I'd argue about testosterone. High testosterone happens in some woman naturally, why exclude them? They still are woman, they should have a right to participate.
Height is also an advantage in sports, and women statistically are much shorter then man, should we ban tall woman from sports? Should we say "she exhibits a male amount of height, it isn't fair to let her participate with 'normal' woman"?
The more "fair" we make woman competition the narrower our definition of a woman gets.
If you want to make it fair, let's pick a random chemical in man exclude people from competition based on their readings. That surely would make sport career look more fun for everyone, training all your life only to find out that some committee doesn't consider you a man. And then we can celebrate equality by noticing that man-to-woman sport participation ratio got closer to 50-50
My view is that testosterone is a reasonable thing to discriminate on because:
1. It is causally connected to primary and secondary sex characteristics
2. It has a large impact on performance in many sports
3. It's easy to explain to most people and somewhat matches people's intuitions around fairness
But, yes, it is true that there are cis women with high T levels and it is somewhat unfair and arbitrary to include them when not excluding other random advantages that people have. I'm just not sure if I have a better solution
It's not just a transgender ban. Everyone who doesn't have XY chromosomes can't participate.
The more we protect women rights in sports, the narrower our definition of a woman gets
By 2030 would Olympic Committee ask woman that gain muscles too faster then the average woman not to participate? To make it "fair for real woman"?
While men are allowed the strongest competition and their unique builds are celebrated, woman are constantly limited by our genetics, hormone levels and chromosomes.
"Can't stray too far from an average it aren't fair for woman" is itself not fair for woman
and now the country of freedom is free to deal with ATC shortages that leave people managing two runaways and ground traffic by themselves in a a major airport
ah, truly a decision with no consequences
tl;dr just because it's a legally allowed decision, doesn't mean it's a right decision
Right it's almost like the preferred solution – since the guy is the source of knowledge, but is under the hood – would be just installing a phone with a loud speaker in a garage that he could answer without using his hands.
He knows the prices and the parts, there isn't enough calls to hire a receptionist, and voice controlled systems are quite easy to make. If you use local voice recognition model, you could even mention neural networks in a write up, it's a win-win
And it's quite cheaper too, I'd estimate around 200$-300$ for a room. Most of it for a good microphone.
There's a lot of stupid keyboard punching that you need to do to create a proper quote. You can't do that from under a car.
Someone comes in for a timing belt on a car that needs timing belts. Ok, you've got the parts and labor on the belt itself, those are easy to just look up from a table. But, do you just replace the belt, replace other things related to it as well, or perhaps even go above and beyond and proactively do a water pump or something while you're in there. That's gonna depend on the relative cost/labor differences of those, the customer's intentions, the value of the car, etc.
What you really need is someone to answer the phone, pull all that info and then say "hey Jim there's some guy on the phone who needs X, the options are" and then run down all the reasonable combinations and let the tech exercise judgement. This is basically what the service writer does but ideally they get good and don't need to bother the tech for "minor" judgement stuff.
And that's all assuming that this is a cookie cutter job.
>> Pretty much you go back to your country of origin
I'm completely out of my depths there, can you explain how will they know my country of origin if I'm undocumented?
Had a friend in a similar situation. She got a clearly LLM-generated ticket that didn't make any sense, and was directed to question anything about that ticket.
Apparently, asking "why it doesn't make any sense" wasn't !polite~
If I remember correctly, she came up with ~200 questions for a 2-paged ticket. I helped write some of them, because for parts of the word salad you had to come up with the meaning first and then question the meaning.
You know what happened after she presented it? Ticket got rewritten as a job requirement, and now they seeking some poor sod to make it make sense lol
One had to be very unqualified to even get through the interview for that job without asking questions about the job, I feel. Truly, an AI-generated job for anyone who is new to the field
Oh, it was! But the guy that generated it insisted that he triple-checked the prose after, and it should be treated as typed by hand
I'm pretty sure it would be okay to stop at 5-10 questions, because it was clear he couldn't answer any. But my friend is from a hateful branch, and so she went for humiliation angle of asking for as much clarification as the ticket itself allowed
I have a very similar situation. Except it isn't even a ticket, just an export of a very long "conversation" with ChatGPT with a vague indication that this is what needs to be implemented. When questioned about it, the person insists they completely understood it before but just forgot after a few days. Sometimes the prompts are removed. Lots of contradictory material in it, some doesn't make sense even in context. Very difficult to figure out what is wanted.
> person insists they completely understood it before but just forgot after a few days.
I don't doubt this, to be honest.
I have the feeling of learning a lot when coding with agents. New features, patterns, entire languages... It's very satisfactory asking questions and getting answers in as much detail as you want, with examples, etc.
Except I forget it all soon after. Because I didn't put the effort. Easy come easy goes .
I'm continually flabbergasted that this is accepted and not immediate grounds for punitive action- plopping slop into a ticket (or having it generated directly) is straight-up disrespectful to the person on the other end. I'd rather have someone slap me in the face directly than get one of these tickets.
I want to agree with you, but if it's my system and my browser reporting my bracket, wouldn't it be trivially easy to inject an http-header with the age I want to report?
And by "trivially easy" I mean "somebody already posted how-to for windows to stackoverflow"
You're trivializing how difficult tampering with OS internals in locked down secure boot environments can be. Just look at the state of Android custom roms. Devices that are years old can be impossible to modify the OS on.
Look at projects like byeDPI. Essentially, it's just a VPN service that runs on the phone itself.
You phone connection is passed to this VPN that modifies http-headers.
I kinda did forgot about Android, yeah. You can't exactly rewrite OS rules there. But it's no less trivial* on Android, you just have to solve it from different angle.
* assuming someone will just write the app, and share it. But since similar projects exist, it wouldn't be a reach to say that it's doable and some folks would be interested to do it.
I know most of this facts quite well. And yet I believe that the big corps actions are a desperate attempt to extract last drops of value before enshittificating themselves in the hole in the ground.
It's the laws and the FOSS that matter. You can circumvent almost anything, and – if the laws allow – you can share it freely.
I feel like we disagree on "you can't really enforce laws or policies like this without locking down the OS and hardware". In my eyes you can enforce the suggested law, without locking down on things. The law as written requires sending brackets, it doesn't require for them to be in any way to be true. It doesn't require OS to check.
I presume that if a child could get around this restrictions, they could make a choice between following them or getting around them. In my mind it's akin to "don't trespass" signs. Obviously a child could trespass them quite easily, and yet it's on parent to teach them why they shouldn't
Note that I know that we don't know yet what are the restrictions and how they could be enforced. I just don't get how we got from what we know to "lockdown all platforms must happen".
The problem is not that it's hard to cheat (it's easy), the problem is it makes you officially a liar and liable for "illegal app use".
It might not be a problem for you, but some underage kid, who lied about their age, gets addicted to a game with in-game purchases and gets into financial trouble now has no recourse against the company who made the addicting game.
There's no liability in the law for a child who uses an over-18-signaled account and accesses over-18 content, nor for a parent who gave that account to the child. It's all the parent's decision if the child should be restricted or not.
I'm not a lawyer, but it's clear that this changes the narrative. If some technical restriction is in place (OS level age statement with apps who enforce it) and the kid circumvents that, it's easy for a company to claim that they did their part and all blame is on the kid. Without that, it's trickier for the company who intentionally created some addictive product to prove that they did enough to protect the kid.
That an issue to you, I, personally, love the idea of submitting my ID to McDonald's kiosk before ordering.
Maybe that would finally push them to make kiosks that run entirely without OS. I expect a big enough Rube Goldberg machine could do the task if not as efficiently, then at least in a more entertaining way.
"Reject all" doesn't have to be cookie, the answer could go to the browser storage.
Basically it just exists in your browser, telling it "the user didn't agree to cookies, so don't send this data and don't render those blocks". The only thing that web server knows is that requests come from someone who didn't send any cookies.
Height is also an advantage in sports, and women statistically are much shorter then man, should we ban tall woman from sports? Should we say "she exhibits a male amount of height, it isn't fair to let her participate with 'normal' woman"?
The more "fair" we make woman competition the narrower our definition of a woman gets.
If you want to make it fair, let's pick a random chemical in man exclude people from competition based on their readings. That surely would make sport career look more fun for everyone, training all your life only to find out that some committee doesn't consider you a man. And then we can celebrate equality by noticing that man-to-woman sport participation ratio got closer to 50-50
reply