Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re: Replaced Support Jobs (Score 1) 81

Instead of hundreds of poorly qualified people why canâ(TM)t we have someone who actually knows the products to smash through tickets

As someone who worked for years in support (a long time ago), it's a classic case of "intersection of sets".
On one hand, you have the set of people who actually know the products. On the other, you have the set of people willing to work in support, manning phones.
The first set is more or less inelastic. The second set can be increased somewhat by offering high salaries, but that's limited because if you increase them enough, you would reduce other sets (e.g. people who know the product but work in other areas related to the product). For example, if the helpdesk agent salary reaches or exceeds the backend support salary (that is, the engineer who is on-call), the latter would move to the former, and then you'd have a lack of engineers who know how to fix the product when it goes kaboom for some reason.

Which means it's all a complicated dance.

I worked in direct support (taking phones) back in early 2000s, and did it for a limited time, because it was an entry job and the good ones (with enough willingness and brains to move up, which wasn't a high bar) were quickly snatched to fill other positions. I remained linked to support departments, but I was no longer taking direct calls. At any rate, the struggle to hire even remotely competent agents was real. Scraping the bottom of the barrel was continuous, and the attrition was enormous, sometimes exceeding 200% per year.

There's the answer to your question.

Comment Causation? (Score 1, Interesting) 112

Sounds to me like a lawyer trying to get their name out there on a first-of-it's-kind suit.

Good luck trying to establish a shred of causation if it's public knowledge that the kid intentionally thwarted safeguards. And then you have to convince a jury or a judge that tricking the AI into talking about suicide is what led to the kid going through with it.

It sounds like hogwash, so it's got about a 50/50 chance of succeeding.

Comment Re:What's to stop them? (Score 4, Insightful) 29

This isn't a technology problem, it's a law problem. The law is supposed to stop authorities from searching things outside of the scope of a warrant. The law is also supposed to impose penalties when authorities fail to operate within their legal bounds.

In short, "stopping them" is the entire point of the 4th Amendment.

Comment Re:Careless (Score 1) 113

People that consider themselves vital, but then have to take steps to create artificial vitality - their own actions are proving them wrong.

If you were truly vital, your simple absence would be a disaster all by itself. If you have to engineer that condition, you're NOT vital. This is just an arrogant, self-important narcissist behaving badly and getting what they've got coming, at the cost of others.

I don't think there are enough stories like this in the news. It's pretty easy to find accounts BY such individuals that created kill switches and caused chaos when they were dismissed. It's good to see one of them get hat they deserve. Jokers like this give the rest of us a bad name.

Slashdot Top Deals

Much of the excitement we get out of our work is that we don't really know what we are doing. -- E. Dijkstra

Working...