jacobtwotwo

The press is partially there to disagree with or at least critique such subjective judgments.

Speaking as a one-time 'high speed internet tech support customer relations specialist' working at a call-center contracted out to Comcast, I was told that it was close to 90%. That seems exaggerated since I would say it was closer to 70% (ballpark) success for my calls, but it was high enough that the place eventually implement an entire first-line crew that did no more than ask about whether power cycling had been complete or explain power-cycling before handing the 'sub(scriber)' off.

If someone called in with the GP's depth of troubleshooting completed, the standard policy was say something like 'this is outside of my allowable offered support'(but if you really know how, help, but not officially!).

I think OP's point still stands. If the job is done to the same standards (assuming same time frame as well), what other issues does this bring up?

An apt comparison might be Jimmy Hendrix playing a right-handed guitar left-handed (i.e. upside-down) and still producing master pieces.

> Someone has to be last

That makes it possible, not likely.

For any population N > 2, it's less likely that you'll be last than that you will not be last.

> How can the same people be worried about human extinction as a result of environmental collapse, also think we might be able to develop a sustainable colony on Mars.

We would control the size and direction of growth on a colony. As it stands the tradoffs we make with regard to earth's climate affect 7.5+Bn people. A colony can be planned/optimized before we get there. We don't need to terraform the entirety of mars to get a small colony. If you want to have mars rival earth, then we can start talking about the scales of comparison you're making.

May I suggest that you alter or drop the "who cares" part? That kind of dismissive rhetorical question will make anyone listening more willing to dismiss what follows out-of-hand as well. I very much agree with the core idea of what you said, but I felt my hackles rise as soon as I read the first sentence and I imagine anyone who actually disagrees won't even bother considering your side after seeing that you seem to not even care to consider their side.

I think the point is that China is exploiting the same system that other countries created and started exploiting prior, but it is doing so on a larger scale and to a more obvious degree than the others. That is to say, yes, it's a problem, but let's take a look at all the other instances of this type of behavior, so we can work toward a general solution, rather than just saying 'fuck china!'.

Can you explain how the op is suggesting that?

From my reading, it seems OP is saying that these types of articles need to include the broader context if they're to do any good in educating their readers on the issue at hand.

No context interpretation: 'China is the devil we need to stop!'

With context: 'China is one of the devils we need to stop!' (natural follow up: What is the common source of these devils?)

I, a relative 'nix noob, have been wanting to play around with different distros without losing too much of my configurations in any particuar jump. It seems like this might work for my use.

Check the comments. This is pretty light on actual content. You will probably want to skip to ~8 mins in.

I was one of those people today! This intrigued me enough to learn more about IEEE 754.

Thank you for the relevant xkcd!

This had me legitimately laughing out loud. Thank you ^_^

I love mentorship, but I don't feel like I'm in a position to mentor anyone. Learning enough to be able to spread my knowledge (or the beneficial application thereof) is the core reason why I want to improve. I know that the more I improve, the more I can help others with what I've learned. Is it possible to have useful mentorship without a focus on self-improvement as well?

What if I just ask pointless hypothetical questions and follow them up with no substance at all?