|
Quote: What stops me is knowing it's rarely their fault, but that of people who want to put customers through an escalation sequence because 80% of the calls to the help desk are from idiots. What I can perfectly understand, but at least they should have a shortcut for issues from people that are calmed, polite and look like they know what they are saying.
Instead of having to waste hours / days with people that hasn't an ing clue and do not trust on what you say (or they don't even know what the heck are you talking about) because the system checks and rewards time consumed and things from the database checked on the moron customer's side.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
What's interesting is that a lot of "clear your cache" is really "clear your cookies". Web browsers are pretty smart about replacing cached files. Cookies, on the other hand...
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: because 80% of the calls to the help desk are from idiots.
That might be low.
My most memorable experience as someone trying to help ...
Customer cussed me out after I explained he would need to turn on the computer with the switch on the side of the box. Not because he hadn't turned it on but rather because he thought it should not have an on/off button.
|
|
|
|
|
I can tell you that the manager would tell the CSR to grab a screw driver, mop or whatever. Every time; every day.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
May I submit another:
"No one else has complained about that"
(Often it's because they have experience reporting complaints and know better not to bother)
|
|
|
|
|
var nfa = FA.Parse(@"(foo|(bar)+|ba[rz])|foobar");
Console.WriteLine(nfa.ToString("e"));
(bar|barba(rba)*r|baz|foo|foobar)
It was always the loops that would just nail me to the wall.
I still have to clean up the expressions it produces but they are essentially correct!
I used the state removal method[^] but I couldn't find an adequate explanation.
Finally, I found this: GitHub - wolever/nfa2regex: Converts NFAs (and DFAs) to a regular expressions using the state removal method.[^]
It's in Go, so I taught myself some Go Not a bad language in that it only took me a few hours from start to finish to learn enough of it and port away from it to C#.
Unfortunately when I think I am too smart for my own good I used to try to do this algorithm to remind me of my intellectual shortcomings - I no longer have that opportunity. I guess I'll have to try LL(k) or LL(*) parsing next. The trouble with that is parser generators aren't usually good enough to make real world parsers, or the code they generate is too big. Oh well. I'll find something.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
Your mind never ceases to amaze me
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
I am already happy if I manage to barely understand what gets posted
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
So am I.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
I know... .and please do not change
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Hopefully you have a lot more test cases.
|
|
|
|
|
I do.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
|
What's a soft lunar landing? They touched down but never went outside the spacecraft kinda thing?
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
A soft touchdown is where the vertical velocity relative to the ground is nearly zero at an altitude of 0. A hard landing is where the vertical velocity is near or above that which will cause failure due to impact.
"A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants"
Chuckles the clown
|
|
|
|
|
Right, that still means they touched down on the moon, correct? I'm assuming yes but looking for a non-Googled confirmation.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Well, yes. But I think it was just a robotic spacecraft that landed. I don't think there are any people aboard the spacecraft.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Still though, that's cool.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Definitely no people.
Media attention would be far greater if that happened.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I mean, bleu cheese isn't exactly hard.
|
|
|
|
|
A hard landing is a crash. A soft landing is landing as intended.
You almost never want a hard landing.
Cheers,
Vikram.
|
|
|
|
|
I'll hav3e to agree with those who point out that there were noone, not even robots, walking out of the space craft on the lunar surface. So there is no reason to think that the US space hegemony will ever be threatened.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
And I'll have to agree with you!
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
The robots exited out of sight of the cameras. Duh?
The moon is close enough for simple remote control rovers.
|
|
|
|
|
I wanted to mount my shiny new TV with a swing arm directly into my drywall. I just like the flexibility a swingarm would give me, but there are some issues that make it difficult to mount the swingarm directly into the studs in my wall. So the question became: is this even feasible with drywall anchors alone?
So I started watching this video where he tested out some different drywall anchors (summation of the results are roughly 16 min into the video):
Which Drywall Anchor is Best? Let's find out! - YouTube[^]
I was trying out some physics calculations here and wanted a second opinion to see if I was completely off.
The TV itself weighs about 25 Kg and the swingarm is about 5 Kg alone. When fully extended, the TV extends about 60 cm from the wall. The mount itself (that I had lying around) is secured to the wall with three screws. One 15 cm above the arm, one 5 cm above the arm, and one 5 cm below the arm.
So I'm thinking: I have three forces working on the drywall: F_y , F_x and momentum M_0.
F_y has to withstand at least 30 Kg, which looks good, as one of the three screws, with a proper anchor, should be able to handle this weight alone.
The momentum the TV and mount generate, a little simplified: 30 Kg * 9,81 m/s^2 * 0.6 m = 177 N * m
The outward force at each of the wall screws (I chose it equally, which is a bit simplified, I guess) is (0,15m + 0,05m + 0,05m) * 3 * F_x = 177 Nm => 708 N/3 = 72 Kg/3 => F_x = 25 Kg each?
Yes, I know that I can put up a new drywall that can handle more loads, or I can place a stud or something equivalent to reinforce the TV mount. I just wanted to check if this makes sense from a theoretical viewpoint. There are, of course, some safety margins to consider (30% or so?), but I'll have to deal with that later I guess.
|
|
|
|