yarky

It's not like junk was a part of the name right?

> even when not needed

Examples? Every time I see kubernetes pop up it's because of better performance or lesser costs.

Well understood? I doubt many organizations had a pandemic SOP/DRP before 2020.

> The laws are indeed strict but seldom enforced.

This is true of most strict rules elsewhere: they're there but seldom enforced. Take speed limits, they're strict, but good luck enforcing them. All we do is we monitor from time to time and give tickets. Yet we could enforce this to the manufacturers, right? Why can a car go beyond the speed limit if it's strictly prohibited?

We cannot compare working conditions as is, but they're easy to compare when you take time into account: how where our labor laws a couple of generations ago? Not that different than poor countries today.

> Born and raised in China.

The OP made a good point that applies to all poor countries I've lived in: those jobs are the only (even the best) way out for most people to get out of poverty, which they do to help their families/children/themselves.

Maybe you were raised in a family that did not need to go through such hard labor, but that doesn't mean your right in your view of your own world ;)

P.S. I was also born and raised in a poor country.

Exactly, but why do so many people seem to have a problem with this? Sounds like a political problem to me instead of a scientific one.

> from a zero-comprehension state is more likely to get you to a goal than an evolution from a state that has at least some correctness.

I get that starting from a point with "some correctness" makes sense if you want to use such information (e.g. a standard starting point). However, such information is a preconceived solution to the problem, which might not be that useful after all. The fact is that you indeed might not at all need such information to find an optimal solution to a given problem.

> by setting a goal and a context we have already applied constraints.

I might be missing your point here since the goal and constraints must come from the real world problem to solve which is independent from the method to solve the problem. Unless you're describing p-value hacking your wait out, which is a broader problem.

The problem with preconceptions about your parameters is that you might be missing some crazy cool path to your goal, which you might find by randomly exploring your sample space. I remember seeing this same principle in mcmc samplers using uniform priors. Why is this so crazy?

> would be a massive improvement at the expense of inconveniencing a small minority of people (while improving the convenience for everyone else).

Wasn't this the same kind of argument we used in the past to justify slavery?

> more to me like "suck it up or get out, princess".

Different wording, but same message though. It sounds like the two options are fundamentally the same, regardless of the wording.

Do you mind to elaborate a bit?

Great advice! Where do you see more opportunities in the near future, ML?

> Burning it produces all kinds of toxins from impurities and carbon.

Which can be trapped/filtered to avoid pollution.

> if plastics ever become sufficiently valuable - or recycling sufficiently viable.

If that was remotely probable, you'd have banks offering plastic-storage related ETFs already.

I've got a set of sand timers (1 to 30 min) to handle such interruptions. Depending on how long it'll take me to finish what I'm working on, I'll just use one of those timers as currency to buy me the couple minutes I need to git commit my way out.

Seems like a communication issue though, just explain to them how important it is for you to focus uninterrupted and hopefully they'll respect you.