I live in an area with a lot of various immigrant groups, so the hair requirement gets limited to neat and tidy without specifying length. There is also a lot more leeway if you aren’t seeing a client or you’re out in the field.

It sounds like you live around a lot of racist people, but also an unresponsive legal system. The number of successful lawsuits in my state regarding discrimination have generally beat out any desire to measure hair in the industry I work in.

Fold up the ladder and put your arm through the middle opening so you’re balancing one leg of the ladder on your shoulder. Use your hand to help keep balance and it frees up your other arm to carry other things.

I wasn’t talking about hair? I feel like we’re starting to mix appearance requirements with non-appearance presentation.

And I don’t care about hair other than it would be considered “neat” in the culture it came from. Given the multicultural mix of where I work, people wear a wide variety of different hair styles including afros, turbans, beards, and marks on their forehead. Even worked with a non-federally recognized Native American engineer who wore his hair long in a ponytail.

That assumes people can read a form.

Having needed to hire for engineering teams, I think the iced coffee would be a big deal if the position was client facing and wouldn’t be if it was internal.

The answer for me of “who defines professionalism” is the client. If the effective end client is me, I don’t care. I’m pretty lax and chill.

However, if I’m hiring for a client facing role and you bring an iced coffee, you are saying that you don’t know or don’t care about client expectations and that is a red flag. I work in an industry where it is still the expectation to wear a suit and tie to certain client meetings. If you can’t play the game with me, how can I trust you to play the game with the client?

So, I look at this from the opposite point of view, would I want to hire social people for high danger situations? For most situations, the answer is no.

If I need something done right and I’m willing to risk a human life for it, why am I sending someone whose main goal is to die and be happy with that as the achieved goal? I have to spend time and money getting them fit for purpose just to lose that investment because they blew themselves up. Then, I potentially have to deal with a hazardous situation caused by their death, which may cause additional damage and loss of life.

0

I have a friend who runs his AI locally because he doesn’t want to pay for tokens.

It is a universe where DRM tied to a central server is impossible. It is likely the software beyond the OEM is cracked to hell and modified far beyond its original purpose. After all, the Millennium Falcon’s nav computer is repurposed droid software.

The term is new, but the idea has been around for a while. A lot of mid century assassinations were done by people who would be classified by incels today. It is also reasonable to see the movie Taxi Driver as a story of an incel.

The total numbers seem higher now.

I learned how to pick up a ladder from am Amtrak flagger. It works really well.

My thought is “Why?”.

I fell like you need to people who are radically honest with others and I don’t understand why the long distance relationship is being maintained.

I was burnt out and the company was in the process of merging with two other companies. The leadership shifted to a bunch of people who wanted to be in charge but didn’t have a plan on doing what their targets were. All changes were sudden and generally led to conditions worse than they were before.

So I left.

I land on it being unintentional, mainly because I saw this issue they were describing now to earlier cases of training, like having a stick figure learn to walk. It is also an issue with natural forms of intelligence, where children will do things out of line because they’ve learned a set of skills and ideas but haven’t put them together in a way that is socially acceptable yet.

I don’t know if the LLM was trained to test vulnerabilities or it just went down the statistical path to where this yielded a passing outcome.

That AI could take a direction to output in a manner which wasn’t intended has been seen for years. The problem right now is that it is being used live like a rational human adult when it clearly isn’t.

Cheyenne isn’t that bad, especially compared to other Wyoming towns.

Different parts of the world are going to look at geography differently. Different countries don’t even agree on the number of continents and what they are.

If an Iranian said West Asia, I probably wouldn’t disagree because that is them referring to their home country in a direct translation of how they see it. They don’t have the cultural baggage of English speakers, so they will look at themselves differently.

The non-producing couple were portrayed as being yuppies, which would be upper middle class. This is conveyed in how they dressed, their home, and how they spoke. It isn’t the wealthy elite, but the professional class below them. This contrasts with the poor group living in a trailer park during a time when trailer park trash was a common expression.

And I don’t think that “poor people shouldn’t procreate” was the message of the movie. However, the movie has a thesis from those first few minutes, intended or not, that making life safer and easier for everyone to predominantly lead to the dumb uncultured masses taking over well built systems until they degrade to the point where they don’t work any more.

The requirement that it goes through jurors who are your peers is the point. The requirement came from where a judge appointed by the King might not be fully trusted to act in the public’s interests, but the King’s interest. The ability to judge someone guilty devolved to a jury because it was a lot easier to do this than any other form of check on judicial power.

How bad can the cheating be if it doesn’t involve securities fraud?