Stack Exchange
log in

Clay07g

 Discussion on question by Pascal Klei…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Clay07g
Jul 27, 2021 21:52
I think this is a good question. Have you considered just making Monday and Friday optionally remote days? Then everyone knows the expectation and no one has to schedule in advance. If the meeting is important and needs to be done on that day, make it remote-friendly. Frankly if the meeting isn't important enough to bother typing at me, then I'd prefer you just drop it altogether and save me the time of sitting through what sounds like pointlessness. I mean even if you're forced to use ancient tech like cellphones, surely that will work in such emergencies, right?
 

 Discussion on question by nocariño: S…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Clay07g
May 18, 2021 07:08
I ask this completely genuinely: has anyone a part of the specific client made any insensitive or otherwise negative against you or your beliefs, or is your problem solely on the grounds of their belief about homosexuality being "a sin"? I don't ask to be snarky, because if it's the former, there could be alternative answers.
 

 Discussion on answer by Peter - Reins…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
Clay07g
Mar 18, 2021 19:52
@Nobody Well the question actually says "are not opposed" and not "likes". If you keep changing the goalposts, of course you'll never be wrong.
Clay07g
Mar 18, 2021 19:52
@Nobody You and many of the other comments seem to be confusing law enforcement and law administration (judicial). Law enforcement is always by force in every country of every political and economic system. The first comment is insinuating that the rule of law requires law enforcement, which is forceful by definition. This insinuation is historically true. No law enforcement allows the criminally accused to simply not face law administration if they choose.
Clay07g
Mar 18, 2021 19:52
@Peter-ReinstateMonica There might be a connection. I personally rely on science and statistics to back up such claims. Unfortunately, I naively thought this website did, too.
 

 Discussion on question by Tyler Selde…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Clay07g
Nov 19, 2020 01:25
I'm not sure self-defense is a good analogy since self-defense is usually in the context of bodily harm and/or death rather than property, and also happens in real-time synchronously. A better analogy might be that it's like someone taking taking your wallet and then you slashing their car tires.
Clay07g
Nov 19, 2020 01:25
And to add, hacking isn't really like physical crime. First of all, servers are generally not owned by the person using them, and the use of them by a hacker doesn't mean that the server itself hosts anything illegal. Therefore, if you take down the "hacker's server", you might actually really just be injecting malware into Amazon's or Google's machines which are not doing anything illegal, which should be obvious as to why that's a crime and certainly not self defense.
 

 Discussion on answer by Jontia: Who "…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
Clay07g
Nov 12, 2020 10:05
@AzorAhai-him- Well that's exactly the point. Saying that you think something is bullshit and calling it illegitimate are two entirely different statements. Also, the definition of "illegitimate" is "not recognized as lawful", so I find your second sentence nonsensical in every way. It's not an issue of phrasing. It's an issue of saying something that is simply not true.
Clay07g
Nov 12, 2020 10:05
@AzorAhai-him- What do you mean, "whatever word I want to use"? Either they are claiming that the 2016 election is illegitimate or they are not. If you say the election is illegitimate because of the electoral college, I will explain why that's factually incorrect. If you think the election is "something else" because of the electoral college, then say so and don't ask me for a word to place there.
Clay07g
Nov 12, 2020 10:05
@AzorAhai-him- The electoral college was designed specifically so that you could be legitimately elected president without the majority vote. It's the definition of legitimate. If someone was to become president with the majority votes yet not have 270 electoral votes, that would be illegitimate under the current laws.
 

 Discussion on answer by Chris Stratto…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Clay07g
Sep 18, 2020 11:57
@JosefsaysReinstateMonica Unless you plan to pull a server out of your butt then I'd say that there are many, many environments in which you absolutely cannot do that. Not everyone can host their code on public Github or Gitlab and use free CI pipelines. Are you going to pull out your wallet to pay for CI software for a company you work for? Also, many builds are more complex than "npm run build" or "./gradlew build" you know.
Clay07g
Sep 18, 2020 11:57
Setting up build servers, automated build tooling, etc are work units that FAR, FAR, FAR exceed just having everyone use the same tools. Yes, it's better but that's not what the OP even asked about. You have absolutely no idea what the constraints are for OP to actually execute on any of the suggestions in this answer.
Clay07g
Sep 18, 2020 11:57
The pretentiousness in this non-answer and comments are absolutely incredible. Wow.
2
 

 Discussion on question by nautilus: C…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
Clay07g
Jun 11, 2020 08:22
Also, note that this study does not make an attempt to contextualize any of the data or control for factors other than age, race, and sex. Many debates around this topic talk about "justified" vs "unjustified" killings. This study does not differentiate them, so no conclusions can be made on that topic (in either direction). The authors of this study make that clear when they say "While our research does not evaluate the effects of policy, we believe that...". Of course, since most people will only see the statement as presented in the question, this nuance is hard to keep in mind.
 

 Discussion on answer by Kilisi: I lik…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Clay07g
Feb 14, 2020 12:45
@aaaaasaysreinstateMonica It's inappropriate everywhere. If someone asks you "How do I climb stairs?", the answer isn't "Consider consulting a orthotist because you might need prosthetic legs". Well, I guess that's technically a true answer, but it's not very comprehensive.
Clay07g
Feb 14, 2020 12:45
@aaaaasaysreinstateMonica OP didn't mention medical issues in the question. Assuming them in the answer is inappropriate for Stack Exchange, and even more inappropriate to suggest that another answer is wrong for not making such an assumption. I would even suggest that the combination of this answer and your answer provide a comprehensive plan.
 

 Discussion on question by Fizz: Do Eu…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
Clay07g
Oct 16, 2019 20:28
Your article only lists a handful of schools out of thousands, and even says most students in those schools don't even use the pronoun registration system at all. "Big cultural trend" is beyond an overstatement.
 

 Discussion on answer by bdb484: A stu…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Clay07g
Sep 30, 2019 03:53
@Jules In theory, maybe. In practice, you'd be very lucky to charge someone with a crime when they caused no one any harm or even any potential danger. I mean, some people believe in religious Curses, yet we can't just charge everyone with a crime for uttering magic words, even if they believe they work. Jia Yi Jian is obviously potentially unsafe, but why are you linking that? We have no idea what the substance was. It could have been over-the-counter sexual boosters, such as Ashwagandha, sold at any supermarket in the US, which seems much more likely
Clay07g
Sep 30, 2019 03:53
@Trish I think that's the whole point. Criminal charges depend on the outcome of the event. If you put peanut butter in my coffee without my knowledge, it wouldn't hurt me, and therefore you couldn't really be charged with anything. If you did the same thing to someone who is severely allergic to peanuts, you could be charged with reckless endangerment, battery, assault, murder, etc depending on the outcome. Therefore, the argument this answer proposes is similar, since the substance didn't cause any harm, it would be difficult to actually get any big charges to stick.
 

 Discussion on answer by Barry Harriso…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
Clay07g
Aug 6, 2019 10:55
Given the small sample size and interesting results, it's also worth questioning the quality of sampling. What organization conducted these surveys? How were the surveys worded? How did they ensure no bias was introduced? I don't think anyone could be convinced that those samples represented all of the subgroups of both black and white in the area, and since we don't know much the specifics of the methodologies, we can't even speculate as to how adequately the survey selection was spread. At the absolute very least, no one should be reaching conclusions without a few follow-up studies.
 

 Discussion on answer by inappropriate…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
Clay07g
Jul 12, 2019 08:33
@CramerTV I completely agree, but that doesn't really change the issue. If you pull your child out of a class because you believe it is harmful to your personal beliefs, it's an act of tolerance, but not acceptance. If you demand that no one be allowed to teach it, it's both an act of intolerance and non-acceptance. It's important that we understand such nuances instead of sweeping them under the rug and pretending that they are simpler than they are.
Clay07g
Jul 12, 2019 08:33
@CramerTV Until someone disagrees with your definition of "tolerance". Do you mean tolerance as acceptance?
 

 Discussion on answer by gnasher729: M…

Imported from a comment discussion on money.stackexchange.com/...
Clay07g
May 28, 2019 16:23
In fact, it's not legal. law.stackexchange.com/questions/24455/…
Clay07g
May 28, 2019 16:20
Either way, there are many people in every city in the US whose rent and living expenses are below $2500. Therefore, it makes absolutely no sense to force your child to pay that.
Clay07g
May 28, 2019 16:20
Meaning, when I said "childs expenses", I meant the child's consumption, which could be food, cell phone, car insurance, maybe a car payment. Who knows
Clay07g
May 28, 2019 16:19
@Davidmh Cost of life doesn't apply to a child. Children have no choice in where they live. The property on which they live is due solely by the consumption of the parent, and therefore not their concern.
Clay07g
May 27, 2019 16:59
@cbeleites I did not suggest legal action. As the next answer says, the child can either open a new account and transfer the money or withdraw it and keep it in a mattress. The $2500 can be considered gone.
Clay07g
May 27, 2019 16:59
Would like to point out here that the mother has taken $2500 in the course of a month and forcefully borrowed $1050. In most places in the world, that is well over the costs of a single child's monthly living expenses. This answer is based on the premise that the mother is trying to obtain household contribution, which is most likely false. The mother is stealing the money for her expenses, whatever they may be, not the child's. No rent agreement will solve that unless you're suggesting the child pays for the whole household.
 

 Discussion on answer by Snow: Can I c…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Clay07g
Apr 25, 2019 12:30
"If it works, it works" isn't appropriate. Code is read more than it's written. Do you think developers are doing this reading on their own time or on company pay?
2
 

 Discussion on answer by motosubatsu: …

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Clay07g
Feb 6, 2019 07:12
@PedroA Therefore, changing your applicant pool demographic is the only way where you can still hire the absolute best candidates from those who applied, while also not unfairly giving jobs to people who didn't perform the best when compared to others who wanted the job. The only way this can result in lower quality top applicants is by either unintentionally lowering the number of people who apply, or it turns out that people of [X group] you didn't focus on are actually born as better developers (which so far has not been shown to be true).
Clay07g
Feb 6, 2019 07:12
@PedroA Therefore, if you change the labor supply demographic from which you hire, you will have different results. For example, if I heavily advertise my position at an all-female school, the demographic who apply to my company will be mostly female, which is different than the population demographic. So if now 70% of my applicants are female, then it's much more likely that 7 of the top 10 candidates will be female, which would be a perfect balance. If you don't do this, and your applicant pool is 90% male, then it's more likely than 9/10 top candidates will be male.
Clay07g
Feb 6, 2019 07:12
@PedroA You can't really assume any particular group of people are inherently better at something than another. The fact is that in most labor supply demographics for software developers, white males are the majority. Therefore, if every race and gender had a perfectly equal chance at being good developers, the top ten candidate would be mostly white males (simply because there are more of them).
 

 Discussion on answer by Joe Strazzere…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Clay07g
Jan 19, 2019 07:25
@ShinEmperor Please explain to me how any of those "CIRCUMSTANCES" compare to the OP's personal safety or happiness? If my house is on fire, do you think I'm going to look out each window first and determine exactly what hazards I'll be exposed to if I leave?
Clay07g
Jan 19, 2019 07:25
+1. This answer needs no consideration of anything. Your personal safety and happiness come first. I cannot comprehend how so many people feel like your job is so important that you'd rather be forced to hang out with your own sexual harasser.
 

 Discussion on answer by Joe Strazzere…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Clay07g
Jan 11, 2019 14:35
I've found that hackers are often good resources for preventing hackers.
 

 Discussion on answer by MichaelK: Emp…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Clay07g
Jan 8, 2019 01:19
@MichaelK There is no evidence that even remotely implies workplace harassment in the information given in this question. Sometimes people don't like each other, sometimes people like to be alone. Low performers often try to avoid work. I work in Software Engineering so I see this a lot. There's no reason at all to suspect harassment.
Clay07g
Jan 8, 2019 01:19
-1 this answer is 70% based on the assumption that the employee is being harassed. If the OP doesn't know about any harassment, and the employee won't speak up, they aren't going to be held liable for it unless it was blatantly negligent, which is quite an assumption to base the majority of your answer on. I rarely see someone who doesn't have a few colleagues they'd rather not sit by.
 

 Discussion on question by user1605665…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
Clay07g
Jan 6, 2019 09:57
Is anyone going to point out that Japan's culture and diet are major factors in their life expectancy, with a probability that they are the most significant factors? This picture is not incorrect, it's just heavily misleading.
 

 Discussion on answer by SaggingRufus:…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Clay07g
Dec 10, 2018 23:16
@RichardU It doesn't happen to have an exception for refuting incredibly ignorant and dangerous advice, does it?

I mean, come on. Why don't we store our loaded guns in the fridge? Maybe our powertools in the pantry? Our hunting knives in our dressers?
Clay07g
Dec 9, 2018 02:25
@jcmack Interesting stance, considering you literally just advised someone to do that.
Clay07g
Dec 9, 2018 02:25
@jcmack That's illegal in some areas, such as Maine. You should really do some research before telling someone to potentially commit a crime. Not only that, it's a good way to kill or injure children or family members.
 

 Discussion on question by PascLeRasc:…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Clay07g
Dec 9, 2018 02:24
Note: Trying to conceal an otherwise perfectly legitimate medication is a good way to make others believe it's illegitimate. I understand public medication can be uncomfortable, but I'd imagine your manager sitting you down to talk about rumors of your drug problem is worse.
 

 Discussion on answer by Frank Cedeno:…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
Clay07g
Nov 22, 2018 21:50
@PoloHoleSet I've never seen such a naive statement. You clearly have no radio, TV, and you've never seen an internet advertisement. If you did, you'd see tons of one-liners pulled from interviewers with a narrator interpreting it and omitted any and all elaboration from the answerer. The simple fact that people interpreted his answer as a stance on birth control and not broad, over-reaching philosophy should tell you something, but it seems to have completely alluded you.
Clay07g
Nov 22, 2018 21:50
If that interviewer wanted to know about Romney's opinion on government reach, he wouldn't have combined it with such a controversial issue that detracted from the question. So either that interviewer was hopelessly horrible at his job and had absolutely no idea what he was doing, or he intentionally asked a distracting question.
Clay07g
Nov 22, 2018 21:50
@PoloHoleSet Considering state-wide bans of all contraception for everyone was never an actual issue, it's pretty hypothetical. More importantly, it's like asking "Do you think people have the right to speak freely in public, even if it is racist?" and then claiming anyone who says yes supports and enables racists. It's a classic bait-and-switch. From my studies in political polling, I'm telling you this is exactly the question I was specifically instructed to avoid asking.
Clay07g
Nov 22, 2018 21:50
@PoloHoleSet You're being incredibly obtuse. That question is extremely biased. It's specifically designed to trick someone who believes in a small federal governmental reach to say yes. If the interviewer wanted to know whether or not Romney supported banning contraceptives, he would have asked him that. He didn't, and instead asked a question about state government autonomy, which was then concluded to suggest that the answer was about supporting or not supporting the use of birth control. It's textbook misleading. I actually read about this type of question in a college PoliSci textbook
 

 Discussion between PoloHoleSet and Cl…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
Clay07g
Nov 21, 2018 21:51
Sorry, but I cannot continue this discussion because you're operating under a different set of definitions than I can find in the dictionary.

Combine that with you're incredibly naive stance and blind defense of an objectively poorly-designed question shows that there is no getting through your bias.
Clay07g
Nov 21, 2018 21:49
The question means whatever you want it to mean whenever you find that it better suits your argument
Clay07g
Nov 21, 2018 21:49
Exactly
Clay07g
Nov 21, 2018 21:49
Oh so now the question is about birth control and not some "broad, over-reaching philosophy"