unixknight

Sometimes I like to reminisce about my days as an auto mechanic. I miss it at times, because it's very satisfying to hear the sound of an engine start and run after it had to be dragged in on the back of a flatbed truck. At the same time, I don't miss it, because well... Everybody knows your job better than you do. Everybody. A customer once brought in his car because there was a mild grinding noise coming from the brakes. I pulled all 4 wheels off and inspected them, and realized that it was just a bit of rust gathering on the discs/drums. We'd had some wet weather recently and that sort of thing happens all the time. It's a very common issue. There's really no need to do anything, since the rust will naturally be scraped off by the action of the brakes. I went into the customer waiting area to deliver the good news. The customer's response: "Well I've owned several cars in my life, and this has never happened to me before. It's not a common problem." Oh, really? How many cars have you owned? A dozen? How many cars do you think I see in a single week? Maybe, and I know this is crazy... But maybe I have a better sense of what's normal than you do. I know... crazy, right? I mean, if you want to pay me to resurface your discs and drums for no reason, and then have the exact same problem next time it rains I can sure do that for ya. And that'll be $120 per axle. A customer once had his car towed in because the rear brake calipers were seized. (Super common problem on certain GM models in the early - mid 90s.) We recommended replacing the calipers, because the caliper pins, made of steel, were nigh impossible to release without damaging the caliper. The replacement parts used neoprene pins which eliminated the problem entirely. Of course, this customer, being an engineer of some kind, absolutely insisted that we could free the pins by heating the metal. Well, technically that is true, but 1. that weakens the metal, making it more brittle. That what you want in your braking system, Einstein? Second, just replacing the pins meant putting steel ones back in, meaning the problem WILL reoccur. But what did we know? Mr. EngineerTM wasn't having any of that. So I spent the next 3 hours with a gas torch and an air hammer trying to get these stupid pins out. Even the shop manager came in to help. Ultimately, we were able to replace the pins on one caliper, but not the other. So Genius customer agreed to buy just one caliper. Guess who came back in 6 months later with a seized caliper on one side, exactly as we predicted? Before I was under the hood I sold car parts, and one day a customer came in, angrily accusing us of having sold him a bad battery. "What's the problem?" I asked? Knowing already what the problem was. "I bought this piece of junk battery after my old one died. It worked fine at first, but after about 3 or four trips, it died too. I WANT A REFUND!" I tested the battery, (after recharging it) and it was fine. I explained to him that he needed to get his alternator checked, and that it was probably the problem. I was, of course, accused of trying to rip him off by selling him something he didn't need. I explained to him that the alternator is what supplies electrical power when a car is running, and also recharges the battery. You can run a car on just battery power for a while, but with a bad alternator you'll eventually drain the battery and be stuck again." He didn't like that answer. "You mean to tell me the car can run without a battery in it????" Yes, you doorknob. "Yes." I told him. "Once the engine is running the battery is just along for the ride." He didn't believe me, of course, since it meant not only that his angry tirade was for nothing, but now he was going to have to buy an alternator, too. My manager arrived and backed me up, and the customer left with a new alternator. Every single customer assumes you're going to lie to them and rip them off. I once had a customer come in to get new brake pads. I replaced them, and I resurfaced the rotors. Now, it's important to note here that "resurfacing" means to put the metal disc on a lathe to cut the surface to ensure that it's flat, uniform and consistent. This can only be done on a rotor that's physically thick enough. Every state has legal regulations for how thin a rotor can get before it can't be legally resurfaced again. The reason for this is that brakes work by converting mechanical energy into heat energy, and when there isn't enough metal left, the brakes will overheat and fail. I warned this customer that the rotors were very thin, and there was barely enough metal left to resurface them. She would definitely need new rotors next time she got brakes. Fine. Fast forward about a year and a half. She comes back, brakes worn down again. (A year and a half? This woman must drive with a lead foot!) The pads were under warranty so they'd be replaced for free but... Now those rotors are no longer serviceable. By law, I could only replace them. Not only could I not resurface them again, they had worn down below the minimum width. There was no way for me to legally work on these brakes as they were. I explained to her that the rotors needed to be replaced, and I offered her a discounted price. *kaboom* Well that's when she decided the whole brake warranty thing was a scam, I was ripping her off, the rotors should be given for free, yadda yadda yada. Nevermind that I was bound, by law, to not just slap new pads on and let the car go. Nevermind that I had warned her this was going to be an issue. None of that mattered. Eventually she calmed enough to buy the rotors, but she never came back. (Epilogue: A year later my wife and I were dining at a restaurant and I recognized our waitress as this woman. I don't know if she recognized me. She probably did and spat in my food.) I once had a friend who was getting married, and asked me to be one of the ushers. As we were all in the car to go get fitted for tuxes, his father (the best man) started in on me about how dishonest mechanics were. "I beg your pardon?" He elaborated: "Well I've seen mechanics say that a job will take x number of hours, but then I see them in half that tie outside smoking a cigarette. They should only charge you for the amount of time it takes." I was so taken aback I didn't formulate my rebuttal until much later. For the moment, all I could think to do was to explain to him the flat rate system, which is the system by which repairs are estimated and mechanics are paid in many (but not all) shops. Flat rate means that a particular repair is estimated to take a particular amount of time, which is found in a flat rate manual published by the auto manufacturers. For example, in those days, a front brake job, including new pads, resurfacing the rotors, greasing the caliper pins and road test was listed at 2.5 hours. That assumes no unusual problems like broken bolts, excessive corrosion, etc. So a mechanic gets paid 2.5 hours to perform the job. If he takes 4 hours to do it, he gets paid 2.5 hours. If he takes an hour and a half, he gets paid 2.5 hours. So as you can see, it's a system whereby the more experience you have, the faster you can accomplish the job at the appropriate level of quality. That's an incentive to not drag your feet. My friend's father wasn't having that. "If it only takes an hour and a half, then you should only get paid an hour and a half!!!!" Oh really, Einstein? Let's think about that for a minute. The flat rate system means everybody gets paid the same for a fixed level of work done. It means every customer gets charged the same for a fixed level of work done. By your reasoning, a mechanic who had years of experience and is more efficient than the average should be paid less, and a brand new tech who has never touched a car before should be paid for all 5 of the hours it would take him to do the job. Oh, but then again, the experienced mechanic might just take 5 hours too, since you're paying him for the time he actually takes... Protip: Mechanics do not stand there and take cigarette breaks to burn up the clock. If I took 1.5 hours to do a 2.5 hour brake job, I'd be bringing in the next car, not just sitting on my hands. (Disclaimer: I do not believe that people are dumb for not knowing how cars work. Cars are incredibly complex and intricate masterpieces of human ingenuity, and of course we aren't born with the knowledge. Where I get irritated is people who pretend to posses greater knowledge than they do.) What are YOUR pet peeves at your job? Got any fun stories?

Indeed. Where I'd differ is that I do think that even genuinely extreme viewpoints are worth understanding, why? "Know thine enemy." I don't use the "it gives them validity" argument. I get where you're coming from on it, but I think people overuse it to the point of creating bubbles. "Why are you interviewing that person? You're giving them a platform!"

I know in the past I've been guilty of doing that, and you're right... It feels like an easy way to score points... But I've been trying to keep from doing it, and only express that kind of confusion as a way to earnestly ask. I'm glad in your example you got an actual answer. Usually when I try that I get an answer to the effect of "If you don't understand, it's not my job to explain it."

I watch a lot of YouTube videos. I mean, a LOT, and a large proportion of those are Star Trek related videos. Yeah, I know, shocking. Well I was watching one the other day by a YouTuber who also does a lot of political commentary. I avoid his political content, partly because I'm trying to avoid politics in general but also partly because his commentary is usually pretty vapid and mindless. His Star Trek videos tend to be much more insightful. Well on this particular video, he was doing a Q&A and some fan wrote a question to the effect of "How can anyone support Trump AND like Star Trek?" His reply was that he had no idea. He wasn't saying that Trump supporters shouldn't watch Star Trek, but he just kept emphasizing how he just doesn't know how that can work. And it got me thinking. Ever notice how often people say "I just can't understand how you can think X, Y or Z. I just don't get it." Now, sometimes we say that and it's a legitimate expression of confusion. "I don't know how you can think Star Wars is better than Star Trek. Have you seen Jar-Jar?" That's like an invitation to elaborate. It means "please, by all means tell me what it is you see in Star Wars that resonates with you over the awesomeness that is Star Trek." But that's not always how it's meant. In examples like the one in the YouTube Q&A, and very frequently in debates, it's meant as a moral argument in itself. Saying "I just don't get how you can both appreciate Star Trek AND like Donald Trump" basically translates into "My sense of morality and righteousness is just so well developed that I can't comprehend how your views can make sense in any context, so it's a mystery to me why we can share an appreciation for something like Star Trek. See how virtuous I am?" It's like that kind of confusion is taken as a positive. "I'm too smart/wise/good to understand your perspective." That's insidious. It essentially equates the other view as being so flawed, so bad, so immoral that it isn't even worth the effort to understand it. In fact, not only is it not worth the effort, it would actually be a bad thing to try. Now, maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. Maybe my introvert brain is overanalyzing something that's really a non-issue. But tell me this: Haven't we all seen this done? "I just don't see how you can think that." used not as a way to prompt a more detailed explanation, but as a way to close off argument? Doesn't that, broadly speaking, just translate into "If your argument/views/opinion made any sense I'd be able to understand it. But since I can't, it must be wrong." I dunno. Sorry for rambling. Maybe I'm losing my mind.

If they do that I'd probably start having iced tea in my fridge regularly the way I once did, but I'd still avoid coffee. (No offense to you Seattle folks )

Triple post. Apparently, I REALLY MEANT IT.

Did you ride the Loch Ness Monster? 2nd most epic rollercoaster ever. And "chilly 72" don't go together. If I'd had weather like that over the weekend I could have finally gone outside and repaired my truck. (Funny, ain't it? I'm only a couple degrees latitude farther north than Williamsburg...) Not if it's working for you, though to add to what @SpiritDragon said, I once had a co-worker who drank a lot of diet soda like that when he was in college. He started to develop odd neurological symptoms that the doctor couldn't figure out the source of. When he quit drinking all that diet soda, the symptoms went away. years later he started drinking the diet soda again, and they symptoms came back... His hypothesis is that it was a reaction to the artificial sweetener. (I don't know what it was, maybe NutraSweet?) Just food for thought. I had weird GI issues when I was drinking a lot of diet soda, which is why I personally avoid it. My doctor told me that it's better to just kick soda altogether if one's gonna do it. Either way it seems like different people have different experiences, so like I said, if it helps you, go for it!

Duplicate post

In short, correct. That's why I'm always reluctant to point to science to find vindication for some doctrine or another. When it comes to application of religion, science is a fickle thing. Sometimes it seems to support your belief, sometimes it seems to refute it. Sometimes it goes back and forth (like with the coffee thing.) Maybe there are health benefits to coffee, but what about the bigger picture? What about the addictive properties of caffeine? I used to work with a guy who had a 20oz cup of coffee form Starbucks before 9AM every day. By 10AM he was back over there for a refill (!). That man's prostate gland is going to explode before he turns 45. I'd wonder if those minor benefits outweigh that. (I know you aren't promoting coffee, I just felt like sharing that story ) Honestly, I think the WoW is about more than just simple, physical health. I've had plenty of coworkers who couldn't be productive until they'd had their morning coffee. I'm not referring to physical addiction to caffeine here, but the psychological need to not even try to be alert before that first cup... Almost as if not having had that coffee was a license to be useless before 9AM. Ever heard someone say "I NEED my coffee?" Yeah. That's how I knew it was time to put away the Pepsi, because I was regularly citing a "need" for it. Sorry for my rambling reply!

It's not about one-upmanship. It's about establishing one's credentials as knowledgeable in the field of discussion. Neither @Traveler nor I said "I'm more knowledgeable than you." (Though in fairness, if he said it I'd concede that particular point.) We're just letting each other know what we know. While I agree with what you said about the military influence on the outlook of an A.I. I think you're a bit off in your understanding of what an A.I. is, in terms of software. An A.I. isn't like other computer programs, in that yes... a program will instruct a computer to do EXACTLY what you tell it to do (not necessarily what you WANT it to do, but that's because of errors and bugs.) An A.I. is different because it has algorithms to "learn." (Heuristics). That means it has the ability to modify its own behavior. The example I mentioned before, where two A.I.s developed their own language for communicating with each other... That isn't something they were programmed to do. They just did it because it was a more efficient means of communication than they had previously. The concern I have is that A.I.s will effectively get to the point where their intelligence is effectively equal to, or greater than, humans. Combine that with their ability to operate orders of magnitude faster than humans, and it isn't hard to imagine how that genie could get out of the bottle. I get what you're saying here, but no prophet made the H-Bomb either, at least not until after that genie was out of the bottle. Agreed. Now combine that with what @JohnsonJones said. While I agree that God is the ultimate intelligence, I don't agree that intelligence is somehow automatically friendly to all things intelligent. You mentioned yourself in this very post that A.I.s can be used for nefarious purposes. That's a contradiction. It's great that you approach it that way personally. Keep up the good work. That said, given the fact that evil can also create, use and influence A.I.s, do you not see any wisdom in creating rules and limits now, before the problem becomes too big?

I'm glad you're industry savy. That's why I'm bewildered that you see A.I. as being just another thing with no unique properties to it that may make it more potentially dangerous. To me, it's like saying "well the Chinese have had explosives for many centuries. What makes an H-bomb so different? It's just a new version of an old technology. Why are you scared of it?" There's a pretty strong case for doing exactly that.

You don't regard being treated as a slave as causing pain? Let's hope the A.I.s agree with you. Never underestimate the danger of stupidity when it outnumbers you. Intelligence alone is a poor defense against an angry mob. Also, possessing intelligence is no guarantee of possession of power. For my part, as a software engineer and a student of professional A.I. development, I'm not prepared to be complacent.

Humans can (and do) switch them off at will. Humans can (and do) dispose of them when not needed anymore Humans can (and do) modify them at will Humans can (and do) destroy them without remorse Humans can (and do) make irrational decisions sometimes because of emotional response Humans can (and do) buy/sell/trade them Humans can (and do) abuse them for amusement (ever heard of Chatbot?) Other than that, I can't think of a single reason why an A.I. might regard a human as a threat.

So are you telling me you don't endorse compulsory vaccinations in the U.S.?

Artificial Intelligence technology is expanding by leaps and bounds. A pair of A.I.s recently were shut down after they invented their own language to talk to each other, in order to bring them under control and to determine how, exactly, that happened. Mind you, this is on binary computers and existing technology. Dump quantum computing into the mix and enough time, there's no limit to the potential of such devices. How long until such a device sees humans as a threat? (It only takes one.) And what will it do then? The answer to that question depends entirely on what we do now to apply limits to what an A.I. can possibly do.

And what I'm telling you is that the dynamic is about to change, where it's something new striving for power over ALL humans.

I don't understand. Why does herd immunity a reason for compulsory vaccines to be an exception to your normal approach? This is the core of where I'm at. If you're talking about giving the Government power, it needs to be a VERY necessary, compelling and the benefits need to be rock solid and clear. Forcing vaccinations in the U.S. strikes me as a feel good solution to a problem that barely exists in any significant scale.

Well, the whole point of this sub-discussion is the uniqueness of A.I. technology as a potential threat to human freedom. That said, there is an answer to your question. Several, actually... Come on over to NSA (I live 5 miles from it. You can stay in our guest room!) and you'll see a building packed to the rafters with technology being used to take a steaming, watery dump on the 4th Amendment in ways that wouldn't have been possible just 20 years ago.

Why is it an exception for the U.S.? With vaccines plentiful (and therefore inexpensive) we just don't have the same issues here as in the Philippines, so why would there need to be an exception to your normal approach?

It isn't destruction, but a loss of freedom that is the concern here, in terms of global scale.

Ok that's what I was wondering about. My (highly Libertarian) thinking is this: Vaccinations are something that are basically a no-brainer, so the solution to the anti-vax movement is simply education. People who are choosing not to vaccinate, based on junk science, are truly doing what they think is best for their kids, they just have the facts wrong. They're not bad people, just unaware. Granted, some fight tooth and nail to remain ignorant, but welcome to the human race, where worldviews are set in iron. Fortunately, those tend to be isolated and herd immunity generally is sufficient to handle it. It's when you see communities, like the one in the OP, being vulnerable due to clumps of people making the same bad call together. That said, their community leaders are already working toward educating people and remedying the problem, so from where I'm sitting, Government power is not needed.

Ok. But in the Philippines, do people have a choice (assuming the vaccine is available?)

Oh I thought I'd come back and updated... He actually didn't freak out as I thought he would. He joked about how "Now Trump has ruined this too" but it didn't feel like an actual rant. I guess since the artist who designed the float seemed to have vaguely anti-Trump ideas, it was more palatable.

Another political thing???

Au contraire, mon ami. How can you be living in 2019 and say that? "Some people" are the reason it's illegal to "misgender" people in NYC now. Never underestimate the power of "some people" when they get loud enough. I'd say that's a fine example of people avoiding exposure. Which people are doing. If it's a question of freedoms vs. someone's nose, I can think of no better example. Sure, you can't choose not to breathe, but you do have a pretty good amount of control over where you do it and whom you do it around. And why is that? That's a semantic argument. It's a medical treatment and it's being imposed, by force, on the many in order to accommodate the few.