My customers trust me with millions of pieces of their confidential data, and billions of dollars of their money. I'm not going to start abusing that trust by hiring felons, for a lot of roles I wouldn't even hire somebody that had bad credit. I'd hope that most of the companies I trust treat me with the same level of respect.
I own an F-Pace, and it's all for the luxury, not the coolness. Riding in it and driving it is simply a luxury experience. I'd consider buying one of these, except it's quite ugly and has the same dumb wheel aesthetic that BMW put on their even uglier electric cars.
Perhaps we've just been looking in the wrong place for it. Spending all this time in laboratories, when we had it all along in the centre of our solar system.
>Just because the company has discarded this person it also means I must discard them as well? It kills me every time, but I NEED my paycheck more than I prefer to help my fellow human.
I think they should have given you a personality test before giving you HR responsibilities. I'm not trying to disparage you, but you seem not particularly suited to that job.
Actually, he won thanks to ~63,000,000 votes. You’re also trying to make it sound like there was something uniquely nefarious about his campaign. He used the same marketing tactics that all recent campaigns have used. The same tactics that Obama was widely praised for in 2012. He won because voters liked him more.
Neither candidate was campaigning for a popular vote, they were both campaigning to win the electoral college. Which Trump did because ~63,000,000 Americans decided, purely of their own free will, that he was the better candidate. No matter how much you try to retroactively gerrymander the outcome, both candidates were playing on a level playing field, one of them won and one of them lost. It’s really a testament to democracy that an outsider candidate can prevail over the amount of establishment support Hillary had.
There's so much wrong with this comment. Correct, he received ~63m votes. Hillary received 65.85m votes. He won because our presidential election system is based on an electoral college (which may be debated as a plus or minus). But that also means certain states have a disproportionate amount of representation with respect to their population.
Please don't delude yourself or at least attempt to be honest. Races at the county and state level matter a lot. It matters that outside of a couple of states, the winner take all electoral system can have a significant impact on elections.
Yes, those are the rules that have been established, that both parties are privy to when developing their campaign strategy.
But let's not reduce that to "oh, one person won because people liked them more."
Nobody complains about the electoral college when their candidate wins. But when they do complain about it, you’ll notice they tend to only mention the shortcomings that support their point of view. For instance, you’ll never hear a Democrat talk about all of the Republican votes that are suppressed in the large liberal states.
Both candidates entered a race to win the electoral college. The race was fair and one of them won. You can’t claim some moral victory by counting the popular vote, because every candidate would campaign very differently to contest a popular vote.
I think you’re correct about one thing though, it is an oversimplification to say that people liked him more. It would be more accurate to say that they thought he would be a better president.
I don't understand this line of reasoning at all, but it's getting repeated a lot on HN. Is the AI expected to hit cyclists, but not pedestrians? Shouldn't it consider any moving object to be a hazard?
It may not have had good enough information to tell that she was a cyclist at all, and instead interpreted her to be something static/non-human altogether (in parent's example, a bush). Of course, without seeing the data its sensors gathered, and what that data registered as, it's all speculation. The problem is with misidentification, not bad priorities.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some kind of classification problem involved. But wouldn't the AV by default treat a solid object on the road as a hazard to brake for? There's no possible way to specifically train for every variation of thing that could be encountered on a city street (imagine Halloween, for starters).
It was a 3-lane highway. It wouldn't really make sense to break if the system detected a immobile object in a different lane. The problem is more that the system failed to detect the woman moving between lanes.
But the system has the ability to detect whether an object is moving in parallel (i.e. within its own lane) vs. across lanes, right? That would seem to be fundamentally necessary in everyday conditions, e.g. day traffic in which cars are switching/merging lanes.
If the problem is that the system didn't detect the woman moving between lanes, then that seemingly contradicts the police statement that the victim moved quickly enough to surprise the AV and its driver.
>but it's now blatantly clear to me that he deliberately used authoritarian tactics to win the election.
How on earth is such a baseless comment voted to the top of this thread? The truth is that this is a scandal, only because it involves Trump.
Pretty much all of what you've described is run-of-the-mill marketing, that has been used by all political parties for years. You also described some astroturfing, which is also widely used by all political parties (though perhaps some more than others).
How is any of that authoritarianism?
>favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.
The CEO job is the most high pressure job in an organisation, and by definition comes with the greatest level of responsibility. Statistically speaking, you would likely be a terrible CEO, and hate doing it.
"The CEO job is the most high pressure job in an organisation"
Oh please! What is the consequence of a CEO failing to perform up to expectation?
They get a golden parachute, take off with a mountain of cash and stock, and get rehired as a CEO of some other company. Once you reach that level you pretty much never have to worry about money or your job ever again, unless you're massively irresponsible with money or start committing crimes that can land you in jail.
Compare that with a typical worker whose entire family depends on them having a job, who's living paycheck to paycheck, and who is far from guaranteed to find another job if they're fired. They typically get absolutely nothing if they get fired, and if they don't find another job soon they and their family might be out on the street.
Compare your straw man to a CEO, who’s responsible for 10,000 families being able to pay their bills and feed themselves. All you’re describing is being lower down a hierarchy, which naturally tends to come with poor stress management and high sensitivity to negative emotions.
You also seem to be quite ignorant to what a CEO does, and the stakes of the position. Failure for a CEO can end your career, regardless of whether you’ve already established yourself as entirely financially independent. It is also by definition the position of greatest responsibility in a company. There is nobody in a company that faces greater pressure to perform.
If you fail at your job, it’s really unlikely that your failure will be dissected in the news paper for everyone to see. You could get fired and go out and get a new job. For a disgraced CEO, this is usually not an option. We could all point out a couple of examples of revolving door CEOs, but for most executives, this isn’t a career path or even an option.
I remember reading a study saying that middle management had the most stressful jobs. The worst stress is caused when you have responsibility without power. CEO's have a lot of responsibility, but they also have a lot of power.
But we're not talking about how stressful a job is. You said being a CEO would be fun.
For starters, unless you've got a lot of executive experience, if you had to turn up to work tomorrow and be the CEO, you'd be awful at it. So would I, so would anybody else that doesn't have that experience. I guess this wouldn't evenly apply to early stage start-ups, but they tend to not have much executive leadership anyway, regardless of whether they have a "CEO".
Being the CEO is all responsibility. There's very little room for error, and you unavoidably have to deal with a myriad of issues that you will have no personal interest in whatsoever. It is absolutely the most high pressure and difficult job in an organisation. If it weren't, then anybody could do it, when obviously that's not true. Also, if you're measuring who is the most stressed in an organisation, then you're going to come up against a lot of selection bias. You'd expect CEOs to have a better responsibility to stress ratio, because you'd expect CEOs to be better at managing stress.
I’d add that failing as a middle manager gets you fired with very little, while failing as a CEO gets you fired with a golden parachute. Failing as a CEO also seems to do little to harm your future prospects.
Putting aside the matter of competency for a moment (which I think is being too oversimplified in this discussion), this kinda touches on a positive feature of a free market. Which is that large organisations are by nature less efficient than smaller ones. This gives rise to the possibility of disruption and innovation. The ability to innovate quickly is generally what gives startups over well financed established players. If it weren't for this, then we would see antiquated businesses declining, and innovative startups rising from their ashes.
