dig it up and rebuild it. And then the next 10,000 years, and the next.

It wasn't abandoned because there wasn't enough waste. That doesn't make any sense. You don't wait to finish building a dump until there's enough garbage to fill it. And we already have over 90,000 metric tons and produce about 2,000 per year.

And the half life is way longer than the life of any materials that would be used in construction or the movement of tectonic plates that would disrupt the storage. It literally would need to be dug up and rebuilt every ten thousand years or so to keep it from leaking. We don't have the technology to dig so deep that we can ignore it, and much of the waste will be unsafe for about a million years "due to how half life works".

Because there is no waste storage much less anywhere that could stand for the necessary thousands of years. And waste reprocessing is too costly for it ever to be developed by a for-profit or even non-profit but needs to break even company. It would cost trillions and several decades of no political interference in that money to research, develop, and build the reactors, best case.

So, it just sits in pools waiting for a tornado to spread the contaminated water over a whole state, or an earthquake or fracking tremor to cause a leak into the ground water. If AI is chewing through rods, in a decade there will be a hell of a lot of waste and nowhere to put it, much less anywhere to keep it safe for thousands of years.

But the general public will have to pay to store and secure all of the waste and clean it up when natural disasters hit the pools.

If it's just one job post, then automating it is not going to be very useful. I don't think OP meant that. Seemed like they want to give a general CV/resume and then feed it each job posting and get customized versions for each posting. Many HR departments have keyword filters necessary to clear before it gets to a person. Otherwise, it takes only a few minutes to customize one time and would be much better to do manually anyway.

Problem is, these days it usually takes 50-100 job applications per interview depending on industry. In the software industry (in the US anyway), that's about average. Last job took me about 500 applications and that led to 3 third-round interviews and 2 of them gave offers. Total I probably had around 8-10 first round interviews, not including the many 5-10 minute phone calls with headhunter recruiters that contacted me based just on my resume on LinkedIn and various other sites.

Be sure to play Blue Shift as well if you haven't already. Awesome seeing it from all three perspectives.

I could never afford to finish my bachelor's degree, and honestly never really cared to, until companies started using software for hiring that filters out applications that don't have degrees, regardless of experience. (Software industry) So, I did a degree that basically allowed me to do a minimal amount of studying and take the final exams without having to sit through months of lectures and graded homework that wouldn't be useful because I already knew the material for the most part from over a decade of experience. Took me about 18 months, working a more than full time job and no breaks, with a few general education credits being transferred from the short time I did attend school originally. Helped me get a job pretty much right away since my applications were finally reaching managers.

I don't know about closest, but definitely most likely, Tank Girl. Basically, water and power will be extreme scarcities for the majority and a corporation that bottles up the water to keep it from becoming free through rain and owns all of central power grid will be the effective government. It will take a few more decades for the water to get bottled up by Nestlé, et al., and the water infrastructure to fail in more cities. And then the fossil fuel industry to run out of resources and collapse and thus leave only the few nuclear reactors as the only major power sources, without renewables investment, which can be grabbed by the water owners by saying they need the power to collect the water bottles and they need to "secure" the dangerous reactors with the military hardware they collected to protect "their" water sources from protesters and poor people over the years.

To avoid the debt getting too large, let's stop funding the agency that brings in the most income.

Not exactly. I just think trying to apply a single threaded, cyclical processing model on a process that is neither threaded nor executed in measurable cycles is nonsensical. On a very, very abstract level it's similar to taking the concept of dividing a pie between a group of people. If you think in terms of the object that you give to each person needing to be something recognizable as pie, then maybe a 9-inch pie can be divided 20 or 30 times. Bit if you stop thinking about the pie, and start looking at what the pie is made up of, you can divide it so many times that it's unthinkable. I mean, sure there's a limit. At some point there's got to be some three dimensional particle of matter that can no longer be divided, but it just doesn't make sense to use the same scale or call it the same thing.

Anyway, I'm not upset about it. It's just dumb. And thinking about it is valuable because companies are constantly trying to assign a monetary value to a human brain so they can decide when they can replace it with a computer. But we offer much different value, true creativity and randomness, pattern recognition, and true multitasking, versus fast remixing of predefined blocks of information and raw, linear calculation speed. There can be no fair comparison between a brain and a computer and there are different uses for both. And the "intelligence" in modern "AI" is not he same as in human intelligence. And likely will never be with digital computers.

Oh, yeah, but the wealthy generally only pretend so they can use the religious fanatics as opposed to actually being one. But even the less wealthy religious fanatics still have we power. So definitely crossover, but not entirely singular.

Regardless of how you define a "bit", saying 10 in a second when most people easily process hundreds of pieces of information in every perceivable moment, much less every second, is still ridiculous. I was only using characters because that was one of the ridiculous things the article mentioned.

Heck just writing this message I'm processing the words I'm writing, listening to and retaining bits of information in what's on the TV. Being annoyed at the fact that I have the flu and my nose, ears, throat, and several other parts are achy in addition to the headache. Noticing the discomfort of the way my butt is sitting on the couch, but not wanting to move because my wife is also sick and lying in my lap. Keeping myself from shaking my foot, because it is calming, but will annoy said wife. Etc. All of that data is being processed and reevaluated consciously in every moment, all at once. And that's not including the more subconscious stuff that I could pay attention to if I wanted to, like breathing.

Bernie was one of many, not the most important.

The tangents are what you're asking for because you keep focusing on one prepositional phrase in a whole paragraph. The whole point of the post was the issues of the electoral college and how it causes a necessary two party system if it ever hopes to actually elect without resorting to the contingent election system which then gives the election to the house, where more representatives per person are given to low density areas, much like the electoral college votes are distributed.

I already answered how the primaries are unfair. Funding agreements are corrupt as proven by the data from Hillary's campaign. The party doesn't allow true primaries to occur in years with an incumbent president. And in other years, candidates that might be competitive are limited to one, or at most, two strong candidates one of which is more strongly supported by the party, despite there being many others who want to run (much like how Warren, Biden, and Hickenlooper in 2016). Keeping the others out actually benefited both Sanders and Clinton, but due to the power of money and the fact that those in the party had already decided on Clinton and actually had no intention or even an obligation to allow anyone else to win, it made it much easier to sabotage just Bernie rather than having to sabotage many candidates.

The fact that the parties are allowed to be biased for a specific candidate and have no real obligation to hold primaries, much less listen to them, and the fact that there can only be two parties, means there is no true democracy (representative or otherwise) by design. Votes are rarely for something, but instead voting against something and thus selecting the "lesser evil" that is selected by a small minority. This is the point of the original post. The primaries not being fair is just a side note, and not even part of the constitution, nor is it illegal for the primaries to be biased, so it's just obfuscation of the real issue. The fact that the electoral college creates a necessary two candidate system. That doesn't mean we have to have political parties, but we do, and those are corrupt, but outside of the purview of the constitution. No matter what system is put in place, it will always be no more than two options.

I don't know why you're so focused on Bernie when I only side discussed decades of primaries, but OK if that's the only primary that matters in all of history, then let's discuss it.

Clinton took a bunch of money she promised to give a significant amount of to state and local Democratic parties and then a bunch of what she didn't take went to the DNC instead and less than half a percent of the $80+ million went to the state and local candidates. And this was fine with the fund raising agreement technically because the DNC wrote it that way, but definitely unethical considering the donations were made with the assumption that it would help the Democratic candidates up and down the ballot, not just Hillary and the DNC. Bernie didn't take part because of the mismanagement of the DNC and the agreement language that allowed for such things.

Additionally, Warren, Biden, and several other candidates were prevented from running through pressure from the DNC leadership. If they had been allowed to run, it was said, it would have split the vote too much away from Hillary. Again, it's easier to control the narratives with a two sided competition so they could get who they wanted.

These are just two examples of problems with the way the primary was conducted. Unfortunately, because a lot of the financials and other business of political parties is considered proprietary, much more like a corporation than something representing the people who it purports to represent, there is less evidence of a lot of the other issues. Fortunately, Hillary's campaign was more forthcoming with financial data than the DNC, so we do have some data at least.

I'm not a Hillary hater and while I think she did some things wrong, and while I admit I'm biased against her from her taking a bunch of money to drop the healthcare reform during her husband's term that could have saved a lot of lives and perhaps a certain CEO assassin's severe pain, it's the responsibility of the party to make the primary elections fair, not the candidates, beyond basic ethical standards at least.

You're quoting the last half of a sentence. "The only way Democrats could have won was to hold a fair primary which they haven't done in a long time." A prepositional phrase is an addition/side comment to a current statement. Thus, the 2024 primary was the primary focus of my comment.

But, again, to address the prepositional phrase portion, yes, none of the primaries in my lifetime have been truly fair.

As for the two party system, the original comment is referencing the electoral college which is the primary cause of the two party system as I mentioned in the original comment. The reason it's relevant here is the same reason duopolies are unfair in economic contexts. When hundreds of millions of people have only 2 choices, those 2 rarely will care to appease the majority because they don't have to in order to keep the customers/constituents. They just have to be the less hated for more people than the other one.

So, funding. Where does most presidential funding come from if they don't have direct wealthy donors? The SuperPACs are controlled by the same group of people who lead the DNC. And most primary elections are determined by funding because it's so expensive just to get your name out there, your message heard, and to get on the ballots. So funding is very relevant to the fairness of the primaries.