George Clooney has said that on the sets he’s been on, both the prop master and the actor check the gun. If a scene requires someone to shoot towards the camera, a transparent barrier is placed in front of the camera, even when it’s blanks being used. You don’t rehearse a scene with a gun that’s capable of firing, you use a dummy gun for that. A real firearm isn’t handed to an actor until just before the camera starts rolling, not while they’re just setting things up.
These are sensible precautions to take, they just weren’t happening on Alec Baldwin’s set. The reasons for these precautions is that the “master armorer” can screw up. People complained about lax gun safety before the incident, the complaints were ignored.
On the internet your identity is a collection of the opinions that you wrote under that name. So if you changing your opinion on anything you’re changing your identity.
All the more difficult if you use your own name as your identity and you have acquired followers because of the opinions you’ve expressed.
Yeah a place I worked for had managers that thought that way. Then something broke and since the guy who knew how to fix it was fired a long time ago… well… I was already long gone by then. But their system was down for nearly a week.
Now if the managers established any kind of process then personality conflicts wouldn’t be an issue, everything would be documented in advance (ie. planning) and the IT would just be following an agreed upon plan. Both management and the staff know everything that’s happening and why it’s happening. And if there’s staff turnover it’s no biggie because everything is documented and the management knows where the documentation is.
But that requires work… by management. So in many places it doesn’t happen.
The reason why you have arrogant IT staff is only because they know that you don’t know how anything works and they do. They know that if you fire them you’ll be fucking over yourself because if something breaks there’s a good chance you won’t know how to fix it and it may take their replacement a long time to figure it out because you never gave the IT staff an adequate amount of time to document anything.
Sure when you fire these guys things won’t break immediately. It might be a year, even several years before that critical thing (that you never required to be documented, no time for that) breaks and the system is down for an extended period of time.
The IT guys are arrogant because their boss is too stupid to know how to manage things properly to know how things are set up. Some managers are too stupid to even know why their IT guys are arrogant. They’re arrogant because they know that by firing them, the manager is fucking himself over. They’re just underestimating how stupid their manager is.
If you feel attacked by this, you’re one of the idiot IT managers.
What you’re talking about would likely cost around 100K per location. Multiplied by 5000 locations, that’ll run them a cool half a billion dollars. Minimum.
The real issue is Walmart (and others like them) eliminated local businesses, which replaced decent paying jobs with minimum wage jobs. Then lobbied the government to keep minimum wages down. This had the effect of depressing local economies, creating scenarios where people have to shoplift basic necessities.
So instead of having massive corporations spending insane amounts of money (or calling the police) which serves to make grocery shopping a dystopian nightmare for everyone, maybe we should consider the root cause of the problem? It seems insane the amount of resources being devoted towards maintaining economic problems.
Then I asked her to tell me if she knows about the books2 dataset (they trained this ai using all the pirated books in zlibrary and more, completely ignoring any copyright) and I got:...
I wouldn’t say it’s leftist, though there’s a lot of leftists here. Lemmy is more like how internet discussion boards used to be. There’s a lot of people with weird opinions on things, and there’s no Reddit Karma pushing people to conform to the consensus. So people are going to have weird takes on things, and there’s not 1000 comments upvoted above the weird ones, so you’re going to see comments like that. So reply to with you your weird opinions on those weird comments.
Welcome to the version internet that’s not pre-packaged and filtered to be bland!
Is it ok to refuse service to a mixed race couple getting married?
Is it ok to refuse service to a couple, both of whom are black who are getting married?
I think these examples are much closer to the analogies people are coming up with in this thread. Or do you think being gay is an ideology? Is being gay a religion? Is being gay like being a racist?
Or is being gay something that a person is born as? If so isn’t this a lot like being refused service because of race?
This all sounds like the staff using religion as an excuse to discriminate against gay people. Doesn’t seem all that Christian to me, and in fact it seems like they’re taking Our Lord’s Name in vain by using it to justify their hateful actions.
But maybe they don’t follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and don’t follow the Commandments. Even if that’s the case, the business is responsible for ensuring that customers aren’t discriminated against by staff. If the business owners aren’t up to meeting that standard, then they shouldn’t be trying to run a business.
To me there needs to be a distinction between a business and a person. Sure maybe a person can’t be compelled to do something against their beliefs, but a business can’t claim to have beliefs and therefore can be compelled to do whatever the law requires.
And claiming religious beliefs isn’t a card you can lay down anytime you want to get out of your responsibilities. I mean if I claim that paying taxes is against my religious beliefs do you think the government shouldn’t be able to compel me to pay taxes simply because it’s against my religious beliefs?
There’s always an element of common sense judgement needed in the law which is why the people that do that are called Judges. So if in our best judgement these people simply don’t like gay people and in our judgement they’re just using religion as a way to trick people into thinking they’re motives are based in religion and not based off on their prejudice, then what is the decision? To go along with their trickery that’s using religion as an excuse? Or just tell them their arguments about religion is bullshitt and they have to get over their dislike of gay people and follow the law?
The problem here is members of Supreme court are willing to abdicate their responsibility to use judgement and go along with the obvious trickery because they share the baker’s dislike for gay people.
Alec Baldwin charged for shooting; (lemmy.world)
Yeah, well... (lemmy.world)
IT support work be like (lemmy.world)
Linux users when (media1.tenor.com)
Equality (lemmy.world)
It be like that (lemmy.ml)
Accurate. (lemmy.ml)
don't know, don't care (feddit.de)
Saw a news story people about people getting arrested for at Wal-Mart for forgeting to scan one item (midwest.social)
youtu.be/tmoQxq2P7Y4?feature=shared
I’m sorry, but I cannot help you with finding pirated movies. Piracy is illegal and unethical 😉 (feddit.it)
Then I asked her to tell me if she knows about the books2 dataset (they trained this ai using all the pirated books in zlibrary and more, completely ignoring any copyright) and I got:...
Your big brain conservtive/capitalist takes will be laughed at (lemmy.world)
Random 2015-5-17 (sh.itjust.works)
Businesses can discriminate against their customers? Alright then... (lemmy.world)