>When it comes to dealing with some governments who jumped onto this newfangled digitalization bandwagon, it looks like they have taken all the shit parts from the online processes, all the shit parts from the old paper-based processes and jumbled them together into the most abominable, inefficient form ever, while pretending to be so 21st century.
This isn't the case in many European countries. So many things are super easy to do in Sweden digitally. Denmark was also pretty good, one thing I liked about Denmark's system was how easy it was to get a hold of a real human.
>And don't get me started on home automation, the only things the existing home automation solutions really automate are frustration and despair.
The real home automation solutions are the washer, drier, and dish washer. Maybe also the robot vacuum (I've heard good things but never used one myself). These are all excellent, though I don't use my drier in favour of a rack.
I have no clue how many calories running burns, but the act of moving around leaves you less time to eat :). Getting fat in the dark winters of Sweden is more likely for me, because I'm just bored and don't want to go outside as much so I sit inside and eat chocolate.
Regardless of skill, you're always going to have to be tolerant of others and their limitations. You probably have a couple of good people in your company with dyslexic tendencies, for example.
And why do highly educated people with well paid jobs accept this treatment? Is it because they want to treat others the same too? Before you ask: Yes, I am naive and ignorant :-).
You're assuming that (i) I'm highly educated, (ii) I was well paid, (iii) I accepted the treatment and (iv) not accepting the treatment was an option.
No, I would hate to treat anyone else that way.
For reasons that I don't want to get into right now, it's not easy for me to find work that pays well. But I did start looking once I realized how toxic the workplace was, and moved to the next when I could.
Yeah, I know that I made some heavy handed assumptions based on where we are (HN). Especially considering that 1 and 2 would make 4 more likely to be true, and 1 and 2 is likely true on HN AFAICT.
>For reasons that I don't want to get into right now, it's not easy for me to find work that pays well.
Just to be clear: I wasn't expecting you to defend your behavior in this particular case, that would be cruel and unsympathetic of me to say the least. I was only interested in how in general this treatment can occur in places where people are well paid and highly educated (with the implication that they're likely to find work regardless).
It's a very colloquial term that covers a lot of ground. Yes, it could mean that they were yelled at in a room full of people. It could also mean they were informally and quietly requested to do something a different way next time.
Lots of people are shy or quiet or introverted and thus unwilling or unable to push back against this kind of thing (or see through it when it's bluster).
It's not very precise talking about whether a monad commutes -- it's not clear what "commutes" should really mean (certainly not F . G = G . F since that's way too restrictive).
F, G, and F.G are monads if and only if there is a "distributive law," which is a natural transformation G.F -> F.G satisfying some properties. It's like something that satisfies half the braiding properties, where braidings are already a weaker version of commutativity.
That said while FG = GF is indeed restrictive, requiring there to be a natural isomorphism between them is slightly less restrictive and just requiring the existence of a distributive law seems a bit too broad. What's preventing the existence of multiple distributive laws? Is there even anything preventing monads from always having a distributive law?
There is nothing at all preventing the existence of multiple distributive laws, and I can think of some (non-programmy) examples that have multiple possibilities. I wouldn't be surprised if some cohomology group classifies them, at least in certain settings.
I don't know about whether distributive laws always exist, but what is probably true is that there's no universal distributive law -- that's in the sense that you have a function from pairs of monads to distributive laws that is natural with respect to homomorphisms of monads, whatever those are (I know there's a bicategory of monads, but that's about it).
All bovines for meat production have to be free range during pasture season in Sweden. I believe the same is true for Ireland.
Anyway, grass fed pasture beef is a bit leaner, does have a strong flavour, but the tender cuts are still tender. It's not close to grass fed lamb w.r.t. gaminess.
Old egg laying hens are tougher and have thicker skin, yes. Just put them in a stew.
Really? In the UK they provide free legal advice and accompany you to every meeting with your employer in any kind of HR dispute. Not sure about every union but definitely transport, teachers and actors.
That's not true. In individual cases you will often have a union rep/union lawyer available to you (for free) to help you deal with the employer/HR and help you assert your rights.
I was never bullied growing up because I always rolled with a crew who wouldn't hesitate to circle a threat. That's unions, they make you less likely to be an "isolated case".
Plainly wrong. One of the thing to do here when you have a personal issue with your company is telling your union that will pressure the company to comply.
For example, in the UK, the tube lines were brought to a screeching halt because TFL wanted to take disciplinary action against a driver that failed a breatherliser test. (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-31372269)
