fauxpause_

It’s not clear to me that the article actually contradicts it

If this commenter is to be believed it was a 3 year contract prepaid at 20ish per year

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35866061

If an org can’t tell who is good and worthy of promotion when they’re working for them every day, they have no chance of doing so in an interview

No, we are not close. Walk pads and haptic gloves will not solve it.

VR is not immersive. The people in the movie (or book) are IN THE WORLD. They teeter over ledges, and jump over things. They touch things. They move around. They fiddle with small objects.

Our VR isn’t anything like that. If your foot is half off a ledge you are not off balance. You don’t jump, not really. When you do it tends to feel gross. You don’t touch things. Objects feel very fake up close. Most stuff is basically immutable. And it has to be because the game engines aren’t capable of more. It’s all clearly fake.

I would not bet on my friends feeling present if they were in such a distraction prone environment though

Seems irrelevant if the people getting the job by cheating are considered high performers getting promotions

I don’t agree that those things are at all related to not preparing for work presentations

8 friends at home, playing VR poker, each watching different TV, talking to other people, and playing other games on their own?

I’ve always thought a suit or even just patches with tubes that could inflate to apply pressure could work.

I find it pretty crazy to see the current state of VR and conclude Ready Player One is not far off.

We are nowhere close.

But that’s not cheating on presenting, that’s just doing a bad job, no? That is, just visible incompetence?

Don’t do things that are not useful, enjoyable, or rewarding.

If the assessment has no relationship to the job requirements then the test assessment cannot be justified either

What does spitball mean? I don’t prepare for presentations but I can’t tell how that would be cheating.

There are not enough people like you. Like 5% of movie theater seats get sold. The only way to be profitable is to be able to sell out the popular films.

Is it? Idk. I feel like Japanese media always shows these disgusting low lifes. There’s always some super perv who wants to take advantage of chaos to try to rape a girl. But… it feels like Japan is the least likely country for this to happen when we look at their examples of what happens when things actually go to shit?

Even this link you have of an insane guy going on a killing rampage has him doing so with seemingly empathetic, good intentions. Both going out of his way to not harm employees and turning himself in.

> In his letter and in statements made after turning himself in, Uematsu explained that he was "saving from unhappiness" both the severely disabled and those who he believed were burdened with maintaining their lives.

Fucked up, but I’d say still orders of magnitude better than the school shooters and racially motivated killings that dominate the US mass murder scene.

Because she is renting a second apartment in SF for convenience

Not a great example. This guy has a severe neurological illness (although to be clear, I don’t think it’s a mental illness affecting his decision making capabilities). The hospital has said he can stay in the hospital, die, or get care at home.

It seems he wants to get care at home at his with the government money spent at his discretion. And they won’t let him do that. So he is suing them for offering death.

The hospital care at home might be shit. But that’s tangential to the issue.

> It opens with a radio reporting that a gunman has opened fire in an old people’s care home – the latest in an epidemic of violence targeted at the elderly.

This is… dumb, right? Like it would be extremely unlikely to occur in Japan?

Idk. The film sounds interesting but I really don’t think it needs the implied insidious twists. They author says in the article that they don’t pick a side but… come on. Then why is there a reveal that the government is trying to compel people to do this in a manipulative way?

I’m not clear what he is talking about here. It sounds like he is referring the lack of the right to hold certain jobs.

Which is I suppose is adjacent to the gig economy controls.

The risk profile is different though. An employer is going to see you every day. They’re incentivized at least on some level to have a good faith relationship. They can fire you, but that inconveniences them even if you’re totally fungible.

A gig employer is unlikely to work with you again regardless. They don’t have much of a reason to care about you. And if they rate you poorly, that can potentially shut you out of the market entirely. Or cause you to pay for costly and timely retrainings like the article.

It’s a much harsher employment contract imo.

This is a very confusing article to me.

It features a woman who talked about how her family had no work opportunities. But then had a job as a dental receptionist for 15 years, and got married to a guy with a sales manager job. She has bought a house and a motorbike. And now she does this beauty stuff. And she makes 20% more than her husband?

The rest of it… eh. Seems like they’re suggesting a lot of this is just a middle man inserting themselves into a pre existing market.

Gig work seems like socialized slavery to me. Peel back the sticker and you have all sorts of constraints around what work you have to do to maintain your rights and wages as a worker. Like the reference here of requiring paid retraining if your rating falls too low. In such a system, at purchaser of labor can inflict serious harm to their worker at will. I don’t think this is a mainstream idea but it feels like the natural end game.

Seems like a… dumb quote to me. Failure to account for externalities is a regulation policy failure and nothing more.

I only think it did in the past though.

This post is comprised good points.

Trusting the results is basically impossible now though. Even if they’re solution focused, you don’t know if they were adjusted in scale.

Their goal is to incur that cost. It is a short term goal.

> No, the Fed is trying to lower aggregate consumer demand to rein in the growth in consumer prices. If it could acheive that entirely by adversely impacting availability and cost of credit while unemployment kept dropping, that would be ideal, given the other side of its dual mandate.

It would be ideal. But it is not achievable. So raising unemployment is a short term goal to achieve the broader goal of stability.

Yes they are. They’re very clear about this. They are trying to raise unemployment as a lever to reduce inflation. That is not to say they want unemployment to rise indefinitely, but they do want it to rise.

Theoretically, yes. But is that what is happening in practice?