I mean… the PO shouldn’t have come in at 5:01 if they wanted it approved that day. That’s just rude.
I work in document control, so I’m sending documents between companies regularly. Often, at the end of the week someone will dump a 100+ document transmittal on us half an hour before the end of the day. And then they go home.
You bet your ass that shit is waiting til Monday.
I mean… you didn’t say anything else, how else could you have meant it? You even complained that them leaving on time was inconvenient when someone else dumped something in their desk after working hours.
That is 100% not how you framed your initial comment. It was very much focused on how the workers weren’t going above and beyond to work when they didn’t have to.
Sounds to me like they were reacting to a shit situation in the most appropriate way they could.
So you’re saying they should have worked less?
So… they knew the value of their own time and didn’t overwork when they didn’t have to?
Most office workers could probably learn from that mindset.
They had a site redesign to garner more monetization.
You must not’ve been on reddit 10+ years ago.
They’re basically online loyalty accounts like you’d have at retail stores.
Wouldn’t that fall under the basic necessities part of OPs post?
How my actions affect other people.
He is more hated, yes, but a lot of the people who hate him will vote for him anyway because they’ve been led to believe the alternative is the end of civilization as they know it.
Who does no. 2 work for?
Don’t worry, they’ll still use your data.
I prefer Stardew Valley
Someone’s never had a depressive episode.
Everything is 99% grey area. If someone tells you something is completely black and white you should be suspicious of their motives.
But you didn’t say you had proof with your comment, you said it was probable. Basically saying its common sense that its proven.
Why are you getting aggressive about actually having to provide proof about something when saying its obvious?
Also, that seems to imply that locking up people for AI offenses would then encourage truly reprehensible behavior by linking them with those who already engage in it.
Almost like lumping people together as one big group, instead of having levels of grey area, means people are more likely to just go all in instead of sticking to something more morally defensible.
So… its just a claim they’re making and you’re hoping it has actual backing.
Is everything completely black and white for you?
The system isn’t perfect, especially where we prioritize punishing people over rehabilitation. Would you rather punish everyone equally, emphasizing that if people are going to risk the legal implications (which, based on legal systems the world over, people are going to do) they might as well just go for the real thing anyways?
You don’t have to accept it as morally acceptable, but you don’t have to treat them as completely equivalent either.
There’s gradations of questionable activity. Especially when there’s no real victims involved. Treating everything exactly the same is, frankly speaking, insane. Its like having one punishment for all illegal behavior. Murder someone? Death penalty. Rob them? Straight to the electric chair. Jaywalking? Better believe you’re getting the needle.
Do you know how long it takes to do everything?
Eternity. I doubt even with all time forever you’d be able to do everything. Our world is ever-changing, much less the wider universe.
The one stipulation I’d put on living forever is the ability to change with the universe. Who’s to say physics will even allow us to perceive reality in a few billion years, if we’re stuck the way we are?