Commercial pilots are explicitly trusted to fly expensive and dangerous vehicles, sometimes with hundreds of passengers, over populated areas. They are trained and licensed professionals. If we can't trust those folks to have a mobile device with them but to make good choices about whether/when to use it in the course of their job, then they shouldn't be flying anyway.

If someone can't have their mobile device on hand because of stupid employer rules then they need to find a new job.

I get that you don't want your team distracted by mobile phone use during work hours, but saying you can't have one is idiotic. Fuck those employers.

OTOH kids need to learn that putting the device away to focus is a thing, if they can't figure it out on their own I'm not against removing the opportunity while they mature.

Who celebrated? Everyone at the time who wasn't trying to write flash exploits did

The rifle pictured is a FAMAS, and the bolt does not lock open after the last round.

Though you're not totally wrong, fewer bangs than you expect on the last trigger pull is pretty easy to notice.

The apocryphal story is actually kind of interesting.

Roads and right of way established during the pre-firearm era were that you'd ride on the left, with people going the opposite way on your right. This was so you could use your dominant hand (usually your right) to use a sword to defend yourself.

Roads after firearms were available often established right of way with riding on the right, with oncoming traffic on the left. This is because when you shoulder a firearm on your right shoulder it's easier to aim left.

Stagecoach drivers would sit in the left seat, with the extra person sitting on the right, holding a shotgun, hence the colloquial term for the front passenger seat.

I have no idea how true this is, but it makes for an interesting story.

we aren't in college to learn a specific skill so much as we are there to learn how to be taught.

I really like this idea, but prefer one small change: I think it's best to learn how to learn.

Learning how to be taught is part of that, and a large part. Understanding when to absorb information, rely on experts, and apply yourself until you improve is fundamental. You won't get any arguments from me there.

But being taught is only one facet of learning. Sometimes experts aren't really experts, or don't have the learner's best interests at heart, or omit things to protect their own interests or ideology.

Learning how to learn involves fostering fundamental curiosity, not being afraid to fail, asking all the questions even dumb ones or those with seemingly obvious answers. Finding out "why" something works instead of just "how". Fundamentally curious people who learn as a habit tend to also develop a scientific method-like approach to evaluating incoming information: "Ok, this is the information I'm presented with, let's assume the opposite, can I prove the null hypothesis?" This acts as a pretty good bullshit detector, or at the very least trains learners to be skeptical, to trust but verify, which is enormously important in the age of misinformation.

Being taught generally tapers off as someone gets older, or becomes an expert. Learning never needs to taper off, so long as your brain still works.

It's a mixed bag.

Growing up was made difficult because school is so slow that I'd rather be getting into trouble than sitting in class. By the start of middle school I'd already read the entire high school honors reading list, I had to walk to the high school from my middle school in 7th grade to take math classes. I rarely had regular school work in high school, nearly all of my academic teachers designed a different curriculum for me, which was nice but probably mostly to keep me from acting up in class. I never studied or did a shred of homework, but got good grades.

Social interactions were tough, I'm not much of an empath, not that I don't experience empathy but emotions just aren't intuitive, actually they often are the opposite of what you'd expect to be helpful, especially among young people. I had to concentrate to read people's faces and mannerisms to understand the emotional and social subtexts of most interactions. I self medicated with alcohol a lot in high school.

All of my academic classes in high school were honors, and my final 2 years were all AP, while lettering in 3 varsity sports (4 total, but you can only play 3 each academic year). It wasn't until my second year in uni that I ran into a class for which I actually had to study (nuclear chemistry), and boy was that an awful surprise. A handful of classes were like this for me, most I just showed up 3 times and got a good grade: the first day of class so I wouldn't get dropped, the midterm, and the final.

I read quickly, think systematically, and information just sticks in my head. It was very difficult to understand why this wasn't how most people were. Everything I do I analyze for improvement, and remember to do it better the next time. My wife calls me a skill collector because people seem to think I'm super good at everything, but to me it's just logical that if you're going to take time do something you might as well do it as well as possible.

After uni things started getting easier. Being forced to closely analyze social interactions and systematically give the "right" reactions is extremely useful in professional life. I wear this mask in all my interactions with all but my closest friends. It's a bit psychopathic, but I don't do it to anyone's detriment, it's mostly to get along and fit in.

I've self selected for highly intelligent friends, and I'm exhilarated to meet new people who can communicate with the kind of bandwidth that our brains run at, if that makes sense. I'm still close with most of my friends from high school, who have had varying levels of success, but I still have to be guarded when it comes to activities or conversation to make sure I don't stick out too much.

In general I have a very pessimistic view of people and the world. The average person isn't very sharp, and half of all people are dumber than that. However many smart people do evil things, most of the time for no reason at all. It's exhausting to keep up with it all, so I just focus on my path and my family, and do what I can to directly improve my community.

It would be nice to fit in a little easier, but I wouldn't trade my experience for anything else.

This pronunciation is very Texas, and hilarious 😂

The headsets are active between plays, and have one way communication with one player on each side. Typically this is the quarterback on offense and a team captain/play caller on defense. These players wear special helmets typically marked with a green dot on the back.

The refs or other officials cut off communication when the play clock reaches 15 seconds, preventing the kind of real-time communication you suggest.

I know this is a privacy community, but I'm not sure I'm onboard with the outrage on this particular one. If you rent/lease or go on a payment plan for the device you're using, then it isn't yours, it belongs to the entity you borrowed it from.

If I don't make car payments, the bank can repossess my ride. If I dont pay my mortgage or rent, I can be evicted by my landlord or bank.

If I don't make my phone payment, the company should have recourse to prevent me from using their device.

This could open up the ability for bad actors to disable my device, and I agree that's a horrible prospect. But the idea of a legitimate creditor using this feature to reclaim their property is not something I find shocking.

This is false.

Former employers can answer a narrow set of questions without opening themselves up to liability. Among them:

• dates of employment
• documented departure reason
• eligible for rehire
• status of non-competes

I'm guessing somewhere between the departure reason and "no, we wouldn't rehire this person" the new employer might have some additional questions for the prospective employee.

Some companies deserve to have you quit without notice, fuck 'em, but they are allowed to report some facts to other HR departments who ask.

It's crazy that you needed to write this essay to explain to Lemmy folks that:

• unskilled/low skill labor does in fact exist
• it was not invented by the cApITaLiSm boogeyman
• gets paid lower relative to other positions in the industry because they're both easily replaceable and on an individual level do not generate as much value to the business as skilled/trained/professional labor

The above things can be true while also saying that ALL labor (unskilled or not) should be treated with respect and basic human decency.

I'm not stanning capitalism here, I'm just tired of Lemmings who've either missed all of their basic econ classes or have never tried to run their own business telling me how to allocate wages relative to value.

Executive pay relative to everyone else is out of control, no arguments there. But skilled and professional labor is highly productive relative to unskilled, and should be compensated accordingly.