I read that entire article thinking it said driving instructor. Doesn't really change anything but it makes so much more sense that he's a part time diving instructor.
yeah, so many software engineers are not verify "ai search results". Hey people, llm generated search results aren't reliable, might well have hallucinations. You have to verify anything they say.
well, it is. quick search revealed a name of a certain big player, although there are some other local companies whose policies can be extended to "extreme sports"
Those are fuel canisters for a white gas stove. Pretty common below freezing because standard butane ones don't work well in the cold without a special fuel mixture. Although they make stoves that you can turn the canister over and it heats the liquid to produce gas; the white gas ones are easier to find fuel for in weird places and will burn gasoline in an emergency.
> Before sending the first mails, I stopped for a moment to reassess whether this was a good idea. What ultimately helped me decide was whether I would like to get the mail as an author.
The only reason this is a reasonable thing for this person to do is this:
> since I ultimately manually check every error
Imagine these emails going out automatically, and incorrectly.
But in this case, isn't Rathbun's owner the YouTube guy in this scenario?
I totally understand why they're trying to stay anonymous; it's a very rational thing to do, because people will shit on them. But they or their creation is the one that started trying to play the name-and-shame game.
It's hard to stir up too many feelings of sympathy here.
Exactly. I'm not saying this person should disclose their identity, but they are very conveniently using anonymity and passive voice to make themselves unaccountable to the 'social experiment' they conducted. And that we all know that if it went differently they'd put their name all over it.
In as many words I'm just calling this person a complete asshole and if I were to ever know this person offline I would be quite clear in explaining that.
I've been talking to my therapist about something similar - masking, as someone else in the comments mentioned.
And one thing that I've been thinking about as a result is that I don't owe anyone my authentic self.
Asking me to reveal more things about myself is asking a hell of a lot, actually. So maybe I'm boring on purpose, because I don't want to get into an argument with a random parent on the playground, or a random stranger on a bus, or a random receptionist at the doctor.
I'll be interesting to the people I'm interested in, and boring to everyone else.
that makes sense, since to be authentic, you need to be vulnerable.
Maybe what the article means is not so much to bring up something deeply personal, but to show a unique part of yourself.
I remember a guy came to work on my heating system and while he was wrapping up, somehow he told me he liked slot machines. That led to a 15 minute discussion about them.
Next he told me his wife let him keep 6 of them in his living room and he showed me pictures.
I think that was not revealing too much personal stuff, but an enthusiasm for something that added life to the conversation.
So maybe carefully think of things you can reveal that make you who you are, without pulling back the curtain completely.
Marginally related, I feel the same way about honesty, especially in a work context.
I’ve always prided myself in being an honest but considerate person.
A recent experience with a colleague who weaponised my honesty in an attempt to manipulate me has left a foul taste in my mouth. Luckily their contract ended and the problem resolved itself.
But I remember distinctly feeling that I will
be professional and polite but I do not automatically owe anyone my honesty.
Why is that your assumption?
reply