I think there are job where you very much need this mentality and then there are jobs where you don't have to bother much with the non-technical.
Maybe the later are harder to find on demand, but there are plenty there.
There are benefits and tradeoffs each way. I think the most important thing is to know what kind of person you are and what you want, and move towards finding work where you can be mostly actualized in that.
Which may not be a bad thing. As other commenter shared anocdote, him getting cut off because of bogus accusation is not nice. If Uber had to eat the loss, instead of carelessly impossing it on their "employees", they could probably do more thorough screening of onboarding employees, which would benefit the customer as well.
Earnestly not trolling, but would that actually benefit the customer? Part of the benefits of a service like Uber is having a lot of people willing and able to drive to/from places all over. If they're rejecting more people and increasing cost due to more thorough screening, the service likely gets worse and costs more, which means less people use it, so less people want to drive for it, and that starts to spiral.
I'm willing to believe that outcome may be better in the abstract, since I'm not a big fan of Uber in the first place, but it's not clear that the average user of Uber wants that trade.
I don't see how it's a fallacy to accept the parent's premise that Uber should be screening more people out of being hired by them, which then necessarily leads to less people driving for them, and that that would reduce the availability of the service. Making the service less available doesn't tend to increase usage of it.
Pointing out that Decision A will likely lead to Outcome B, which may in turn cause Outcome C doesn't automatically mean it's a fallacy. It certainly doesn't mean that you snarkily posting wikipedia articles accusing me of bad-faith argumentation is justified.
Stating A may lead to B, which may lead to C, without any justifiable argument for why we should believe C is the most likely (or even highly likely) outcome is the textbook definition of slipper slope fallacy in arguments.
In this case, it's not patently obvious that fewer, higher quality drivers is a net negative.
I don't think it's obvious that more screening leads to "higher quality" drivers or that customers care. That's the premise of my original post. More screening leading to less drivers feels like it's not a "may" in this case, since the original post was essentially saying that there were undesirable people who had gotten through current screening and should be driving.
From there, sure, it's unclear if less "better" drivers are a business positive, but either way, that's an interesting discussion worth more than just "haha you did a fallacy". Claiming that it's likely that having less drivers that are "higher quality", whatever that means, will improve the service overall is just as much of a guess as what I put forward.
Either way, to go back to my original post, it's unclear to me that the users of the service are, on average, that upset about the quality of their drivers. The alternative is taxis, which certainly aren't better on average at screening their drivers for anti-social behavior in my experiences.
Nothing about what the parent commentator said is fallacious and leaning on pattern identification -> fallacy doesn’t really work because we are not making formal logic arguments.
Federal loan programs (subsidized, unsubsidized and direct PLUS loans) still means that the average student is able to borrow a substantial amount of money without really considering their eventual ability to repay. True, it's not "limitless", but I think that's fair use of hyperbole.
I went to college at 27, and the money was sort of limitless. The free money was pretty limited (grants and direct loans), but there were enough usurious private lenders to keep you in debt for the rest of your life.
My son qualified for $100 a year in federal loans. To my dismay, he actually took that loan. I had to have a conversation with him that it is better to just pay the $100 and not have the possibility of missing payments, getting interest and penalties, etc... Everything he has is a private loan which I cosign for -- and with an 850 credit score, I didn't get anywhere close to the advertised interest rates.
It's not the biggest thing in the world, and I don't want to distract from the rest of the book, but this is a situation where writing a one or two line helper function:
const _ = (cond, a, b) => cond ? a : b;
would have made the code much more readable without much downside that I can see -- at least to my subjective opinion. Maybe I'm missing something.
Edit: comment below correctly points out that if it's important for you to avoid immediate evaluation, you'll need to wrap your conditionals in functions.
JS is not lazily evaluated so that means `a` and `b` would both be evaluated regardless of the result of the cond expression. To make a proper version you have to complicate things by calling it like this:
_(cond, () => a, () => b)
And _ becomes:
const _ = (cond, a, b) => cond? a(): b();
And it does matter in this case when looking at the last condition which signals an error (does not return an error value if I understand it correctly). In which case your _ would raise an error even when not appropriate.
That is an excellent point, thanks for pointing that out.
I'm not sure it matters here, the error you're pointing out looks to be getting returned (unless I'm misunderstanding what the book intends the `error` function to do), and creating an Error in Javascript is fine, it doesn't break your program until it's actually thrown.
Edit: just looked at your comment again, and you're saying it does actually throw the error rather than returning it :) So double-corrected on my part :)
But your point stands regardless. There will be scenarios where what you're talking about matters -- JSX also follows this pattern of immediate evaluation and yeah, I see errors from that plenty of times. So it's good to mention.
Because for the average user it is still significantly easier to download some app to use in combination with a password they have a mnemonic for rather than having to figure out their own system for storing and retrieving long tokens in a reliable way. Also, most users are not obsessively clearing out their cache, so device recognition based password flows work seamlessly a lot of the time.
Average users are also unlikely to enter passwords often enough for them to remember or develop mnemonics. For them forgot password emails are the defacto login method.
The system they will choose will be to get a new token by logining in with their email.
It will effectively be the same as those places that send you a login email after you have entered your password for security or harrashment (looking at you, Zoom).
How are they being exploited? Assuming TikTok skims some revenue off the top, they are still being exploited far less than they would by any form of traditional employment.
TikTok is a mirror to the suffering and depravity that occurs in these places. We should be focused collectively on trying to make conditions better for these people, not trying to smash the mirror.
the idea that not paying for an author's book doesn't negatively affect the author is absurd.
there are valid reasons to pirate books sometimes but at the end of the day, someone has to pay something into the system to keep books getting published
I'm sure there's at least some but barbieheimer has been a meme since the first dates got announced so I think it's pretty safe to say that a lot of it is people seeing both. My local theater even has the posters right next to each other.
My fiance and 10 of our friends already got tickets to both and can't wait. We're seeing Oppenheimer first, then a quick break for smoking weed, then back in for barbie
Wow, how did you get 12 people to commit for 5h simultaneously? Not facetious, genuinely curious. I don’t think I could do that even for a shorter birthday party
This is my thought. I have to believe there’s a solid inverse relationship of interest. But everyone is interested in one of them. Parents/kids or men/women seem like sensible cohorts for Oppenheimer/Barbie.
Would be interesting to see the data and if showtimes overlap. Or if it’s truly back to back.
I think you have a too narrow view of people’s interests.
I would describe the overlap as “people into films that are with a relatively high likelihood interesting”. Given who is directing and who is involved with both of those films that’s a relatively safe bet.
Fast & Furious in a double feature with Trolls. That’s what I would describe as double feature with little overlap. Both films have probably relatively distinct demographics that like them and the films are unlikely to be in any way interesting.
Maybe the later are harder to find on demand, but there are plenty there.
There are benefits and tradeoffs each way. I think the most important thing is to know what kind of person you are and what you want, and move towards finding work where you can be mostly actualized in that.