sigmaprimus
Joined 9 years ago
Joined 9 years ago
Rather than just leave it at that snippy remark I feel it is only fair to explain my point of view.
First, the disparity between those that work outside and those that work indoors is not a new thing and regardless of any real or imagined global warming there are many factors that affect the health and wellbeing of workers, including working odd hours such as graveyard shifts as the author suggests.
As an employer, I find this general attitude of who I assume are aggrieved socialists with an axe to grind offensive and ignorant when they claim that only legislation will protect workers from unfair working conditions.
The reality is most of us are doing anything we can to just get someone to show up for work and willing to accommodate and reasonable requests our of employees. Personally I don't even like the term employee as without them I have nothing.
The problem as I see it is, the few bad bosses and the people that work for them seem to be the focus. I would say that 40 years ago the argument that the majority of workers are being exploited may have been true but these days, any unskilled worker that shows up on time and doesn't make everyone else walk on egg shells or argue for the purpose of arguing can write their own ticket.
Finally, this idea that we need more unqualified and IMHO lazy post secondary educated bureaucrats to expound their worth by imposing regulation is dumber than a bag of hammers.
Do you really think that the majority of employers are more concerned with profits than people? I can assure you that I put every worker before profit and bear a huge burden just trying to keep my company going so that they have an income.
Maybe the author should start a company and gain some perspective before parroting this garbage coming from those intellectuals that mooch of us true proletariats!
I have worked in the video analytics field and in particular traffic control and pedestrian detection for several years and although it requires a greater amount of false positives to cover the detection of children the standard is to error on the side of caution.
As far as the pigment of peoples skin, this is hogwash as the amount of skin exposed compared to clothing is minimal. Was this study conducted using nude pedestrians? I can assure everyone that the detection of a person wearing all black and a hoodie(Aka Antifa uniform) is the minimum requirement.
Many detection systems use dual cameras and infrared and thermal imaging, this seems to be either propaganda or "Scientists" finding data to support their own bias.
Please don't get offended, that was not my intention.
PS: I understand there is a system for naming hurricanes but at least for me, the fact this one is named Hillary has added to my trepidation.
https://coolinterestingstuff.com/mysterious-alignment-of-anc...