tbrownaw

Ethics as opposed to morality is about codified rules. This seems to be somewhat conflating the two.

Also this sounds like it's talking about both designing those rules and also applying existing rules, without noticing much distinction between those aspects.

For applying existing rules, is there any reason that can't be mechanized aside from "the tools just aren't that capable yet"?

Designing the rules does have a "will this work as intended" component that can probably be machine-enhanced, but is largely about preferences / "should" questions.

The closest thing there is is e-beam lithography. It isn't really practical.

There's a decent amount of distributed stuff that has a design principle of not trusting the hardware it's running on.

There is no world where accepting data corruption in order to save 3% cost is a reasonable tradeoff.

It is if you're doing something where corruption is detectable after the fact, and happens rarely enough that redoing affected work adds less than 3% overhead.

I definitely disagree with the idea that workers don't take on the risks.

When $employer beats or misses targets, that affects my bonus (which is formalized for only the higher pay bands, probably on the theory that we can actually have some individual impact somehow) but not my base salary which is actually the vast majority of what I'm paid.

Risk isn't zero, but it's far less than what the equity holders see.

I thought the labor theory of value wasn't much of a thing any more?

Imagine we had that for software - "your JS is too big, you can't ship until you get it under 50 kB".

... But also that needs to be an official measurement, and if you're sloppy you can measure it wrong during your own testing and then be surprised.

social media seems to be much more harmful

The stuff I've seen on this doesn't look terribly convincing. It seems to mostly be along the same lines as saying that since some people get bullied or hang out with a bad crowd, socializing in general is harmful.

$employer uses Cursor, which is apparently owned by them and presumably using their models now.

That's a much longer long run than Keynes' "in the long run we are all dead".

Musk bought Twitter looking to build an “everything app,”

I thought it was mostly on a whim that turned out to be binding, and the 'everything app' plan came later?

Why should there be a difference in the degree being conferred at all?

You are asking why there "should" be a difference between a CCNA cert and a Computer Science degree. That difference isn't a "should" thing, it's an "is" thing. They are fundamentally different.

why not split off the departments that confer degrees with a low-earning potential

Earning potential is unrelated to the distinction between trade certification vs academic degrees.

So have community things where people give free lectures at the local library or whatever.

I read the parent comment as claiming that some colleges select student bodies that are on average worse than the average of people who don't go to college at all.

I would think that in this case, credit would mostly go to people expected to not have negative net worth after that 7 year limit.

pejoratively named "trade schools"

That's an accurate name, and only seems pejorative if you see learning a trade as lesser than studying academics.

name university can confer a bachelor's in some bullshit field, but the respectable local trade school cannot confer a bachelor's in plumbing

This misunderstands what the different kinds of credentials are.

just make even cheapest CPUs support 8/16 DDR4 channels

Isn't adding pins kind of expensive?

Also, the manufacturers can never be held responsible, because they have legal immunity for the COVID vaccines.

Since there was basically a soft mandate for it, especially on top of some of the usual official red tape being cut, the manufacturers really wouldn't be the appropriate party to hold responsibility. That'd be the government.

I suspect that those other groups are largely not trying to generate fiction.

I've heard that word used to refer to (still) pictures, and in more casual/offhand use to refer to text. I don't understand it as being quite so restricted by media-type as you seem to.

The unit needs to be tied to the relative usefulness for its time.

That requires baking in assumptions, and makes the data less general.

You can go from $/gb to $/usefulness fairly trivially by adding assumptions, but you can't go the other way.

It could also be that business conditions provided a convenient opportunity to run some experiments.

If you've ever worked in hospitality or retail, you'll know that managers will call/contact you at all hours to make sure they have coverage. It's irritating.

I vaguely remember a few years ago there was some news pushing new scheduling software that was supposed to help make schedules more predictable, and how it wasn't working to full potential because store managers wouldn't trust it.

But I don't think the bill in question here would actually do anything to affect that issue?

I don't really see any other interpretation of saying that if someone says you're wrong you should update your worldview. There isn't much that could be other than a call for unquestioning belief.

The comment I was replying to appears to be a call for unquestioning belief. Which is the far extreme in the opposite direction.

Someone is telling you the world works differently for them than it does for you, which means you've got an opportunity to learn something new about the world and expand your model.

...than it does for you, which means there's an opportunity for someone to expend resources verifying and characterizing the claimed difference.

a lot of people who are victims of

Are there statistics somewhere about what percent of people in various roles get asked but know they're safe declining, or mistakenly think they can't decline, or correctly think they'd get in trouble for declining, or don't get asked but think they have to anyway?

Indeed. If $job is not willing to buy and hand me a "work phone" then they are out of luck

My employer has a BYOD program with a monthly stipend that is somewhat more than my phone provider (Fi) charges for an extra line. I think doing this with a non-flagship phone would probably pay for itself in a year or two.

Maybe I just have abnormal leverage

It could also be a personality thing or a worldview thing.

Some people just have a hard time saying "no" in general, or are constantly looking for reasons to jump at shadows.

Or there's people teaching that the world runs on class warfare and anyone with any amount of power is always looking for an excuse to abuse that power.

How would this interact with existing rules around exempt / non-exempt (roughly, salaried vs hourly) employees?

I would think it would already be expensive to make someone paid by the hour do extra work stuff during time they're not already being paid for.