After watching the movie "dark waters" about the whole Teflon scandal, seems like it should be the highest up person (or people) who had knowledge of the incident (obviously must be proven). An individual engineer knowing a car has a dangerous edge case isn't enough to get them in trouble in my view, especially if the company has claimed they are working on fixing it. Also legitimate mistakes are just mistakes, companies won't get it right every single time.
However there's cases where its completely proven that someone high up knew there was a systemic safety issue (they had a broad view and could see all the different areas of what was going on), they knew exactly what was causing it, and they do nothing because they want to keep the profit going. The fact those people don't go to jail just tells me that corporations have way too much leeway.
Your case sounds complicated so I'm not sure, but two things to note:
1. US is one of only a few countries where children emigrating with parents don't officially declare intent to immigrate, they do it automatically with their parents. This means that your grandfather (whether he was aware or not) was still German, since German law says you only give it up if you "take action to immigrate" or something like that. Likewise every child since then (your mother and you) were born as US citizens "involuntarily" (as in you didn't choose) so you also retained your citizenship.
2. In 2021 Section 5 of the StAG law was updated to say that people born to German mothers between 1949-1975 are now eligible, it was updated since male only was seen as discriminatory. So theoretically say grandfather -> mother (born to male) -> you (post 1949). Not an expert so double check this.
Im not an expert but my understanding of your case would be that you are not even needing to apply for status, you are literally German now, and just need to request a passport (check this with the resources on Reddit I mention below).
I'd recommend checking Reddit "German Citizenship by Descent" resources. There's a couple profile names you will see there really frequently who are German citizens who can help you in finding paperwork from German government resources if needed (old birth certificates, etc.) for a small fee.
This just feels like one of those things that can be completely loopholed. There's plenty of reasons why a company might find a specific software not profitable but also not want to open source it, so under this rule they will just host it on the most basic server possible (only concurrently supports like 50 users) and never update it again. Effectively still dead.
I don't think it's ambiguous, but I have been wondering how much LLMs model human behavior that we just don't recognize due to the subset of people on this site. I recently saw a comment online that "Mandarin isn't anyone's first language, people in China's first language is a dialect". It just struck me at that moment that people also hallucinate information confidently all the time.
Yes exactly. We are all wrong on occasion, but before I repeat something I perceive as important (or maybe not even important, just "factual") I tend to always want to try to verify it. Otherwise I'd say "I heard..." or something similar to caveat. Maybe it's an engineering mindset thing.
When you look into the edge cases developer productivity is really tough to understand. It's easy as the engineer yourself to see your own productivity as easy to understand, but if you are ever in the position of trying to assess someone's productivity that you don't work with day to day, its really difficult. There are people who are able to achieve millions in yearly savings with like 10 lines of code updated per year, perf debugging types. I'd never believe that up front if I hadn't seen it after the fact.
Its interesting to me that over the last 10 years of working in agile teams, not one team has analyzed burn rates to see if we are doing better/worse over time. Its like every sprint is a clean slate and no one actually gets better at their job...
This is something people always claim, but this explanation assumes that everyone is "colluding". The guy who wants to get a promotion and get paid 50% more cause he has 3 kids isn't going to play along, he is going to at least put in 4 hours a day of real work, and then everyone else is going to look 20x less productive. There are teams where people are mailing it in so hard that they will find ways to kick out the hard workers, but this doesn't exist across entire orgs/companies/industries.
For me it was similar, but I think it was more about a lack of a natural friction. Normally when coding there was the "hit" of seeing something work, but the actually planning/coding/debugging would eventually wear me out, so I'd stop for the day. Now it can all just be endless "hit" of success and nothing that makes me feel tired or annoyed.
The reason I believe this is because I recently went through a really annoying battle with Claude trying to get it to stop being so strict with its sandbox. I wanted it to simply load some sanitized text from a source online, and it just would not do it. The sessions when I was sorting that out were so much easier to stop and moderate than the ones where everything just kept flowing effortlessly.
Being able to know someone's risk factor would be important for how we treat elderly people. I know someone who is 85 and super sharp (previously worked as a corporate accountant and banker), they still have a better memory than a lot of 40-50 year olds, and yet they are constantly harassed by eldercare "agents" for the state because whenever they make a investment decision that is even slightly questionable they get reported to the state by the bank. Sometimes the bank refuses to authorize transactions. If they could conclusively prove they aren't at risk I think they would be left alone much more often.
I've seen this in Asia, there's an employee who basically is standing at a raised spot in the corner and if you take out your phone they shoot a small laser pointer right into the camera, it messes with the video. They can't get it on there all the time but a video where half of it (or more they are surprisingly accurate) is a strobing laser becomes pretty garbage anyways. While they are doing that another employee/bouncer comes over and warns them, have seen people get kicked out for pulling it out a second time.
True, it wasn't very specific, but I think we can rule out Afghanistan where music and dancing are illegal.. I haven't been to Tonga, seems possible that there might a little nightlife in Nukuʻalofa but probably not laser-wielding security, so that narrows it down a little.
When you say leave behind...do you mean you lose something by not interacting with them, or do you mean that you have some kind of duty to help get them un-addicted? I don't think you are obligated to go hangout at your local bar once a week just because alcoholics exist.
We have a duty to help them..and I don't think society gets this right in other places. We're not proactive about it. In religion and islam there's something called dawah, effectively preaching, but the idea is you're calling people to something with higher purpose and to eliminate all these bad habits. And I think it's the same whether online or offline. We need to help people. First you have to help yourself but then you have to go back and get everyone else. It speaks to a moral imperative we should all have to help our fellow man.
I don't know that you can broadly say "religion" I'm not a Buddhist but from my surface level understanding of Buddhism it might be the case that that person needs to save themselves when they have had some negative experiences with social media. (This is overly simplistic I'm not saying its all on the individual but it's hard to summarize this point in only a couple sentences).
I do think there's some people who have fallen into social media bad habits and can fairly easily be helped to correct bad habits, other people seem to go to social media because it actually aligns with who they are. I've met several people (strangers) who seemed like they brought social media behavior into real life in a way that made me think social media gave them a platform for their personality, not the other way around. They were pretty jarring experiences that really stuck with me.
It’s not a small group of people that we can afford to “lose”. It’s widespread in an entire generation (at least), a fact that threatens our society as a whole.
However there's cases where its completely proven that someone high up knew there was a systemic safety issue (they had a broad view and could see all the different areas of what was going on), they knew exactly what was causing it, and they do nothing because they want to keep the profit going. The fact those people don't go to jail just tells me that corporations have way too much leeway.
reply