Conglomerates in general, and especially Japanese ones, are heterogeneous enough that those are basically two different companies. The British "Fujitsu" was an acquisition that I'm certain they now deeply, deeply regret.
The other powerful thing about being able to do everyone else's job is that you, personally, gain a lot of leverage, and in a lot of different ways. Someone else needs a favor? You probably know how to deliver. Something's on fire? You probably know what to do next, or at least who to call, no matter what's on fire today. Someone isn't budging on something? You might not have any bigger of a lever than anyone else, but you probably know exactly where to position yours, and exactly what it'll do when you apply a bit of force.
It's useful.
And then there's times like getting to charge your client $300/hour to drop stuff off at FedEx. Because you can do that and you're here and you'll get it done right -- no one needs to explain the idiosyncracies of this particular deadline or package contents; you've got it.
Even if that's not normally a senior consultant's job.
LOL! My bosses used to tell me that I need to learn to be more `rude` and not just do what others says because I can. I have learnt a lot and one of the biggest is to say NO, in big Uppercase—I can do anything for work but I won’t do that, NO, I won’t do that.
Sometime, I still do and I like the fun and thrill of locking in a hotel room after a meeting and coming out in lot less days these days (pppppsssstt, because of AI) and get into the next meeting showing off what can be done that was discussed 48 hours ago.
You don't do these things because they benefit your boss. (They might happen to, but that's not the point.)
You do them because they benefit you.
Not going to benefit you? There's lots of ways to say no to a back-channel request. Not a back-channel request? Then I guess it's not someone else's job!
Easier said than done. Saying no is not so easy. There's a bit of a weird dynamic that if you could do something that others need help with, saying no can be considered rude, but saying (even if lying) that you don't know how to do it is generally accepted. Usually a boss (or even a colleague) backing in saying no helps a lot.
Also the helping can cause escalation of "demand". First you help with something quick and easy for you, but soon you find "owning" more and more of the task.
It's not dissimilar from the entitled people in open source project bug trackers.
We may or may not have hit the physical point of no return. It doesn't really matter, because we obviously hit the point of political no return a long time ago.
In too much of the world, nobody with any kind of power cares. (My own country included.) It's the prisoner's dilemma yet again: why should any of us who might care cooperate, when everyone else is cheating?
We hit that point a long, long time ago.
The situation isn't hopeless, I think, but this talk of "point of no return" doesn't work because it doesn't acknowledge the reality that, as ever, it's political and some people actively do not want to address it.
And articles like this are just making it worse. What’s the takeaway? “It’s too late to fix it, so there’s no point in trying.” The outcome can always be made better, or worse. We need to focus on that if we want to aim for “better.”
The critic’s lament: describe the situation in mild terms, the public concludes it’s not a big deal and takes no action; describe it in stark terms, the public concludes there’s nothing to be done and takes no action
They're all horrid to step on, so that's not really worth discussing.
The US plug (NEMA 1-15P is the 2-prong version, or 5-15P for the most common 3-prong grounded) is actually pretty decent. They stay in sockets pretty well if the sockets aren't bottom-of-the-barrel garbage products which, sadly, many things in the US are in general.
What many people miss when comparing US and EU plugs are that they're actually doing fairly different jobs. The 120V mains in the US is significantly less trouble than the 240V in Europe, so you can get away with a lot less mechanically on the plug. The US NEMA 6-15P plug design (the 240V version of the standard plug) is, accordingly, kind of shit. But at least it's rare enough that receptacles tend to be of decent quality, which mitigates a lot. The locking versions (L5-15R etc) are actually quite good, and should almost always be used when possible and appropriate. They're good to 480V and even a bit beyond -- not just working but actually good -- and you can't say that about most EU plug designs. You guys have those horribly bulky pin-and-sleeve disasters and we get nice NEMA locking plugs for our three-phase.
One of the other things that European plugs have to deal with, and US plugs don't, is that European electricians have no idea how to separate hot and neutral wires and basically wire them up randomly. This has major consequences in a lot of product design and is really really annoying when you're trying to build something safe. (Namely: in the US you're often (but not always) not allowed to fuse neutral wires. That makes sense, for safety reasons. You have to fuse hot... but in Europe you don't know which one is hot, so you have to fuse them both. Which means you just fused neutral. Design conflict!) That shows up in the plugs, too; with no idea where hot is, you have to be more careful and can't use neutral to help you out.
British plugs are worse to step on, not because the pins are any worse to have jammed into your foot but because the design of the plugs means that if you leave one unplugged on the floor there's an excellent chance that it ends up in caltrop configuration with the pins pointing upward, whereas a US-style plug is (I think) more likely to end up with the pins pointing sideways where they're less likely to hurt your foot when you step on the plug.
But in all other respects the British mains plug design is really rather good. It does a good job of making partially-plugged-in plugs still safe, it's nice and robust, it readily stays firmly plugged in, etc.; US plugs are much worse in these respects and I think so are typical continental European ones.
BS 1363 isn't an EU plug though. Doesn't have issues with separation of hot and neutral wires (and does have a fuse for the hot wire built in) and nor is it specified with the idea that electrocution risk is no biggie or that not falling out of walls (a big issue with some Euro plug and socket combinations too) is up to the manufacturer. And having one type of plug for all regular home appliances in the UK and a different one for three phase feels like a more sensible split than the range of 2 and 3 pin options of varying quality and compatibility that CEE7 and NEMA present.
Fair point on BS 1363 not being EU, and about UK electricians not being incompetent (I actually didn't know they were careful unlike the continent -- that's just one of those things that once you have to deal with the insanity that is continental Europe, it doesn't really much matter what else is out there).
But my point about electrocution risk is that 240V is not twice as dangerous as 120V. It's actually much, much worse. And 480V is worse still. We used to say that screwing up 120V will hurt you, 240V will kill you, and 480V will kill you, start your corpse on fire, and blind everyone around you. So the design requirements for all 240V class plugs are much more important.
> not falling out of walls ... is up to the manufacturer
This one is a real problem in the US because there is a standard, it is a good standard, parts are made and tested to the standard, and standards-compliant parts work very well. But few people require the damn standard. If you want good receptacles in the US, get stuff that's marked "Federal Specification W-C-596 rated" (aka "Fed Spec"; "Spec Grade" is self-certified to... something... which is... not the same thing... but in practice the manufacturers seem not to abuse that term too much; often lower-volume part numbers seem only to be available as "Spec Grade" presumably due to testing cost). It will perform well.
One of the most basic safeguards -- necessary, not sufficient -- for AI and even general technology in healthcare should be transparency. Keep the model a black box (if you really must), but every single input, output, and decision should be logged and available to the patient on demand, no questions asked.
That makes it a lot easier to deal with things like the bad AI transcriptions going around. Get burned by AI that can't hear what you're saying? It's in your file, what it heard and then what it screwed up. Providers don't like everything being on the record like that? Maybe they shouldn't be trusting that tool.
Want to know what the useless AI saw when it sent you to group therapy for acute mania? It's in your file. Providers don't like everything being on the record like that? Maybe they shouldn't be trusting that tool.
This was the premise of GDPR (which I wholeheartedly support), but Europe caved in to US dictatorship (like Europe always does, cause it has no agency).
I think this is more relevant than people give it credit for. While bipolar depression and unipolar (major) depression might generally be functionally indistinguishable from the outside, they seem to have genuinely different origins within the body and brain.
And the drugs seem to be far more powerful for people with bipolar.
That's both good and bad. Good, because between mood stabilizers and very careful use of antidepressants, many people with bipolar can genuinely achieve complete treatment, or close enough to pass as complete. Which is wonderful! Bad because antidepressants and (hypo)mania are a dangerous combination, and the antidepressants can have more kick than one would normally expect. They'll often cause a patient's first manic episode, which can be very bad on its own but might get things on the right treatment course. (Of course, they often still do nothing much at all.
I think the tapering may be related as well. I was eventually diagnosed with bipolar II and I've never really had to taper off anything that didn't have a black-box warning about tapers (either intrinsically or due to blood-pressure effects, which are worth taking seriously). I've stopped some things cold which one really shouldn't stop cold. I didn't really notice much other than the bad side effects causing the stop going away.
> I do have "extra money" and am able to pay extremely qualified and expensive doctors
I don't really have "extra money" but I still do this anyway. My psychiatrist is $500 an hour, out of pocket, no insurance accepted period. He actually listens. It's worth it.
> Why this word, this scene, this character, and not some other one?
The "why this not that, even when it looks like that would do just fine" style of differential analysis is an exquisitely powerful analytical tool. Asking this question is probably the single most powerful method I know of to generate deep thought, in absolutely any aspect of life. If you haven't tried it... go for it!
(Sample question: why'd I choose the word "exquisitely" in the above sentence?)
> In the short term, thinness prevails. ... The real question is not “which of these things looks nicer when you look at them for two seconds?” but “which of these things will stand the test of time?”
That tracks with another thing I've noticed I approach differently. I've recently joined a book club and everyone loves to talk about how many "stars" they gave a book. I've never really been able to rank things like that. Aside from there being no such thing as a total ordering of books (or movies or ...), who's to say what five stars from you means, compared to five stars from me? Instead I've started thinking about books in terms of "book of the month", "book of the year", "book of the decade", "book of the century", et cetera. Is this going to be the best thing I read all month or all decade? Am I going to remember this for a year or forget most of it next week? Is everyone still going to be talking about this one in 80 years? I think that's a much better scale than "one to five stars (but actually three to five stars)", and much more interesting. It also bakes in both the inherent subjectivity and inherent fuzziness really well.
(Yes, some things... plenty of things... are thin enough to be candidates for "book of the day" or "book of the hour". Few things are forgettable enough to go below that, though there have been some attempts; mostly at that level things underflow and you get in to Mystery Science Theater 3000 territory, which is its own special kind of thing.)
> Is this going to be the best thing I read all month or all decade?
Many times it is only possible to know that post hoc. There are several books I've read that, in the moment of completing them, stand as the best I'd read in the past few years. Others I finished and figured I'd never think of them past the current month.
But books and their impact upon you can be surprising sometimes. There are some books I think about often, and that I would say have even influenced me greatly, that I wouldn't have guessed would have that impact when I read them. And others that I figured would remain "book of the decade" that barely made it to the two-year mark before being surpassed by something else.
That's part of why I like the fuzziness. And why it's a really great system looking back retrospectively. I don't keep a reading journal, but if I glance over physical books in my house or reading history on my ereader, rankings of past things read get really clear really fast.
I agree with your sentiment about ranking -- the gamification of art is pointless -- but I'd go even further: often you won't agree with yourself from the past about a book or movie! Sometimes you just need to be in the mood for a work you previously considered average to really hit you. Other times you revisit music that felt really powerful in your youth, but hearing it again only evokes a mild nostalgia and a feeling of "why did I ever like this?".
THANK YOU! This is why I hate security questions that ask for my “favorite” whatever. That’s going to change! My favorite movie, or supervillain or whatever is going to change - hopefully - within a couple years if good artists are out there making good art. So why the hell would I answer that question the same 5 years from now as I would today?!
Robin Hobb (a very successful fantasy author) rates books on Goodreads. To her, anything over one star is a good rating. Even two stars means she liked it.
I am always hit hard by the paradox of choice, it is very hard for me to just rank something, But it is easy to compare two items. Considering the metaphysics of this a little too hard I put together this silly little web toy to explorer my ideas on ranking things. https://compare.outband.net/compare/app/compare.html
It still sort of sucks and you can tell I am not a web dev, but it was interesting to think about.
> Instead I've started thinking about books in terms of "book of the month", "book of the year", "book of the decade", "book of the century", et cetera. Is this going to be the best thing I read all month or all decade? Am I going to remember this for a year or forget most of it next week?
I like my five stars, but I always preface any rating with a description of how I define my ratings:
5: This book changed the way I think.
4: I enjoyed reading this book. It was interesting and engaging.
3: This book is OK. I wouldn't read it again.
2: This book had parts where I wanted to drop it.
1: I couldn't finish the book. It's actively bad.
As always with scales like this, any definition is subjective and scales shouldn't be used without understanding their impact. I'd never apply this scale to an Uber driver. Also, scales shouldn't be used for stack ranking. At least not without defining the heuristics first.
To me, scales are a way to focus my qualitative impressions into something that's not an essay. It's a good starting point for a discussion about the merits of the work. It definitely has its footguns, though.
I love it because it put something into words that I was thinking about the last season of the show Succession. All I could say before being armed with this, was something along the lines of it feeling like it was suddenly "all over the place."
This guy's blog is great by the way, I went and subscribed.
I have had similar thoughts about "x of the week/month/year". But every now and then there's a dirge or deluge of good things and years aren't even comparable because the fourth best thing one year might have been the number one in any other year of the decade.
I think a good example for me personally is 2019 in music. And I assume most people reading this list will shake their head at my (in their view) poor taste.
1. Rammstein released their untitled album which to me remains the best they've ever made.
2. Slipknot released "We are not your kind" which I played on repeat for so long. Nero Forte remained my first or second most listened to song for three years in a row.
3. Lars Winnerbäck also released Eldtuppen, causing the one and only time someone else than AC/DC became my most listened to artist for a year
4. While I didn't like the 2019 Korn album "The Nothing", it made me realize I'd missed their 2016 release "The Serenity of Suffering", which remains one of my favorite albums of the last decade.
The nice thing about "ranking" stuff for yourself and not for anyone else is that some years can have three "best of the year" and some can have none. Embrace the fuzziness inherent in the system.
Because, man, some years really were just that good.
Because an AI company made their LLM "roll a dice" that was loaded in a specific way to choose that word, so they could claim ownership of your document later.
I'm not sure if you're just choosing not to engage fully with what I wrote or if you're trying to make some other point, but for what it's worth I do not and did not write any of my comments here with AI.
And if an appellate court got involved and somehow found a judge outsourced their judging to an AI, it's hard to imagine them accepting that. A "polite suggestion" that the relevant bar or judicial association look in to something, coming from a federal Circuit Court of Appeals, is neither polite nor a suggestion, and will receive the due gravity of a "polite suggestion" coming from one of the most powerful bodies in the country.
(Which in no way excuses their utter evil.)
reply