• 0 Posts
  • 13 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 14th, 2023
  • dhork@beehaw.orgtoTechnology@beehaw.org•Opinion | Want employees to return to the office? Then give each one an office
    25·
    1 year ago

    I was very ambivalent about WFH all through the pandemic. But I had a job which involved hardware development. When I was forced home due to the pandemic, I had to bring half my lab home. When we were contemplating going back and being hybrid, I told my boss that I had too much physical shit to interact with on a daily basis to be in two places. I either had to stay home, or move all my shit back to the office and stayed there. But I had an actual cubicle and a lab there. If I needed privacy to get stuff done, I could sort of get it.

    Meanwhile, I got a fully remote job offer and took it. It is more of a systems role, and I can do much more of it remotely, so it works well. I still make several trips a year to the home office though, in an extremely HCOL area. Their office is one of the super-open-floorplan offices. Before the Pandemic, I was told it was packed and nobody liked it at all. But during the pandemic, people literally got days of their life back because they no longer had to spend 2+ hours a day commuting.

    They’ve been trying to get folks back to the office at least once a week, but they’re not forcing the issue. If anything, the managers end up there more often than the workers. When I go there, I have the advantage of being able to expense my travel, so I can stay close. And with the exception of that one day a week, the office itself is a ghost town. There might be a few dozen people in a place that can “hold” hundreds (like sardines). But on that one day, there are so many people talking that if I have a critical meeting, I just stay in my hotel instead. Plus, so many meetings are with offsite people anyway (the company has employees around the world) that even with so many people on site you’re still doing the meeting over the Internet anyway.

    Open floorplans are an absolute joke. They need to die.

  • dhork@beehaw.orgtoCity Life@beehaw.org•Is this the year California OKs speed cameras?
    1·
    1 year ago

    A toll is a more legitimate thing to “bill” to a car, though. The car was present, after all, and someone ought to pay. Now that tollbooths are going away, it’s logical to bill whoever the car is registered to. (And, if the toll is not paid, it’s the car that is “punished” by being ineligible to be registered, not the driver through fines or points).

    If your boyfriend was speeding, though, and caught on camera, but the court said you were speeding instead, would you have just taken the fine for that, knowing it would also affect your insurance? I doubt it.

    You’re correct that people can only “get away” with stunts like I mentioned a limited number of times, particularly if they go in front of the same judge multiple times. But it’s also a fact that if law enforcement can’t prove you were the one driving, theres only so much they can do.

  • dhork@beehaw.orgtoCity Life@beehaw.org•Is this the year California OKs speed cameras?
    2·
    1 year ago

    I’m pretty sure they aren’t enforceable? If someone doesn’t want to pay one it’s super easy to get out of. Which ends up meaning that the people who need be held accountable, aren’t. And the people that are decent drivers, continue to be decent drivers

    The problem is that any ticket that is issued solely based on a camera (like speeding or red light cameras) can normally only detect the car by its plates, while tickets are normally written against a driver. In some states, this means that points can’t be assessed, and fines punish the poor more than the rich. In others, all the car owner has to do is submit an affidavit saying “I wasn’t driving” to get out of it. If the owner is lying, that’s perjury, of course. But who will bother checking into it?

    A camera that is coupled with a law enforcement presence is much more enforceable, because you pull the car over and issue the ticket to the driver right there, using the camera data as proof.

  • dhork@beehaw.orgtoGaming@beehaw.org•Sega calls video games that use blockchain technology 'boring'English
    0·
    1 year ago

    One reason to include blockchain tech in games is to enable trading of in-game assets without needing to build a trading engine from scratch. It also offers the chance to tie in-game assets directly to real-world values, and have certain assets be useful across games in a franchise. Basically everything Magic The Gathering or Pokémon does, except that you don’t have to worry about the cards deteriorating as you use them.

    Once you realize that Magic and Pokémon were just cardstock NFTs all along, the whole idea of NFTs in gaming start to make more sense. Not every application that the the Crypto Bros propose to solve with NFTs are really appropriate, but some are.