> You can say a lot of things about 'oh backward countries' but this will not stay there, this will spread
I'm sorry, but this is a cope out. The "lynching from apparent cultural deviation" is something that needs to be moved on from. Developed countries do the same too to some extent, with "cancel culture" and such.
There are ways to have progress in this, and, well, to feed someone's entrepreneurial spirit, it's one of those really hard problems that a lot of people, let's say, "a growing niche market", needs it to be solved.
Indeed, if one were to post a AI video of someone saying some racial slur or otherwise verboten language, sure it won't get them killed, but given how unemployeable and pariah they would be, that would be a death by a thousand cuts.
But Blasphemy by whatever means, is one of the tools by which society sets certain boundries, and it's really hard to move away from a model that worked so 'well' for us since the first civiliations.
In the UK anywhere I tried to become an employee in the last 5 years also asked me to sign the "I am ok to work more than 40 hours" addendum, and it was a condition with the offer.
I've had that in contracts, but have always crossed it out. I suggest you do the same.
No employer I've seen has ever questioned it, they know it'd be illegal for them to actually force you to opt-out your of your rights. If they put it in writing that it was a conditional part of employment they'd be in hot water.
They're just hoping you just sign away your rights "for free" so to speak.
> I've had that in contracts, but have always crossed it out. I suggest you do the same.
As of lately, I've seen some web-based signature systems (adobe something something docusign iirc?) and with such systems crossing lines is not an option anymore.
Well for one, you can’t just cross out a section of a contract, sign it, and have that be binding. The other party has to know about it (by you telling them) and then agree to those terms.
In the esig case, you’d need to talk to HR to have the provision removed.
> you can’t just cross out a section of a contract, sign it, and have that be binding. The other party has to know about it (by you telling them) and then agree to those terms.
Yes I think that was implied by the original poster. The company has to counter-sign the modified document, which is why they always get you to sign it first, so they can review before they sign.
This is the default in the Netherlands for many office jobs as well. Usually in the form of 'Subclause 2: The nature of the job may demand work beyond the stated hours in subclause 1. If this occurs, no additional payment shall be made'.
Never had a job where that wasn't a clause in the contract.
It's correct that it was the Working Time Directive that required the UK to add it to UK law in the first place (over the strident objections of the Tory government at the time) but it is the Working Time Regulations Act 1998 that provides this regulation in the UK, and since Brexit the EU Working Time Directive 2003 has no legal force in the UK.
EU directives never had any direct legal force in the UK, or any other member state. The point of the directive is to say "all EU members need national legislation which meets these standards". It's then up to the member states to implement national laws using their own unique systems which meet the requirements of the directive.
As you said, the Working Time Regulations Act 1998 is the UK law implementation of the EU Working Time Directive 2003.
If a potential employee isn't willing to agree to work more than 40 hours they either don't take the job, or take the job but refuse to work those extra hours and risk being fired. Being fired is never fun, but the employee is still better off ignoring the contractual obligation there if it was a deal breaker anyway.
As I understand it, before it went off in a huff, the UK was the only European country which allowed a _general_ opt out of the working time directive (many allow it for medical workers, and sometimes for other emergency workers). Accordingly, of course, many if not most UK employers obtain such an opt-out.
Being willing to work 40.5 hours fulfills this addendum. It doesn't mean anything more than that, nor does it apply to if you are still okay sometime in the future.
Reminds me of a guy I know openly bragging that he can watch all of his customers who installed his company's security cameras. I won't reveal his details but just imagine any cloud security camera company doing the same and you would probably be right.
There’s no clear definition currently, but based on my work in IEEE standards and my own research, I always define AI as an autonomous system which determines paths to its desired outcomes using multimodal inputs.
While I think the computation system described in this post is very cool and sophisticated, I liken it more to a computation engine. It seems to me that computation engines follow an algorithm to determine optimal paths to a previously determined and fixed desired outcome, but they don’t update the outcome goal based on new information.
If the computation engine described in this post could use existing information to form its own goal or idea of a desired outcome, then I’d say it’s AI.
I’d love to do a blog post on this idea because I am sure many might have good reasons to disagree with it. It would be cool if someone else does it, I’d love to provide feedback as I don’t have the time for longform writing.
If let's say I built an extension that allows people to scrape things on demand and the extension sends that data also to my servers, removing PII in the process, would that be allowed?
I'm sorry, but this is a cope out. The "lynching from apparent cultural deviation" is something that needs to be moved on from. Developed countries do the same too to some extent, with "cancel culture" and such.
There are ways to have progress in this, and, well, to feed someone's entrepreneurial spirit, it's one of those really hard problems that a lot of people, let's say, "a growing niche market", needs it to be solved.