• 0 Posts
  • 214 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 7th, 2023

help-circle

  • They shouldn’t be plotted that way technically. The big 5 are independent traits so they should essentially be sliders, not linked like that.

    That said, it’s way easier to see the points when you do that. Easy to miss when colors swap, for example, without the lines when you’ve been looking at this stuff for a few hours.





  • It is, definitely. We own our home and leave it on the level 1 charger all the time. It gets us around the metro just fine, no long commutes so it’s great for us. And as someone mentioned somewhere around here, a longer charge time isn’t necessarily bad if you’re the only driver on long trips. I’m honestly more worried about having to stop in areas with only a couple chargers (Midwest here) and some asshole vandalizing them and leaving me stranded. But that’s a concern that pops up once or twice a year at best. And the various charger apps are pretty good a letting you know they’re down.




  • maniclucky@lemmy.worldtoxkcd@lemmy.worldxkcd #2948: Electric vs Gas
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    As the owner of a Bolt, the only significant criticism is range (mine’s a 2020, gets ~180mi comfortably on the interstate) and charging rate (2020 bolts are limited to 50 kW, so kinda specific). Not great for road trips, but otherwise fantastic. As for electric fires… yeah I wasn’t gonna be able to put that out anyway so the firefolk have it either way.


  • I’ve no significant opinion of India beyond anti-Modi, and that’s a product of John Oliver. Most of my engineering team are Indian and some I like, some I tolerate. And a fear of Indian traffic by reputation alone.

    But you could swap “American” with “Indian” in that first paragraph, change nothing else, and it be largely (if not entirely) accurate.









  • maniclucky@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzHero
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    My problem with your example is that the loner didn’t have comparable value. If it was supporting other things, then it failed. If it was doing something non obvious, it shouldn’t be compared to the support. It feels fallacious, though I can’t name one specifically.

    System sight is itself an issue. Many companies evaluate an employee solely on some performance metric, typically tied to money. Because it’s easy (and lazy).

    I’ve had several positions where my task was to keep things running. I added no value, I prevented loss. And those positions get screwed because they’re very difficult to quantify worth and very hard to see (and if it doesn’t create money, they don’t care). You only notice them when something goes wrong. Such an employee may keep everything running all year and get a “meets expectations” because there’s an upper limit on how much contribution the system sees, and the system doesn’t want to put in the effort to see better. I may have had to climb over an air handler to get to a transducer to calibrate, but that’s not sexy and even if I report such effort, it’s what I’m supposed to do (even if I wasn’t, weekend nights are weird).

    No one is going to write down “keep machine running 80% of the time” because people unassociated with the task will insist that 100% is the expectation, despite that being unreasonable.

    A system built of people is not a black box. We can see them and evaluate them based on the task they’re supposed to do, but the evaluators don’t want to put in the effort to do their tasks in a way that means more work for them.

    There’s a comment to be made also about scope creep for a position so that a company doesn’t have to hire marketing and engineering if they can get the engineers to do it. Despite them being suboptimal for the task. Something something down with unrestrained capitalism.

    Ok. I’ve lost the plot at this point and made my point. Have a good one.


  • maniclucky@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzHero
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    That’s a pretty contrived setup. If the two top components are not factored into the performance of the whole and they are both defined by their ability to improve other components, then the one doing it’s own thing is not, in fact, a top performer. It’s task is to support others and it fails to do so.

    And what if the loner’s task is foundational? It doesn’t have much direct output, but if he’s gone and everything else goes to shit? Those ones are very hard to measure. I know, that’s been my job for a good portion of my career. And things like that are common. Expecting a given performer, say an engineer, to also be good at public speaking has always struck me as impractical.