I recently heard about a startup trying to do something about this. Probably not totally mature, but might be worth a look: https://www.kaholo.io/
(I am not related to company in any way)
Thank you for posting this, the explanations are intuitive and the real-world examples really help one think about the implications of these probability facts.
Dude, you are still young! You made some mistakes in the first half of your life, but your second half can be better due to the experience you gained. There are lots of people who start a second relationship in their 40s, after going through a divorce. And you can always adopt another dog... What I'm saying is that even though life seems bleak right now, you still have many years of happiness ahead.
This post makes me think that it was a foolhardy decision to drive a rental car on my last visit to Japan. It's very easy to make mistakes driving on the side of the road you're not used to. Who knows what could have happened if a policeman saw me fail to give right of way or something like that...
That would probably just result in a ticket, which must be paid immediately at the police station. But if you'd had one drop of alcohol in your system, it would have meant jail time. The DUI limit in Japan is much lower than in the US and even if you haven't been drinking the limit doesn't matter if the cop judges you to be impaired.
Jesus, I just remembered I met some expats and we smoked a joint. It was communicated to me that it was frowned upon in Japan and maybe even serious but I'm starting to wonder exactly how much that joint could have cost me. Wtf Japan?
It's an accident caused by something getting turned on at the wrong time. Is it any different than, for example, someone turning on the power without knowing that an electrician is currently doing some work, thereby causing him to get electrocuted?
It is, because there are always pedestrians and other cars around the streets. They are more difficult to control especially if you're not looking. I'm pretty confident that I don't kill anybody if I turn on a light switch now. I'm pretty sure something bad would happen if I'd start my car remotely in gear and with no handbrake.
Dude, sounds like you're spreading yourself too thin. Trying to launch multiple (two?) companies at the same time, plus renovating, plus running a charity, plus working with clients... When do you sleep?
My unsolicited advice is to say no more often - if an opportunity comes along but you're already overworked, you might need to pass on it.
Yep, i'm actually painfully aware that that is my problem, the issue is that my natural brain is to be a problem solver and I say yes by default to most things, but i am trying to shut down the amount of streams of things that i'm dealing with but i need to finish them rather than abandon them. I'm 1-2 weeks away from not having to worry about 2 streams of things and then i can shut down the other things as i go on. Its just a stressful time.
You are working in a TOXIC environment and obviously it's taking its toll. You have to get out, or at least transfer to another team. You wrote that you went to HR and they didn't help with your boss, but perhaps they CAN help moving you to another team. And you wrote that you're applying for other jobs - it can take time, just don't give up!
> It's hard for me to believe that another job won't be the same thing
It won't be the same thing, because your current boss won't be there! Sounds like he's abusing you, and most likely your next boss won't behave the same.
> It's hard for me to believe that another job won't be the same thing
Most people also are too lazy for this level of sadism. Even if your next boss is a bigger asshole (which sounds completely unbelievable), it'd be more profitable for them to let you work rather than waste all that energy abusing you.
Forgive if I missed something but where did the parent mention HR? I ask because I agree with your assesment about the environment they are in and my first thought was to ask "have you talked to anyone in HR?".
Otherwise totally agree, especially the part about not giving up!
My goodness! I'm positive the poster wrote something about talking to HR and they said others complained too but nothing ever changes. Did he edit his post, or am I hallucinating?
Maybe confused it with another post? I do that a lot around here... And there seems to be a lot of people today in similar situations.
Regardless, as others have mentioned, the environment they are dealing with is wrong and if HR isn't the solution perhaps legal action that others mentioned would be the way to go.
To the parent poster, I hope things get better soon for you. Stay strong and do your best to get out of there as soon as possible!
The article tries to paint Waze as an "evil" corporation, but to me it sounds like they haven't perfected their algorithms yet. If Waze reroutes 1,000 cars to a shortcut that can only handle 100, that's idiotic and does not provide a good service to users. But if their algorithms took the road's capacity into account, everyone would benefit since there would be no "synthetic" traffic jams.
In my experience traffic apps are imperfect and even dangerous:
- Waze sent me once to a shortcut via a very shady neighborhood
- Google drove me through an alley so narrow that I had to fold the side mirrors in order to pass
- Google twice tried to put me on a toll-road ramp that could only be used by electronic pass holders. As a tourist, I didn't have one.
That said, these apps provide huge value by telling you about road conditions (e.g. accidents) and routing you around them, estimating your ETA, and telling you how to get to your destination even if you miss a turn. I would not want to go back to the old way of navigating using paper maps and just hoping for the best...
But if their algorithms took the road's capacity into account...
As the secondary and tertiary roads start to back up, wouldn't Waze start to direct people back onto the primary road for the same reasons it started directing them off the primary?
The problem isn't Waze, or Google, or sat-nav in general. The problem is LA (and most of the US) has massively under-invested in urban planning and infrastructure. More housing built closer to work hubs. More transit options.
The part that really rustles my jimmies is none of the rest of the US seems to have learned anything from California's mistakes. As new areas grow, they seem to repeat the same failures that California made in the 1960s.
> But if their algorithms took the road's capacity into account, everyone would benefit
The people getting extra non-resident traffic on residential streets don't benefit.
But let's ignore them and look only at current drivers. It's quite possible for routing even one car through shortcut neighborhoods to be a net negative, because they have to spend time leaving and merging back with the main traffic flow.
It's not just "roads". There are arterial roads, collector roads, and local roads. Everyone is allowed to use them, but everyone is supposed to use them for their actual purpose. The lowest tier of road is only supposed to be used for the first/last mile of a trip. It is not "efficient" use to pretend all roads are arterial.
I've started to avoid using GPS navigation whenever possible for these reasons. Navigation is a valuable skill and using GPS means you don't develop it or forget it. I've noticed a strange phenomenon where people will listen to the GPS even if they know it's not right. It's better to learn to navigate.
I find GPS most useful if I already know the route -- it can give me advance notice of traffic out of my vision, or it can tell me which of two routes will be faster (an example is picking either the car or truck lanes, or east or west spur of the NJ Turnpike, which has multiple mostly-parallel routes).
In cases where I don't know where I'm going, I try to set any GPS app to keep to freeways and arterial roads when possible, since those tend to signed the best.
At this point it seems meaningful to describe behavior as "evil" if it's relatively easy to identify that your algorithm is working badly or producing bad/dangerous outcomes but still leave it running as-is. Do small scale tests until it's fixed instead. Driving cars is dangerous as-is, it's not going to be great to send thousands of people down residential roads that might be less safe than arterial roads AND make them drive worse by frustrating them with bad traffic.
I share your experiences with Google Maps and Waze giving me bad or actively dangerous directions. I learned to distrust those apps as a result.
I guess you bare no responsibility for blindly following google? Ridiculous that we just accept people driving these dangerous 2 tonne vehicles everywhere for their own selfish reasons.
Of course the responsibility lies with the driver, and he/she should take the driving instructions with a grain of salt. But often while driving you do not have time to think about it for more than a second before having to decide whether to take the turn or not. Furthermore, you don't even know in advance whether the turn will lead you to a dangerous location. And when driving in an unfamiliar foreign country, your reliance on navigation apps is almost absolute.
The examples I listed do not bode well for self-driving cars: if they rely on incomplete navigation maps/databases, they will make wrong navigation decisions and possibly lead the passengers into danger or a dead-end (such as an alley that's too narrow for the vehicle to traverse).
