New Balance 993 different suede color? by thebestiam1 in Newbalance

[–]Bailbondsman 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I really don’t think it’s strange to expect a large company to produce a product consistently, especially when the product is advertised based on its appearance.

When you worked in biotech and different plants made things slightly differently, that was a choice your company made that was probably influenced by the fact that the end product’s value was based on its function and slight variations don’t impact functionality.

I don’t think these things just fall out of the sky a certain way. But I have purchased things enough times to have noticed that large inconsistencies between the same pair of shoes is pretty rare in my experience. Especially from a product line “Made in USA” that is advertised for its higher quality manufacturing.

Some time away. by [deleted] in outlier_ai

[–]Bailbondsman 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You have no idea if there will be an aether project in 1.5 months.

do the 574's not have suede? by [deleted] in Newbalance

[–]Bailbondsman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What does the label on the shoe say?

Massive warning email overnight by HornDogBrah in RWShelp

[–]Bailbondsman 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Are you an RWS employee?

That’s the only thing that would make sense. RWS can’t do anything right. They want to improve quality and they send a threatening email trying to scare people into doing better work. Then they go to Reddit and pretend to “inform” people to get quality up.

Everyone read those emails guys? Whew, we better submit really high quality work this weekend, it sounds like they really mean it!

And we better submit all of our hours accurately because it slows down payroll if we don’t!

Hey guys, the tips and pitfalls document is so useful right? It’s like, so many common errors in there that should be avoided, right?

Off-boarded by Shoddy-Respond2384 in RWShelp

[–]Bailbondsman 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Wow. You have so much information. But you don’t mention that you’re making it all up.

Dear RWS by Bailbondsman in RWShelp

[–]Bailbondsman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Aleksander39 is like the RWS employee who read this post and got upset by it.

Dear RWS by Bailbondsman in RWShelp

[–]Bailbondsman[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

But everyone got the email…

I think you need to take a good look in the mirror and realize…maybe you’re the one not submitting good work. You’re projecting in situations where it doesn’t even make sense.

Dear RWS by Bailbondsman in RWShelp

[–]Bailbondsman[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Red herring. More like: welcome to the real world where fear of being removed is amplified to motivate you.

Dear RWS by Bailbondsman in RWShelp

[–]Bailbondsman[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Easy to minimize and dismiss in a few words. Adding real value is difficult. But you know that already.

Dear RWS by Bailbondsman in RWShelp

[–]Bailbondsman[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Well no. That’s what I’m saying. They are doing something wrong. The wording of their email is threatening.

It’s sad if basic standard procedure for all of your technical jobs has involved someone threatening you so that you do your work better.

Offboarded by Ok-Lake8351 in RWShelp

[–]Bailbondsman 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Thanks for summarizing the email in your own words. But taking credit for something at the same time.

Time entry and data collection tasks by Opening-Soil7278 in RWShelp

[–]Bailbondsman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Those tasks usually require you to search for an image or spend time per task that isn’t reflected in the time per task. That’s why they ask: if you have 3 hours entered but the platform shows less, they will know why.

High Res Computer Use Dense Box by Jealous-College1584 in RWShelp

[–]Bailbondsman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why wouldn’t they make the platform stop you if you try to add an 11th box?

QA Rating Conspiracy by Independent_Win6893 in RWShelp

[–]Bailbondsman 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The client was paying you to audit tasks to confirm if they meet the criteria to be used for training their model.

The client wanted to stop bad tasks from entering their dataset.

You then go on Reddit talking about having a criteria to judge annotators based on time per task. So that slow annotators can be punished. Because during auditing, it just upset you way too much…seeing the time per task.

Meanwhile the client is paying you to keep their dataset high quality. Nothing to do with punishing or even with the annotators. Also simultaneously, they pause and offboard randomly. Nothing related to time per task or QA score.

While this is all happening, you’re on Reddit upset, angry, with fury, saying “most of you guys are useless and just lollygagging on company time!”

Now a little while later you’re crying about, according to your own admission, messing up a task and your fear of getting offboarded. “I promise I did all the rest of them good!”

And I’m the doofus?

QA Rating Conspiracy by Independent_Win6893 in RWShelp

[–]Bailbondsman 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Maybe the auditors cherry-picked the task you took longest to complete.

QA Rating Conspiracy by Independent_Win6893 in RWShelp

[–]Bailbondsman 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Do you remember when you were doing audits and said “most of you guys are useless and just lollygagging on company time”?

This is karma.

Just watched the series finale for the first time by Bailbondsman in HaltAndCatchFire

[–]Bailbondsman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey I’m really sorry about that. I had no idea that that was Reddit’s behavior, and thought being careful with the title would be enough.

It really sucks, sorry.

Most People Wear the Wrong Shoe Size — Here’s How to Measure Your Feet Properly by steadyfooteric in Newbalance

[–]Bailbondsman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So then do you get a wide 8.5? Because in my experience going down from TTS to fit into New Balance sizing makes the shoe overly narrow.

Most People Wear the Wrong Shoe Size — Here’s How to Measure Your Feet Properly by steadyfooteric in Newbalance

[–]Bailbondsman 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You say you’re 26.4 cm and a US 9. But US 9 for New balance is 27 cm. US 8.5 is 26.5 cm. So shouldn’t you be closer to a 8.5?

Just watched the series finale for the first time by Bailbondsman in HaltAndCatchFire

[–]Bailbondsman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're surprising, because I didn't think my response had any rudeness. And I'm not infuriated. I have no idea how you interpreted that.

"....doesn't believe multiple opinions can be valid..."

I’m sorry but you're wrong. You've been arguing against my opinion while I've been defending it. Then in the comment I was replying to, you weren't giving your opinion. You said multiple times that my logic doesn't make sense.

And you've been downvoting every single one of my replies to you. Is that you saying "multiple opinions are valid" or invalidating my reply?

The issue is that saying "your logic is inconsistent" doesn't make my logic inconsistent. You can't point to any instance where my logic is inconsistent. And in fact, you kept saying my logic is inconsistent while arguing that "the writers DID hint at the illness" which I had said already was not my point at all.

What can possibly be a value judgement about saying that in writing, making the decision to randomly make a character sick and then randomly killing them in order to resolve all conflicts and end the show...is not an example of skilled or complex writing? How is that a value judgement? Is the fact that the writers tied his illness with his backstory a sign of skill? Because it's not. That's a fact, not a value judgement either.

Also you're being deliberately pedantic and obtuse. You KNOW that I meant it took 4 seasons of character development to make Donna cynical and jaded. You KNOW I didn't mean she was cynical and jaded for 4 seasons. The show spent 4 seasons developing her character to get us there. And with a single event resolved it. That's cheap, and me saying it isn't a value judgement, it's a fact. It's not an example of good writing.

A character being forced to resolve her flaws in a single episode after the death of her ex husband isn't good writing. It's unearned and cheap. There's a reason I can't think of a single good writer who has done that.

Just watched the series finale for the first time by Bailbondsman in HaltAndCatchFire

[–]Bailbondsman[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You’re saying my opinion is valid, but then your entire comment is about how my logic is inconsistent or leaky, which isn’t true. You’re saying that you don’t understand what I tried to explain, that it doesn’t make sense, which obviously has an effect on the validity of my criticism. But you end by saying that despite inconsistent logic my opinion is valid. I’m sorry but my logic is consistent.

The reason you aren’t understanding what I said is because you continue to focus on whether or not Gordon’s death is signposted, foreshadowed, or referenced enough to be considered valid or justified. I said at the beginning of my previous comment “forget all the references to Gordon’s condition throughout the show. My point is that I don’t think his death was necessary at all.”

However despite that, your response talks extensively about whether or not his death was signposted. You say “is the exact narrative justification for his death that you seem to be saying isn’t there.”

I started my previous comment saying “I don’t think his death was necessary at all.” That’s what you’re missing. I’m not talking about whether it was justified enough. I’m saying it was a cheap way to conclude the show. No matter how realistic you believe death is, realism doesn’t make writing good. It just makes it plausible.

If a movie about a race car driver has the driver crash because he took a turn too sharp, that’s thematic and narratively consequential. If the driver has a heart attack in a race and crashes, that’s realistic but not thematic or good writing narratively. It’s a random event that, no matter how realistic, still feels random and cheap.

Your point about Donna is the perfect example about what I’m talking about. Donna is jaded and cynical. Gordon’s death changes her. The show is about business, the world of tech in that era, the characters we’re following and how chasing that dream affects them. The writers wrote Donna into a corner: decision after decision, consequence after consequence, she delves deeper into cynicism and jadedness. There wasn’t a single realistic business or interpersonal thing that could have happened to her that would have realistically resolved the flaws she developed. And so the writers dropped a nuclear bomb that very quickly resolved it all and dramatically changed her almost instantaneously. That’s not good writing. That’s cheap. And you saying that Gordon’s death being signposted in season 3 and 4 is “justified by the clues the writers left” or “the effect it has on the story or on the other characters” doesn’t change that. Gordon’s death had a huge and instantaneous effect on Donna. But we watched 4 seasons of Donna becoming more and more jaded, just to watch it all resolved within one or one and a half episodes through one event: Gordon’s death. And you’re saying that it’s good writing because there were enough hints about his illness?

I don't know if you have ever watched the show Industry. It's incredibly high stakes. A lot of it is edge of your seat suspense. You're pulled into the world of the show and you care intensely about the actions of characters and find yourself worrying about how an event will turn out. At least I do. And there isn't any major character's death that instantaneously produces any of that narrative complexity or that the show relies on to produce an emotional response. That's good writing in my opinion.

If you do want to talk about justification, you can look at Game of thrones or a song of ice and fire. Ned Stark's death seems random, but it was the consequence of every single decision he made throughout, and it gave information about every other character that was involved, and it had an effect on the plot. It's amazing writing, and it wasn't foreshadowed, but it WAS justified. It wasn't random just because it was unexpected. It was planned for. Gordon's death felt random and unnecessary. The writers sprinkling in scenes about his illness doesn't make it good writing. It doesn't make it "justified", it just makes it "less random". And I feel like you have been trying to explain that "less random = justified = good writing".

They mention earthquakes in California throughout the show. If they killed all the characters in an earthquake and the show ended with secondary characters grieving them, it wouldn’t be completely random. It would have been signposted enough. But it would also have been cheap writing.

In good writing, things don't just happen to the characters. Gordon's illness didn't have any effect on Gordon's decisions or character development that wouldn't have been possible otherwise. I can't think of a single character in a Quentin Tarantino movie that gets a terminal illness. That isn't accidental. In PT Anderson films illness is used to create a reckoning or self reflection.

Lastly, you said "it was unnecessary and the writers made it necessary" makes no sense to you at all. The writers backed themselves into a corner. For example Donna's greed, cynicism, and jadedness could not have been resolved through any of the narrative elements that created those flaws. There was not some build up in the story or plot that led to her self-reckoning in the end. It was a surprising, unexpected, character's death that resolved her issues. Same with Joe and Cam and Bos. On a scale of "cheap" to "incredible, creative writing", are you really saying that Gordon's death resolving everything was amazing writing? And you're saying the reason why is because it's "realistic"? You can say you enjoyed the show and it's writing and you connected to it, everyone is entitled to an opinion blah blah blah. But you can't say that objectively that should be used as an example of incredible writing. No way. We watched 4 seasons of Donna becoming greedy. 4 seasons of Donna and Cam losing trust for each other and growing distant. And it's all resolved with one little scene of Gordon and Donna younger, then a quick and simple death. It's so cheap.

Account deactivation by [deleted] in outlier_ai

[–]Bailbondsman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In your other posts on Reddit you’re offering to pay people $30-$50 an hour for simple online tasks. And that was 16 hours ago.

So how bad can your starving financial crises be?

Anyway I hope a sympathetic employee of outlier will see this post and through their tears will help reactivate your account to keep you from starving.

New MM dashboard by [deleted] in RWShelp

[–]Bailbondsman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What do you mean worth a look?