Stack Exchange
log in

22286

 Clarifying Skeptics "pseudo-answer in…

Chatroom for skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4799/11643
22286
Dec 7, 2023 22:03
*This room was placed in timeout for 1 minute; Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore *
22286
Dec 7, 2023 22:02
This room was placed in timeout for 1 minute; asdf
 

 Discussion on answer by TheDemonLord:…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
22286
Nov 16, 2023 00:20
@nvoigt Well, the answer is up to your employer. Clearly not, since we have laws for these things. For example, "We aren't an explicitly religious organization, but the boss wants all of you to be extra knowledgeable about Islam and muslims, so you all have to go to this workshop every year." That's illegal in most of the western world.
 

 Discussion on answer by nvoigt: Do I …

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
22286
Nov 14, 2023 22:31
@JSLavertu If only you knew... Your contentment to dismiss so quickly is your prerogative. Your ignorance about it will remain.
22286
Nov 14, 2023 22:31
@JSLavertu For serious? This isn't even a right wing thing. They ascribe to it in their works. And this is why this dumb topic gets so divisive. Someone points out all the stuff that isn't plain ol' good manners, and then people jump to "hate speech, conspiracies". We've been through this a lot. Haven't you noticed the pattern yet? These workshops are often not just "be nice to gay people". Stop pretending that's not true.
 

 Discussion on question by benjamin: T…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
22286
Nov 10, 2023 00:21
I don't understand how you don't have app credentials, but the employee does. Seems to me you should simply request them, change them, then fire him.
 

 Discussion on answer by Wesley Long: …

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
22286
Nov 6, 2023 17:58
@Douglas Incidentals, room service, etc. I've never stayed at a hotel that didn't require a valid credit card for these items before you can check in.
22286
Nov 6, 2023 17:58
@JustinHilyard According to the OP, but he could be mistaken about what he's being trained/told to say. Customers are not interested in a long explanation about how the booking site works, and how sometimes people don't pay, etc. Explaining things to customers is like talking to children. The reasoning might not be technically accurate, but it is still valid and suits the customer's needs.
22286
Nov 6, 2023 17:58
@Esther Yes. I've been trying to make this point. If the third party handles booking, then they likely handle the payment too. I can't imagine any reason why someone would make a separate pre-auth and completed transaction, unless they lacked control over one or both of them. In that context, "we do a pre-auth because of the way the third party works" is a reasonable explanation, though you can disagree with it.
22286
Nov 6, 2023 17:58
@Douglas Obviously there being third parties involved is true, otherwise "make direct bookings next time" wouldn't make any sense to anyone.
22286
Nov 6, 2023 17:58
@Douglas I understand how pre-auths work. But the OP seems to be saying that a third party handles the actual payment, and sends it to the hotel. There's apparently some lack of control here.
22286
Nov 6, 2023 17:58
@Douglas That's where the third party reservation service comes in, I imagine. Somewhere along this train the manager has been skunked by non payers. Maybe there's a simple technical solution, maybe not. Being a bit on the manager's side of "third party reservation services", I'm inclined to believe they expect the hotel to deal with non payers on their own. As for the merchant terms, I'm not sure either, but I tend toward probably. Maybe that's on topic at money.stackexchange.com, but probably not.
22286
Nov 6, 2023 17:58
@pipe Maybe this answer just needs to be more clear. Is this wrong, as in illegal, fraud, against card processing terms? Or, is it "wrong" in Wesley's value judgement pov? This is what comments are for, pointing out errors or asking for clarification.
22286
Nov 6, 2023 17:58
If the hotel gets access to the card number, then it's definitely not against their terms with anyone. This answer is wrong. Unless you're just making a value judgement. A non finalized pre-auth doesn't end up on the statement.
 

 Discussion on question by G Tony Jaco…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
22286
Nov 5, 2023 19:06
@jmathew Yeah, that's the point of a pre-auth: to ensure that some amount will clear. If there was no risk of non-payers, the manager wouldn't be doing it.
22286
Nov 5, 2023 19:06
@jmathew If that were the common experience, then managers like this wouldn't need to chase or the non-payers, would he?
22286
Nov 5, 2023 19:06
@keshlam It could mean that the reservation services doesn't do a pre-auth, and maybe even expects that hotel to eat a vacancy when a guest can't pay, and so the reservation services only charges full amount on night 1, and either is successful and sends the money to the hotel, or it's not, and sends the hotel nothing. This, in effect, makes it a quirk of how the reservation services works. If there was a direct booking, the hotel probably does it the same, pre-auth the first night, then return than and charge the whole reservation on night 1.
22286
Nov 5, 2023 19:06
"Sometimes, this means that their payment card is declined for the room charges, purely because we preauthorized it." I very much doubt that's why. Seriously, some traveling on a budget so tight, $200 breaks the bank? Nope, that customer is the reason why the boss does this in the first place. The pre-auth practice makes it so that this guy's bad money decisions fall somewhere else.
 

 Discussion on question by Carduus: If…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
22286
Nov 1, 2023 21:53
@JBH For a site dedicated to fantasy and cheap thrill, you sure are a fuddy duddy.
 

 Discussion on question by Nobly noob:…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
22286
Oct 27, 2023 07:41
If you truly have other options, just move on and forget about it.
 

 Discussion on answer by Kilisi: Is wo…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
22286
Oct 20, 2023 20:34
@Falco They clearly don't have the same point. One person without any experience wants to force you to do something, while the other suggests a more personalized approach.
22286
Oct 20, 2023 20:34
Clearly better than "Oh, you should call osha, and neglect completely that 50 other employees apparently don't have any issue".
 

 Discussion on answer by user142083: I…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
22286
Oct 20, 2023 13:36
@hegel5000 What a can of worms that is.
22286
Oct 20, 2023 13:36
And boots aren't cheap...
22286
Oct 20, 2023 13:36
@Obie2.0 If this was only about money then we wouldn't have an argument, would we? Critical theories like "equity" don't give us any answers, especially when the answer is "personal responsibility".
22286
Oct 20, 2023 13:36
@Questor Like I already said above, should the company buy your shoes too? I can't imagine the job being safe without shoes on, but literally no one ever suggests a company that requires employees wear boots thinks the company should buy them. And when you use loaded language like "to protect their employee's health" you come off as dishonest. The level of protection a glove would allow here, while still allowing the job to be performed well, is not established at all. And even if it was, see argument one about the shoes again.
22286
Oct 20, 2023 13:36
@hegel5000 No body has advocated reckless behavior. But to surmise that people hurt enough on the job to require disability is due to their recklessness is a really crappy thing to say. When you've known people crushed by cars and such, attacking disability is not something you end up doing.
22286
Oct 20, 2023 13:36
@njzk2 I said "Most workers in these jobs consider many of these official rules to be a burden, not a help to them." If you had any experience in an industrial job you'd already know this. OSHA has a million rules that almost no one follows until inspection day, because they are not helpful and they slow you down. I'd thank you to not misquote me again while working from ignorance.
22286
Oct 20, 2023 13:36
@Newbyte You are literally complaining on her behalf. From your own answer "To me, this feels unacceptable. I think that at least, she should be given gloves or more time to accomplish these tasks." You know what kind of answer you want to hear. Industrial jobs are hard on your body. Everyone in that kind of job knows this, and they either love it and stick with it, or they grumble every day about it. Now consider your venue where you've put this question. You think you're getting a lot of seasoned industrial workers posting answers, or almost exclusively the kind programmers you find on SO?
22286
Oct 20, 2023 13:36
@njzk2 Yeah, that's what I said.
22286
Oct 20, 2023 13:36
This worker tried some style of glove, but was too thick, hence my specific recommendation. This further shows good attitude on the person's part.
22286
Oct 20, 2023 13:36
@stannius I don't know how to not reply with snark, when an employee complains about buying $3 worth of gloves. Should the employer buy his shoes too? Look, I've met these complainers in my various jobs, and the issue is never the gloves or whatever. The issue is their attitude. In this case, it's not even the OP! He's complaining on behalf of someone else, who, by the OP's account, has the correct attitude.
 

 Discussion on question by Lecifer: Pe…

Imported from a comment discussion on music.stackexchange.com/...
22286
Oct 8, 2023 21:30
I can't name any tone you give me, but I'm always less than a quarter step off when I tune high E on my guitar, and usually I'm dead on.
 

 Discussion on question by Neil Iyer: …

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
22286
Oct 7, 2023 20:44
Why do you need an exact number, rather than a proportionally large number, or some other target?
22286
Oct 7, 2023 20:44
@Mon Disease and exposure.
 

 Discussion on question by LordMalecit…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
22286
Oct 4, 2023 12:15
Isn't this basically what coral does, except with the children being released into the current, rather than the adults? Or by "animal" you mean "can move around on it's own"? Then there's all kinds of insects that are pretty close to immobile while larvae, but then come out of the tree and fly around as an adult. If you're looking for a real mix of heterotroph and autotroph, well, that would probably require a symbiosis.
 

 Discussion on question by Avery: Buyi…

Imported from a comment discussion on travel.stackexchange.com...
22286
Sep 29, 2023 15:12
@PlayerOne If they share an email, then they share all online accounts, but sysadmin don't design it that way. One account, one person. If they have one email, they can presumably get another easily. Your scenario is not a real issue.
22286
Sep 29, 2023 15:12
@quarague Your sneering tone "please don't assume people are like you" and signaling your virtue is way out of line. You can keep your politics, but keep them to yourself. I flagged your comment, but there's a moderation problem on this site on this exact thing.
22286
Sep 29, 2023 15:12
@supercat Name and email is always going to make a unique contact record, assuming you are smart enough to disallow duplicate contacts by email. User and password, also, as the "web-login version". For the handful of people without an email, it's just frankly not worth considering for virtually all applications. When they slap a name on a passport, that "identifies" you in a very archaic way that the Internet does not attempt to emulate. Hence, such documents always have a unique number.
22286
Sep 29, 2023 15:12
@AC A weird idea that restrictions on the name field is anything other than a cost benefit analysis and unwillingness to account for non-ascii and even non-english characters. English is the language of the world and the internet. The large majority of people have adapted to that, and the rest easily can. It's not worth the company's and programmers time to account for the odd ones.
22286
Sep 29, 2023 15:12
@JörgWMittag Thais didn't have family names until the 1950s, I think. It suddenly became a popular issue to have one, so they started making them up and putting them on government documents. Naturally, they quickly came to believe that longer names were more important, and so the names got longer. And longer. And longer. The government eventually had to step in and say that no government document will allow a name greater than X number of characters. If you know any Thais, you might have noticed they have a ridiculously long last name.
 

 Discussion on question by Stonecutter…

Imported from a comment discussion on travel.stackexchange.com...
22286
Sep 28, 2023 14:11
@iono "let's be real here". Yeah, sure. I'll wait for you to go first.
22286
Sep 28, 2023 14:11
@iono If that's how you interpret the video of 10,000 people of one race chanting to kill another race, I guess there's no reasoning with you at all.
22286
Sep 28, 2023 14:11
@iono So edit a "better one" in, if you can find it. Or just use the Fox one I link above. Or, keep the red herrings and well poisoning out of the comments section.
22286
Sep 28, 2023 14:11
The only coverage I could find among western media was Fox News. Meanwhile, WaPo, NYT, and many others run long articles to explain why there's no problem, most of them in the "conservatives pounce" variety. Nearly all western media will simply not report this kind of thing honestly.
22286
Sep 28, 2023 14:11
Few "better sites" will link it. Or talk about it. Most of them do the "conservatives pounce" routine, while they spend thousands of words to explain it away or justify it as not a big deal.
22286
Sep 28, 2023 14:11
@Clockwork "Western environment". Asians, as in people from Asia, are notoriously and often obliviously racist. Even against (maybe especially) other Asians with a different nationality. Koreans hate Japanese, Japanese hate Chinese, the Chinese hate Hong Kongese for considering themselves not Chinese. It's a mess.
22286
Sep 28, 2023 14:11
The "I'm not racist" disclaimer is unnecessary. Whether you are or aren't, it is a fact that black/white relations in South Africa are terrible right now and any tourist to the area has cause for concern. The issue, literally, is racists in South Africa, not you.
 

 Discussion on question by Bryan McClu…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
22286
Sep 28, 2023 00:38
@RobbieGoodwin Bad, pop-politics. No accounting for that.
22286
Sep 28, 2023 00:38
This is clearly uninformed. Birth rates dropped when medicine increased the likelihood of children surviving to childhood. Then contraceptives gained a lot of traction, as pregnancies could be more and more perceived as "accidents". The weird place that high birth rates countries today are in is a combination of external forces bringing them medical care they otherwise wouldn't expect, and a persistent historical understanding that as many as half of children born will die before adulthood.