I have emotional regulation issues. Abilify (medication), yoga, and running. Those keep me centered, reduce my (embarrassing) adult tantrums.
Social skills are the hardest part for me. I can read emotions but trying to understand people’s motivations is as complex as tracking bugs for me. It just doesn’t come naturally.
So have you been laid off or fired several times in the past few years? Do they tell you its because you can't do frontend or is it for performance issues? I feel like there's some key information missing here.
The OP fully reports a Kafkan maze of being hired for a job, and then asked to perform a completely different job; having a low performance because, well, duh; and then we expect him to explain his low performance?
Several times in the past fifteen years, but it was that I got fired or quit.
> Do they tell you its because you can't do frontend or is it for performance issues?
The times it was involuntary, it was because I got moved to doing front-end stuff, my performance tanked, I told my manager or whoever was relevant, and sometimes I hear "Just bear with it a minute" and sometimes I hear things like I described above. This was the first time I tried saying anything about it during the interview.
> I feel like there's some key information missing here.
I don't get it either, so at least there's that sanity check: I don't get what's going on because it doesn't make sense as presented. That was what the questions were: I'm certain there is something I'm missing, I tend to be socially oblivious sometimes. I do not get it.
Hell no. Why"? Should a anesthetist do he work of a surgeon? It's insane how this industry brainwashed people into becoming jack of all trades, master of none.
There's a difference between becoming incredibly good at frontend and knowing enough to get things done and be a productive member of a team (ie, not get fired like the OP).
I know "some front end". Some things I have picked up like I always knew them, some things required study, some things I'm not going to be good at, and at this point, I'm old enough to know the difference.
I see the opposite as someone born and living in San Francisco.
Growing up in the city, we had arcades, bowling alleys, mini golf, Lan Party Cafe's, etc.
Then the city got more and more expensive, and businesses couldn't afford the rent / leases in the city anymore.
Affordable recreation isn't available in SF and that leads me to just stay at home as an adult instead of going out and doing something that doesn't involve drinking.
Churches don't pay taxes. They collect money from attendee's to pay for the real estate they occupy.
Any other gathering / community has to deal with these real world problems before they can attract people.
In my college years, there were clubs or fraternities, and they could use classrooms or student unions as low cost resources to gather in person and foster community. I think that's a barrier as an adult.
Yep. Also besides Lan parties, we had the N64, which allowed 4 peoplo play together. GoldenEye and various Mario games were a blast. the next generation had Halo and linking Xbox's together. Now a days I don't think kids or teens are having that same kind of fun we did back in the day.
If you're unlucky enough to experience memory errors in one of the intermediate buffers files go through while being copied from one computer to another an incorrect copy of the file might get written to disk.
When running software RAID, memory errors could also cause data to be replicated erroneously and raise an error the next time it's read. That said if the memory is flaky enough that these errors are common it's highly likely that the operating system will crash very frequently and the user will know something is seriously wrong.
If you want to make sure that files have been copied correctly you can flush all kernel buffers and run diff -r between the source and destination directory to make sure that everything is the same.
It's probably way more likely to experience data loss due to human error or external factors such as a power surge than bad ram. I personally thoroughly test the memory before a computer gets put into service and assume it's okay until something fails or it gets replaced. The only machine I've ever seen that would corrupt random data on a disk was heavily and carelessly overclocked (teenage me cared about getting moar fps in games, and not having a reliable workstation lol)
I wonder whether something like Syncthing would notice a hash difference with data corruption caused by such a memory error? And whether it’d correct it or propagate the issue…
Data that's about to be written to disk often resides in ram for some period of time - bit flips in non-ECC ram can silently corrupt the data before writing it out. ZFS doesn't prevent this though it might detect it with checksumming.
I'm interested in knowing more about how you guys implemented the operator model and decided on those tools. Was there a book or anything that was helpful in all of this?
I don't think they believe its a hoax. A lot of it is also hoping someone else will solve the problem for them. Or because climate change hasn't dramatically changed their normal lives yet that forces them for action. People are not really good at preventing problems, hence why history tends to repeat itself.
I cannot vouch for what is going on in their heads. But they tell pollsters it's a hoax. They vote for politicians who say explicitly that it's a hoax. They tell each other, and everybody else, that it's a hoax on social media.
Maybe deep in their hearts somewhere they don't believe it, but it's so deep that it's impossible to locate.
Some of my family are conspiratorial thinkers, trumpy types. They’re in Texas, where the power grid is continuing to slowly buckle, and they will happily agree it’s hotter than it used to be, even getting too hot. They also agree that pollution is bad.
But they simply don’t connect the two. They don’t think we can possibly be the sole reason for climate change, but why they think that is fluid — it’s gods creation and we can’t mess with that. Or if we can it doesn’t matter because we’re destined for a heavenly kingdom and this planet will pass away. Or they say more “grounded” things like we’re getting closer to the sun or the sun itself is hotter. Or they buy into the idea for a while that it’s just a natural oscillation. We’re actually headed towards an ice age!
My theory is they’re inconsistent because they do accept it, but accepting it means they have to understand consciously that shit is bleak and it makes all the work they’ve done in their lives potentially meaningless. They don’t want to face the reckoning of disillusionment so they close their eyes to it.
Or maybe they just don’t believe it. I don’t know, I’m not in their brains.
Oh, they do. 14% of American believe the Earth literally is not getting warmer. Another 26% believe it is getting warmer, but due mostly to natural weather patterns and not human activity.
11% of people believe the US federal government should literally not be doing anything about climate change.
No, many people believe it's a hoax. Either from our government (for control) or China (for money and control) or some other sort of total world government (for control).
The basic problem here is that people prefer to hear positive news.
"It's a hoax" is a lot more palatable than "It's a serious problem that requires major action to be taken." Denying the problem is much easier and they'll do some substantial mental gymnastics to avoid having to take the hard path.
What are the wrong predictions about climate change that the media has forgotten? I assume you're referring to mainstream media stuff, not fringe predictions.
Also I'm curious -- you seem to accept the planet is warming. Are you denying that CO2 from fossil fuels is the principal cause, or you accept that but just think it's pointless to do anything about it?
Or are you denying warming and/or the increase in atmospheric CO2 entirely?
> Also I'm curious -- you seem to accept the planet is warming
I accept that climate has been changing since day one 4 billion years ago. It undoubtedly happens today, happened yesterday, will happen tomorrow.
> Are you denying that CO2 from fossil fuels is the principal cause,
This seems irrelevant to me. I would indulge in the speculation if we lived in a world where that already hadn't been politicized. Now I can't help but worry that doing so would be used to propagandize to destroy the economy.
> but just think it's pointless to do anything about it?
It does seem to me that it's pointless for the people most worried about it. I have children, I want and will have grandchildren someday, and they in turn will have their own too. So, the future's more important for me than it is for many.
The "let's adopt a baby from Africa because it's selfish to have your own biological children" crowd, they seem a little weird for caring if you ask me.
> Or are you denying warming and/or the increase in atmospheric CO2 entirely?
The first doesn't seem implausible. The latter can be objectively measured with devices that are cheap enough and available enough that I could confirm it myself if I had any suspicions.
I am clearly less alarmed by those measurements than most.
Got it. So you seem to just... not care. You don't think it's necessarily false, you just don't care.
And it really seems to bother you that other people do care.
Thank you for the honesty!
If I may ask -- does it bother you that other people care, because you think any solution is necessarily and obviously impossible to begin with, and therefore it's a wasted effort, and wasted efforts bother you? Or because you think there's a rational cost/benefit analysis to be had, but you're already sure that the costs outweight the benefits, and costs outweighing benefits bothers you? Or does it bother you for another reason?
> You don't think it's necessarily false, you just don't care.
It's statements like this one that I find the most bizarre. You claim this is about science... well, that's not how science works. First you prove to me that this is real. Make some predictions (non wishy-washy ones), wait however long for those to be observed, and then we know global warming's real.
Making predictions you can't be bothered to wait to observe is a a palm reader's scam.
> If I may ask -- does it bother you that other people care,
You are part of a dying civilization that has convinced itself not to reproduce. The social norms of such a civilization are completely irrelevant, including and maybe especially to themselves.
> , and therefore it's a wasted effort, and wasted efforts bother you?
I just saw 10%+ inflation the last year or so because a cold virus made people work from home and this disrupted toilet paper manufacturing supply chains.
You say that we have to stop emitting carbon dioxide (something I've been doing since I was born), all of it, to save a planet that you won't bother to have babies to live in it 100 years from now... and that's supposed to be painless economic proposition? If what you wanted only cost a few tens of trillions, why the hell not? Burn the money (not literally, carbon dioxide), and make a future generation pay for it.
All I see are world-ending economic catastrophes. No thanks.
The future world isn't yours to worry about anymore.
This will seem totally off-topic to you, of course. Incomprehensible, even. But my daughter still tells me at age 14 that she wants 5 or 6 kids of her own. Me and mine will be above replacement, I think. It'll be our problem, and they're up to the challenge.
Red flag: "mainstream media". Anything complaining about this is virtually certain to be way, way off track.
There have been plenty of nonsense predictions from *non-scientists*. Where have the climate scientists gotten it wrong, though? The only question is one of speed/size.
And denying that change is harmful is another aspect of the problem. Sure, we have survived it. We "survived" the late Permian extinction event (believed to be about 8C)--but the majority of species did not and most of the Earth was basically uninhabited. In the other direction we don't have enough data to figure out what percent of species was lost in the snowball. Note that the worst-case estimates I have seen for warming are 14C. (6C from CO2 plus 8C from methane hydrates.) The methane hydrate numbers are uncertain enough they aren't even included in the IPCC estimates at all.
As for having skin in the game--they're humans even if they aren't our direct descendants.
The pathological belief is the denial of what's happening.
"I am physically and mentally capable of reading each of the words in this [comment], in sequence, and I understand every one of them having either learned them in school or from context at some point in my life. And yet when I attempt to, an overwhelming feeling of stupidity envelopes me."
--You, two days ago.
I know my comment won't likely change your mind, but given your "start listening to the skeptics" stance, perhaps this is a tiny impulse.
Yes, please take my words out of context to show how principled a debater and how correct you are in all things. There is nothing wrong with that at all. I believe it's the very first bullet point in the leftoidy new book titled "Fallacies to Win With" published just a few weeks ago.
> I know my comment won't likely change your mind
You make no real argument. You didn't dispute any of my points. You didn't even attempt to show how good your character or judgement were, so that I might respect you as a person and maybe defer to your own judgement. You might have preached over-caution, which isn't fundamentally flawed as a concept, often just too expensive to consider.
No, you dug into the comment history, quoted something without even giving a hint what it was about.
Of course you won't change my mind. Minds should only be changed carefully, after new information is presented, or a new way of thinking about difficult problems is illustrated.
> your "start listening to the skeptics" stance, perhaps this is a tiny impulse.
In what sort of delirious fever dream do you imagine yourself on the side of the skeptics?
Couldn't find anything with that title. Care to give me a link or ISBN or something?
> the side of the skeptics
is there a "mainstream" side and a "skeptics" side? is there only one skeptic side? is it possible to be a skeptic of a non-mainstream opinion? is it possible to be skeptic of what you write, even though you are skeptic of the mainstream opinion?
> delirious fever dream
I actually just took my temperature, it's 36.3 - make of that what you will. Or don't.
I've read a version of this line of thinking many times.
You do realize that if a scientist could put up a reputable set of studies that disprove the central climate change theories that they would be set for life under a cavalcade of fossil fuel sponsorships. Not to mention that they would be a hero to most of the planet. They would be singlehandedly responsible for major policy shifts on the part of entire countries. There's a massive incentive for someone to convincingly disprove the negative effects of climate change.
If there is such a complete and totalizing suppression of actual inquiry in climate science, then why are there climate skeptics with positions in major universities? Why are major journalistic publications skeptical? It seems to me that there is quite a bit of a forum for debate on climate science, because everyone, including, probably, many climate scientists, would love for it to be wrong.
Your argument is based on your being completely convinced that a very large swath of people, many if not most of whom are parents like yourself, are acting in utter bad faith. Certainly any academic field, like any human endeavor, is subject to group think, but if you look at the very real scientific progress that's happened in the last several hundred years, you can see that the scientific approach, empirically, does lead to success, or at least disproves the notion that groupthink is likely to wholly capture a scientific field.
The politicization of the whole thing ("liberal morality") is also intriguing. I'm an unabashed liberal. If you put a convincing argument about how the climate would be fine in front of me, I would thank you a thousand times over.
As it stands, I've read so many arguments from climate skeptics, and they roughly follow the following templates:
* a wholesale belief that climate science is operating under a special kind of bad faith
* misunderstandings of things like the second law of thermodynamics (e.g. ignoring the atmosphere itself acting as a heat sink)
* belief that Professor Q is somehow right and all the other professors are wrong (probably because of the bad faith part), ignoring that Professor Q might also be subject to such things
* belief in government or corporate control over the discussion, ignoring the truly massive financial incentive to ignore climate science
* citations, usually exaggerations, of how many "climate predictions" have gone wrong, ignoring that science journalism and activists will often simplify and/or incorrectly cite studies in any field, because the public doesn't, in the end, understand the language of probability
> You do realize that if a scientist could put up a reputable set of studies that disprove the central climate change theories that they would be set for life under a cavalcade of fossil fuel sponsorships.
You don't understand scientists then. They don't want to be "set for life". They want status within their own bizarre little community.
While no doubt Exxon would be more than happy to bankroll them at any level, the left made sure to poison that... anyone even hinted at to be accepting their money is a "fossil fuel shill". So no, they're not interested in taking that money.
If there are any such people out there now, they do the easy thing... they go find something else to research where they can be honest without it ruining their career, they publish, and we can't even know how many of them are. If they self-identify, careers are over.
> If there is such a complete and totalizing suppression of actual inquiry in climate science,
Why would it have to be "complete and total"? You still think I'm talking about some conspiracy. I'm talking about fools and halfwits doing this accidentally, by instinct, and so when they pipe up "but we're not suppressing!", in their own way they're even honest about it. They genuinely believe they aren't.
> Your argument is based on your being completely convinced that a very large swath of people, many if not most of whom are parents like yourself, are acting in utter bad faith.
I don't posit any bad faith in any of this. Stupidity and incompetence, and a complete lack of immunity for groupthinking tendencies suffice. Right now, you believe you're very righteous in even typing out your comment.
> but if you look at the very real scientific progress that's happened in the last several hundred years,
You don't get to appeal to the scientific progress, without taking credit for all of the regress that happens too. It's slow, accidental, and there's no way for you to know, one way or the other whether you're a plate tectonicist or continental fixist in all of this.
> or at least disproves the notion that groupthink is likely to wholly capture a scientific field.
The history of science is replete with examples of entire fields being captured by groupthink. Sure, so far, it seems that eventually it fades away. But without a better understanding of the sociology of groupthink, we don't know that's a universal feature. And besides, even if it does... seems the only sure fix is to wait for the old guard to die out. Meaning I'd have to wait another 40 or 50 years minimum.
> belief that Professor Q is somehow right and all the other professors are wrong (probably because of the bad faith part),
And not because it's a recurring theme in science? Not because, you don't need consensus if you're actually correct?
> belief in government or corporate control over the discussion,
In what part of my comment did I even hint that I believed this? Or are you just talking about the other skeptics because they're easier to attack than I am?
I think the core of our disagreement lies in your statement here: "You don't understand scientists then. They don't want to be "set for life". They want status within their own bizarre little community." I know some, but not all, scientists, and I can't put them firmly in that category. They're motivated by all sorts of things, as are the rest of us. I do know people who have left academia because they came to hold this belief through negative experiences, but I also know people who have avoided such. I don't think I or you can presume to make such sweeping pronouncements on such a large and varied group of people. I also believe the idea that contrarian scientists immediately lose their career when they question the status quo is an easily falsifiable claim. Is there a general pressure to conform to group think? Yes. Are there painful trends in academia? Yes. Behind the current state of climate science is quite a bit of evidence. I am open to it being entirely wrong, but it seems quite a bit more likely to me that it is right, at least correct enough to take action. The consequences of taking action are far lower than the consequences of not taking action.
