chrisallenlane

> I watched a video of a man stomping on a dog's back, breaking it, and listening to the dog's high-pitched whines as it died. I watched all of it.

I wonder if the job truly requires these contractors to watch these videos in their entirety. If so - why? Regarding the above, surely you'd only need to watch up until the moment the man broke the dog's back to determine that the video was not "advertiser-friendly".

Isn't compartmentalization easier said than done, though? Is "just don't let it bother you" really useful advice, or even possible?

For what it's worth, this entire thread is making me feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Typically, I appreciate the nuanced, thoughtful, and introspective discussions we tend to have here.

In this case? Like, what the fuck is there even to discuss here? This is black and white. You free the slave and deal with "social inconveniences" or whatever. Jesus Christ.

I agree 100%. I'm frankly still not certain if Google talk and G-chat are even the same thing. I've used G-chat for a long time, but don't remember the name being changed.

Also, regarding branding: even overlooking the shell-game Google is playing with regards to moving features around (SMS => Voice, SMS => Hangouts, SMS => ?), the branding was confusing from the outset:

- Google Chat (GChat) - Google Talk - Google Voice

These might as well be synonyms.

_Friday the 13th_, no less.

That's a fair point. That probably is harder to detect.

I wonder if this is as big of a problem as the author is making it out to be.

I understand that the "right hook" kills a lot of cyclists, but I assume that's largely because of human driver blind-spots. Does the self-driving car have the same (or any) blind-spots?

This behavior should probably be fixed regardless, but I doubt these Uber cars are all rolling murder machines like the author seems to believe.