161–168 of 168 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some types of people are “rule followers” are can’t fathom breaking any rules. There are also “rule breakers” who can’t fathom being told what to do. Both types of people are insufferable.
> There are also “rule breakers” who can’t fathom being told what to do. > Both types of people are insufferable. He says, on "Hacker" News
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Four minutes for roughing I've never seen a double minor for roughing. 2 minute minor or 5 minute major. 4 minute double minor is typically when someone is high sticked and they're bleeding because of it. So yeah, give a co-worker a hand to the face and if the manager catches it you're sitting out of the sprint planning meeting for either 2 or 5 minutes depending.
> I've never seen a double minor for roughing. 2 minute minor or 5 minute major I've seen a double minor for roughing when both players involved get the roughing minor but one player gets the double for instigating
Second one in a game is a game misconduct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It sounds like an end run to get to negligence charges. It's not anything nefarious like that. US citizens and US law enforcement tend to have an adversarial relationship, unfortunately. Finns generally do not. That law is an expression of expectation for behavior in a civilized society, not an opportunity for prosecutorial promotion, as it might be in the US. One must take reasonable steps to save a drowning child…
> Honestly, who doesn't think that a person shouldn't be in jail who would prefer to film and giggle while a child was drowning? A person like that needs a timeout at least. The difference is that jail in the US is not "timeout". Prisoners may be required to work against their will, which is the carve out in the fourteenth amendment which abolished slavery. People openly joke about sexual assault in prison with derog…
Hard to see the negatives. Rule breakers allow you to reap the rewards while removing liability.
"You should understand the reason why the rule exists, so that you can decide when to follow it" -- yeah, then why is the reason not explained in the book containing the rules, including an explicit note that if the situation does not match the example, you are allowed to ignore the rule?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In which country? Even for the US I don't believe the law system is that crappy. There's video from a few years back that shows very American cops standing outside a burning house at night, knowing there was a young child still in it. A passing pizza delivery dude[1] rescued the 6-year old, handed her to cop, and ended up requiring hospitalization. In the online discussion, everyone called the rescuer a hero, but I…
A burning house is not "a pool". In my country you can't watch a kid drowning in a pool* but you are not obligated to help anyone in a burning house, since that would put you in danger too. I assume it is the same ~everywhere in the world, including the US. * assume rescuing would be fairly safe, you are a good swimmer, you have lifeguard education, the weather is nice and the kid is small. AFAIK rescuing drowning pe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometimes, the goal is to create an environment where people must break certain rules to get anything done, which everyone (including supervisors) understands, but by way of imposing those rules responsibility and liability is transferred to subordinates.
I think those environments are bad, most likely? Why would it be a goal to make it so that people break rules? Making people think about the rules? That is fine and good. Setting them to be broken, though? That just sounds broken.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In France at least, and I believe in the US to, it is illegal to not do something if you can. It does not mean that you should dive and bring him back. In fact, it is not recommended unless you know what you are doing as you may put yourself in danger and need rescuing yourself. But if there are other people around who can help and you don't alert them, or if you have a working phone and don't call whatever emergency…
It depends what you mean by do. In the US, if you didn't notify police or call for help and just stood and watched while someone died, no jury would pass on convicting you. You're expected to behave reasonably. There need not be a written law. It's called common law.
Really? What would be the charge?