What Are You Doing Right Now
-
But thankfully once they learned that things weren't working, the Altaro tech was great about switching over to something else. So the tech was definitely doing the right thing to get things working. He's been great. Why they give him Teams as how to schedule meetings I have no idea.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@WrCombs said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@WrCombs said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@WrCombs said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@RojoLoco said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@WrCombs said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@RojoLoco said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@WrCombs said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
back in the office for the first time this morning..
any guesses how long i'll be by myself today ?Either too long or not long enough.
Not long enough ,
I've already been told that I should have been here last week by someone in the corporate office.I have been in the office every work day since the quarantine started, but usually for only an hour or less. But I'm the only one on the 5th floor when I'm here, and there are probably less than 10 people total in the whole building.
Well as you might remember, my Son's mom's boyfriend came in contact with a person who tested positive.
He was around my son after being exposed, and his mom was exposed. then around my son as well.
So we did a mandatory 2 week quarantine as instructed by doctors.
and I'm getting lash backs from the corporate office - basically challenging my reason for staying home.We knew someone that had that happen and it was recommended to call the police. And they did, and the police got involved for someone intentionally pushing against COVID orders to expose staff (and in that case, children too.) The police were really helpful and responded super quickly. That wasn't Nebraska, so it depends on if COVID quarantines are something you are supposed to honour or not. But there are generally mechanisms for this.
First day back in after this quarantine, and I get attitude from someone who doesn't know the full story.
Well, there's no surprise there. Did they change their tune when they learned the full story?
She won't listen. She's right, i'm wrong nothing else to it.
Did you go to HR or the CEO? This is a "walked out with a box of her belongings from the desk" situation.
RGE
Resume Generating Event -
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@EddieJennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Was supposed to have a meeting with Altaro this morning and those ass hats only will talk via Teams. And Teams Web is disabled. So I got up early for a meeting that it doesn't even let me join because they can't afford an IT to know how to pick a professional tool. It's not like this stuff isn't free. Using Teams internally is pathetic, but whatever. Pushing it as an external tool and blocking the use of it via a web page is unprofessional to the extreme.
Thankfully after a bit of back and forth, the tech involved was willing to hop over to a web based tool and we were able to get into the meeting.
all of your own personal opinions beside - Have you used Teams on the web? It's aweful. I'm not surprised they have to disabled for possibly mutliple reasons - 1) it's aweful, 2) might be a security situation, Administration might not want people sharing Teams with outside entities. (this is only a possibility/Guess)
I might be the only person on ML that doesn't mind Teams.
You're not.
There is a HUGE gap between minding using it, and using it to represent the incompetence and uncaring of your company.
It's unprofessional at best. It's insulting for sure. It's a waste of customer time.
Note to self: use tools other than Teams to represent incompetence and uncaring.
<-- easily amused today.
-
@EddieJennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Was supposed to have a meeting with Altaro this morning and those ass hats only will talk via Teams. And Teams Web is disabled. So I got up early for a meeting that it doesn't even let me join because they can't afford an IT to know how to pick a professional tool. It's not like this stuff isn't free. Using Teams internally is pathetic, but whatever. Pushing it as an external tool and blocking the use of it via a web page is unprofessional to the extreme.
Thankfully after a bit of back and forth, the tech involved was willing to hop over to a web based tool and we were able to get into the meeting.
all of your own personal opinions beside - Have you used Teams on the web? It's aweful. I'm not surprised they have to disabled for possibly mutliple reasons - 1) it's aweful, 2) might be a security situation, Administration might not want people sharing Teams with outside entities. (this is only a possibility/Guess)
I might be the only person on ML that doesn't mind Teams.
I don’t mind it.
-
Looks like we will get a video tour of the house we want tomorrow. Fingers crossed.
-
@nadnerB said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@EddieJennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Was supposed to have a meeting with Altaro this morning and those ass hats only will talk via Teams. And Teams Web is disabled. So I got up early for a meeting that it doesn't even let me join because they can't afford an IT to know how to pick a professional tool. It's not like this stuff isn't free. Using Teams internally is pathetic, but whatever. Pushing it as an external tool and blocking the use of it via a web page is unprofessional to the extreme.
Thankfully after a bit of back and forth, the tech involved was willing to hop over to a web based tool and we were able to get into the meeting.
all of your own personal opinions beside - Have you used Teams on the web? It's aweful. I'm not surprised they have to disabled for possibly mutliple reasons - 1) it's aweful, 2) might be a security situation, Administration might not want people sharing Teams with outside entities. (this is only a possibility/Guess)
I might be the only person on ML that doesn't mind Teams.
I don’t mind it.
I use Teams very heavily. There are things that it could do better. Just like other tools have gaps as well. It is a tool and it does most of what I need it to.
-
I'll make one more cable this evening, then all wired ethernet in my apartment (what little there is) will be cat6
-
Just saw this joke: not sure who to give credit to but copyrights belong to original author
if you divide 2020 by 5 you get 404 - so basically the entire year is just an error
-
@WrCombs said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Just saw this joke: not sure who to give credit to but copyrights belong to original author
if you divide 2020 by 5 you get 404 - so basically the entire year is just an error
What's the significance of the 5? Every number divided by something is 404
-
404 means "missing". I think we'd all prefer if this year was just simply missing.
-
@scottalanmiller because we're 5 months into the year?
it's not funny when you try to rationally think about it.
it's a joke.
-
@WrCombs said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller because we're 5 months into the year?
it's not funny when you try to rationally think about it.
it's a joke.
But I don't get the joke because 400 errors can be found by division into any year. A joke is only funny if it makes sense. If the joke depends on people "not getting it" and just laughing because they are confused, that's not a joke. I get not over analyzing jokes as they depend on a certain suspension of disbelief. But there has to be a basis for the joke in the first place. The core of this joke is that "5" is the magic number and by applying that magic number to the year, it becomes something funny.
But that the 5 is totally without foundation means that the foundation of the joke is missing. The suspension of disbelief would be understanding that you don't dig into that 2020 is arbitrary based on a randomly assigned calendaring system, that the number didn't always come out to be 2020, etc. We don't dig into that stuff for the joke. But the 5 is the joke. It's the whole joke. If the 5 isn't significant, the joke literally doesn't exist.
If you can reword the joke to be "did you know 404 can be dividied into any rational number?", that's not funny. And that there are tons and tons of error codes using HTML errors so every year has a joke like this makes it even less meaningful.
To make a joke like this would require...
- That the thing wrong with the year is related to the 404 error (missing / not found), not just being an error since essentially every number is an error. The joke only works if the specific error of 404 relates.
- That the modifier "5" be in some way significant to make it at least a perceived "coincidence."
That's just basic joke making.
You can see... the assumption about what would make this a joke takes so much work, it was all missed. A joke should be obvious, it should require tons of explanation to find what's supposed to be the funny part.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@WrCombs said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller because we're 5 months into the year?
it's not funny when you try to rationally think about it.
it's a joke.
But I don't get the joke because 400 errors can be found by division into any year. A joke is only funny if it makes sense. If the joke depends on people "not getting it" and just laughing because they are confused, that's not a joke. I get not over analyzing jokes as they depend on a certain suspension of disbelief. But there has to be a basis for the joke in the first place. The core of this joke is that "5" is the magic number and by applying that magic number to the year, it becomes something funny.
But that the 5 is totally without foundation means that the foundation of the joke is missing. The suspension of disbelief would be understanding that you don't dig into that 2020 is arbitrary based on a randomly assigned calendaring system, that the number didn't always come out to be 2020, etc. We don't dig into that stuff for the joke. But the 5 is the joke. It's the whole joke. If the 5 isn't significant, the joke literally doesn't exist.
If you can reword the joke to be "did you know 404 can be dividied into any rational number?", that's not funny. And that there are tons and tons of error codes using HTML errors so every year has a joke like this makes it even less meaningful.
To make a joke like this would require...
- That the thing wrong with the year is related to the 404 error (missing / not found), not just being an error since essentially every number is an error. The joke only works if the specific error of 404 relates.
- That the modifier "5" be in some way significant to make it at least a perceived "coincidence."
That's just basic joke making.
You can see... the assumption about what would make this a joke takes so much work, it was all missed. A joke should be obvious, it should require tons of explanation to find what's supposed to be the funny part.
It was funny to me,
You over analyzed the joke. Bad joke or not I thought it was worth sharing, apparently I was wrong. -
@WrCombs said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
You over analyzed the joke.
I did not, you have to analyze it enough to find the joke. But there's no joke in it. The statement doesn't make sense, if a joke doesn't make sense, it's not a joke.
I asked you what the joke of it was, you didn't have anything. The core of the joke, the 5, didn't have anything. That's not overanalyzing. There is a difference between over analyzing, missing a joke, and there not being a joke. If there is a joke here, we haven't figured out what it is as the 5 and 404 need to be significant for it to conceptually be a joke. Otherwise it's just a statement. Without those, the funny part (which makes it a joke) is missing.
Trying to figure out what makes it a joke is the opposite of overanalyzing. To find it funny, by that logic, you have to "under analyze" and find it funny by the nature of the tone of the presentation. Like having a big smile when you tell it and laughing because other people laugh, but not because there was a joke.
-
Just had Comcast half do a port of a phone number so that they no longer accept the calls, but they are refusing to update their records so instead of the calls going to the new carrier, Comcast delivers a "this number has not been allocated" message and blocks the calls from going on. They are aware of the issue and said that they are "too busy" to bother fixing it. So they are literally extorting the customer's business for having left them.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@WrCombs said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
You over analyzed the joke.
I did not, you have to analyze it enough to find the joke. But there's no joke in it. The statement doesn't make sense, if a joke doesn't make sense, it's not a joke.
I asked you what the joke of it was, you didn't have anything. The core of the joke, the 5, didn't have anything. That's not overanalyzing. There is a difference between over analyzing, missing a joke, and there not being a joke. If there is a joke here, we haven't figured out what it is as the 5 and 404 need to be significant for it to conceptually be a joke. Otherwise it's just a statement. Without those, the funny part (which makes it a joke) is missing.
Trying to figure out what makes it a joke is the opposite of overanalyzing. To find it funny, by that logic, you have to "under analyze" and find it funny by the nature of the tone of the presentation. Like having a big smile when you tell it and laughing because other people laugh, but not because there was a joke.
What... the .... actual...
ok,
Apparently my "Under developed brain" and I think much simpler than you do, cause I thought it was funny.We're in the 5th month of the year, divide the year by the month we're in and we get the 404: Not found error, cause happiness is not found - But whatever, No point in dealing with the bullshit back lash on a joke I found online, thought was funny enough / techy enough to share.
-
@WrCombs it's hard to take a statement that is neither funny or sensical and use it for a basis of an actual joke BUT, here is how to use the given idea and make it into an actual joke...
2020 is the year and bad things happened. The bad thing would need to be things being missing somehow. Something to relate to the error that you use. Because otherwise, the relationship to the error means nothing.
And the 5 has to be a number that means something. 2020 happens all year long, so that 5 is a month of no relevance within 2020 isn't a factor. That makes no sense at all and obviously wasn't intended by the person making the statement. If the fifth month of the year was missing, you could stretch it to try to make a joke, but it would be one hell of a stretch. But at least it would be something. But the 5 year is just nothing. It's like the suggestion of a joke "Wouldn't it be funny IF 2020 divided by something significant resulted in an error that was funny because it's related?" yeah, that would be funny IF you had those other two parts of the joke to complete it.
So imagine if COVID19 was actually called "Virus 5" and it caused people or time to go missing. THEN, and only then, by making the parts of the joke come together, is there a joke. Then you could overanalyze it and say that 5 isn't a multiplier it's just a name or something like that, but there is the funny joke to work from. At least the joke would be there and even if someone didn't get the joke, there is something to explain.
When I asked what the joke was, there wasn't an answer. That's why makes it not possible to be overanalysis. And it's easy to show HOW to use that joke pattern to make a joke.
-
@WrCombs said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Apparently my "Under developed brain" and I think much simpler than you do, cause I thought it was funny.
It's not about simple or not. There's simply no joke there. I asked, you didn't have an explanation for what made it a joke rather than just an odd statement.
Don't take it personal. I'm just explaining that you explained that it wasn't a joke.
-
@WrCombs said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
We're in the 5th month of the year, divide the year by the month we're in and we get the 404: Not found error, cause happiness is not found - But whatever, No point in dealing with the bullshit back lash on a joke I found online, thought was funny enough / techy enough to share.
Sorry, I thought you were kidding that the joke was about this being the fifth month. That doesn't make any sense. I truly thought you were trying to make a joke about how it wasn't a joke. So you are actually saying that you think it's a temporal joke that only applies when told in May but not any other time?
Did you think "happiness not found" originally? Or did you add that to try to make it make sense after the fact? All of this sounds like "reverse rationalization" where the brain does something irrational (for example, missing that it wasn't a joke - it happens to the best of us) and then knowing that you found it funny and then trying to "fill in the gaps" later to make it seem funny. In your head this will make sense but when you repeat it, like here, to people who didn't have that happen to them, it will sound totally crazy.
Reverse rationalization is a standard problem that all people face around decision making. People make irrational decisions non-stop all day long and when asked why they did it, their brain, believing itself to be rational, goes back and tries to find any reasoning that it can apply to justify what it did. It's not only not rational, it's actually doubly irrational, but humans are incredibly irrational but hate it about ourselves. The book Predictably Irrational covers this really well. Everyone does it, absolutely everyone. But recognizing it helps a lot to fight yourself attempting to be irrational.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@WrCombs said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
We're in the 5th month of the year, divide the year by the month we're in and we get the 404: Not found error, cause happiness is not found - But whatever, No point in dealing with the bullshit back lash on a joke I found online, thought was funny enough / techy enough to share.
Sorry, I thought you were kidding that the joke was about this being the fifth month. That doesn't make any sense. I truly thought you were trying to make a joke about how it wasn't a joke. So you are actually saying that you think it's a temporal joke that only applies when told in May but not any other time?
Did you think "happiness not found" originally? Or did you add that to try to make it make sense after the fact? All of this sounds like "reverse rationalization" where the brain does something irrational (for example, missing that it wasn't a joke - it happens to the best of us) and then knowing that you found it funny and then trying to "fill in the gaps" later to make it seem funny. In your head this will make sense but when you repeat it, like here, to people who didn't have that happen to them, it will sound totally crazy.
Reverse rationalization is a standard problem that all people face around decision making. People make irrational decisions non-stop all day long and when asked why they did it, their brain, believing itself to be rational, goes back and tries to find any reasoning that it can apply to justify what it did. It's not only not rational, it's actually doubly irrational, but humans are incredibly irrational but hate it about ourselves. The book Predictably Irrational covers this really well. Everyone does it, absolutely everyone. But recognizing it helps a lot to fight yourself attempting to be irrational.
Dude I have high functioning depression, "Happiness not found" was the first thing that popped into my head.
I will admit that I've had that "reverse rationalization" happen to me in the past.
