Interesting, I regularly use chat-based support on amazon.ca to speak with (what I presume is) a real human after none of the control flow paths adequately resolve my issue. I've always found the support quick to reply and very helpful.
Granted, it's been 1-2 weeks since I had an issue, so it may have changed since then, or it could be only released to a subset of users.
Amazon is generally good at 1) resolving an issue in your favor and 2) getting you to a human if needed but gosh does it feel like I've taken a different path to do so every single time I'ever needed support.
Unsure about whether the specific dealership in question supports online booking, but there existing consumers whose preference is for a phone call over a web-based experience is definitely the case, at least in the US.
For example, even with the (digital-only) SAAS company I work at, we have a non-trivial amount of customers who with strong preferences to talk on the phone, ex to provide their credit card number, rather than enter it in the product. This is likely more pronounced if your product serves less tech-savvy niches.
That said, a strong preference for human call > website use doesn't necessarily imply even a weak preference for AI call > website use (likely customer-dependent, but I'd be surprised if the number with that preference was exactly 0)
My read of the comment wasn't that he was "blaming" either, but explaining where the fees come from.
It sounds like the direct increase to the consumer's prices is done by the restaurant itself, but the reason the restaurant is charging higher prices are to make up for the fees they're charged by UE/DD.
In other words, UE/DD restaurant-side service fees eat into the restaurant's profit margins, so the restaurant passes on the cost increases to the consumer to get them back.
To be clear, no idea about how closely these statements correspond to the world, just that this seems to be OP's claim.
Funny enough, in another top level thread, there's a chain of people claiming it's Uber Eats that adds the 25% and that the restaurant needs to opt out to stop adding the cost.
So I agree that your inference is probably correct, but it is worth pointing out that the rate which a sex experiences X from their intimate partners isn't exactly the same as the rate at which the other sex does X to their partners, namely because of non-heterosexual couples.
For example, you could imagine a world where men are significantly more likely than women to commit DV, making some subset of that 28.5% men who have suffered at the hands of other men. It would also imply that gay women are less likely to experience DV, which would widen the gap further. That said, I believe many more couples are hetero than not, so maybe it wouldn't make much of a difference.
To be clear, I'm not making this specific claim about men, just illustrating that I think the statistic quoted doesn't _directly_ justify the claim "women aren't that much less likely to offend" (although it does lend credence to it)
You’ve made the same mistake the poster you’re replying to pointed out. Women in lesbian relationships have a high rate of having experienced domestic violence in their lives, and a study reported this which has then spread around the internet as a meme of sorts. For the vast majority of those same women, the same study reported that the domestic violence they experienced was in a previous relationship, with a man.
Not only that, but if you actually click through to their link, they had to filter through a dozen stats illustrating your exact point to get their one (misleading) stat to claim otherwise.
How this issue skews probably depends on where you live, but in the area I live, I have the opposite complaint: that bicyclists should re-learn that they are legally required (in my city) to ride on roads, rather than barrelling down sidewalks.
That said, this is coming from me as a pedestrian, so maybe someone who was primarily a driver would have a completely different take from both of us.
I don't personally care whether bikes (or scooters) ride on the road or the sidewalk, but my one ask is that:
If they ride on the sidewalk, they should behave like pedestrians. That is, do not blast into the crosswalk at 20mph (impossible for drivers to safely check for in most environments), do not randomly enter the road from the sidewalk, pass pedestrians at a respectful speed and distance, etc.
If they ride on the road, they should behave similarly to motorists. That is, actually obey stop signs (rolling stop, or even treating it like a yield is okay), and actually obey traffic lights.
I'll even tolerate transitioning from one to the other at appropriate traffic stops. Just please don't get upset if I almost run you over for abruptly taking right of way you never legally had.
No problem, in exchange I just ask that you pass safely (1.5m distance). Since that's not going to happen until hell freezes over, we're gonna have to settle on the current situation.
That's often impossible except at super-off-peak times of day when there's no oncoming cars, except if the cyclist pulls over, but for some reason they never seem to do that.
Yeah bikes and pedestrians can mix as long as speeds don't. Mixed use paths (like the W&OD in Reston VA) really need something like a 5 mph speed limit.
Where I live, there are definitely places where I end up cycling on the sidewalk, because it would be nigh-suicidal to actually take my bike on the road.
But I don't go barreling past pedestrians, and make sure I give them the right of way.
I have noticed a huge uptick in agressive behaviour from motorists over the past couple of years. By huge uptick, I mean behaviour that I used to see once every couple of weeks I am new facing multiple times daily. Quite bluntly, the politicians in my area are enabling life endangering behaviour towards cyclists by blaming cyclists for traffic congestion that have nothing to do with cyclists (e.g. road construction projects for motorists, or waterworks or building construction that have nothing to do with cyclists).
While I am sticking to the roads, I don't blame other cyclists for seeking refuge on the sidewalks.
I would say it depends on the specific role and project, but for most people who write code, likely not.
Coming from a mechanical engineering background, I understood "engineering" as the application of science for problem solving - or, put simply, applied science. Some examples:
1. When a civil engineer applies solid mechanics to select a cross beam.
2. When an electrical engineer applies E&M to design a circuit.
3. When a mechanical engineer applies heat transfer to analyze cooling patterns on a laptop.
Under this definition, most "SWE" work isn't engineering - if anything, it's closer to applied math and logic?
That said, definitions are only useful inasmuch as they allow us to make sense of the world and communicate with others, so I'm not sure this is the most useful question
You could consider it as applied science in that we are dealing with CPUs, we do benchmarks, we build models of things ... but this isn't work that everyone does.
I wouldn't call most SWE work close to applied math or logic. Very few people get to deal with things that are math-adjacent or do applied math in general. Many things are just .. plumbing data.
I agree that for people who do that type of work, it's engineering
For a typical fullstack dev building views, CRUDs, and simple DB schemas, less so
And you're probably right that most SWEs don't deal with math-adjacent things.
---
And just to be clear, none of what I'm saying is a value-statement on the types of work different "software engineers" do. It's just a question of categories, which I view as separate from utility
Not a CE myself, but computer engineers definitely consider physics in their solutions since they have to consider complexity, computational speed, memory restrictions, concurrency etc
Aka they take fundamental theoretical concepts and given the physical constraints we have from the existing computing systems they come up with viable solutions.
War and Peace was the first book I read as an adult (at 19) and I was blown away. Definitely opened my mind as to how great a great book can be, and raised my standards for what I'm willing to spend time on reading considerably.
I think this was one of the best things that happened to me for my reading habit, and I'm incredibly glad I stumbled upon it sooner rather than later.
The only change I'd make, if possible, would've been to read it at a younger age (12-14) so my perception of what books can be would've been expanded sooner and I could've branched out from my comfort zone at the time.
Seemed like most of the examples would just be due to sloppy implementation / a lack of testing edge cases? This is a good lesson to take away I guess, but "defensive CSS" isn't how I see it. It just sounds like thoughtful, intentional, and correct CSS is what's missing in those examples.
Maybe this is obvious to me from having built website builders and themes for them, but when making a product that displays unknown, potentially user-generated content, it's to be expected that the content will be different from the boilerplate designs. Working around edge cases like image aspect ratios and words/sentences of varying length are a core part of the UI's development process.
There's never enough time to test everything. Problems like text length are pretty much guaranteed to happen, so you may as well code "defensively" for it from the beginning.
Defensive as in defensive driving, I assume, which would also be better described as thoughtful, intentional, and correct driving. The metaphor follows for me.
I would hope so, at a minimum! I'm shocked that signing an affidavit in a court of law certifying the existence of made-up courses isn't simply criminal.
Almost certainly not. It's astoundingly difficult to get disbarred. I heard a lawyer say the only reliable way to get disbarred is to steal money from your clients. Judges rarely even use their inherent power to sanction, though he certainly will in this case.
Men rea does not mean intent, it simply refers to the mental element of a crime. It can be intent or some lower bar such as recklessness or gross negligence, depending on how the crime is defined.
The relationship between a boss and an employee is so far removed from a classical single-round prisoner's dilemma that I don't think you'll draw reliably accurate conclusions from it. As it sounds like you know, constraints like iteration change the game significantly, as would making it a game with many actors and reputational effects.
All models are wrong, some models are useful, and in this case it seems more wrong than useful.
Granted, it's been 1-2 weeks since I had an issue, so it may have changed since then, or it could be only released to a subset of users.