> Okay. It's a job. I know choices are slim, but "its hard for my mental state" has never been a satisfactory excuse to further displease customers.

The chemical reality of the the frontal lobe getting exhausted is not an "excuse". It still misses the forest for the trees: if your frontal lobe (the part of the brain responsible for social understanding, reasoning, executive function, and information recall [0]) is taxed, you are way less likely to even understand that you're displeasing the customer! The ultimate irony here is the tool needed to understand how to not do that thing anymore is also the frontal lobe.

> Sometimes a little white lie is easier than a cold hard truth. Just ask any salesman.

That's a nice way to soften it, but pretending to empathize with someone who you're not actually empathizing with sounds psychopathic. I don't want to model my behavior nor do I want anyone else to model their behavior after an industry that is known for dark triad personalities [1]. A lie is still a lie and lying about something so intimate as feeling their experiences doesn't sit right with me at all. You should read the link I posted in my earlier comment which discusses surface acting and how it is very taxing on the individual.

> Given the author is blind, I imagine he's better than average at reading the tone of voice. He could have interpreted it wrong, but I'm sure this dismissive tone isn't new to him.

Reading a stranger's tone is a guess and negativity bias affects our perception of a stranger's intent [2]. The sum of their total negative experiences absolutely can make them interpret someone else's tone as having "dismissive" intent even though it's just as likely to be what I already described: braced speech in anticipation for a person responding to something they don't want to hear.

And there you can see negativity bias on both sides! The difference is that the representative gets no post-call time to consider what happened before they have to take the next call and they have the issue of not really having the foresight to actively introspect and keep a strong sense of understanding the situation the customer is going through. (As a reminder, both foresight and introspection require some level of functioning frontal lobe, which is already getting juiced for the next social interaction that's about to happen).

> Probably not. But I'm not sure what you want me to say. I don't want to be the same as Karen and say "suck it up, it's a job. But this is such a commin feeling on modern society. If we aren't going to collectively rise against its, we're bearing the flood alone.

I'm not sure what you mean, you effectively said "suck it up, it's a job" at the beginning of your comment when you said "Okay. It's a job". Of course no one wants to be the same as Karen, Karen doesn't want to be the same as Karen, but as I've already explained, is incapable of extricating herself from the dysfunction! Her frontal lobe is shot!

But the author? He does have that capability after the interaction. He is an author, with time to introspect. He chose to be an ass hole instead. Of course, his growth over the years has been stunted by the way he has been treated. I am not in the business of dredging up someone's life experiences and putting them on display, but he has painful experiences beyond being blind in a society not built for blind people.

But I have the privilege of being able to see all that and take it into consideration. Karen does not. She doesn't have the hint about his upbringing that I do. She probably doesn't have the time or mental capacity to introspect, and consider, if what she's doing makes people feel bad.

I can fault neither of these people for being ass holes, because that would amount to faulting them for their upbringing, faulting them for the situation they're in.

> But I'm not sure what you want me to say.

I don't want you to say anything, I want you to think about what empathy really means beyond the surface level. That this isn't a situation where anyone should be trying to say "who has experienced the most hardship" so we can pick who wins empathy and who gets labelled an ass hole for perpetuity.

I want people to stop doing the thing where they only empathize with the person most like them and instead try to feel what it's like to be like the person who is least like them. Sometimes that's not intuitive. Just because the dude is blind doesn't mean he isn't more like you than the person who isn't.

[0]: https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/24501-frontal-lob... [1]: https://www.fastcompany.com/90775564/the-dark-side-of-the-sa... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias#Attribution_of...

Yes, some people thrive on talking to a lot of people. For everyone else, it can be exhausting. It's hard to navigate social differences talking to 15+ strangers every hour for 8 hours. Each person has a unique expectation about how to relate to them. It's hard knowing, for example, who wants to be interrupted and who doesn't [0]. Some people talk in vagueries with exposition, making it hard to understand what it is they want, but feel they have communicated clearly, so get upset at being asked questions. I could go on and on about this. The end result is an absolutely JUICED frontal lobe, though. "Why don't you find another job" is a common question to people and I don't think people with a juiced frontal lobe have the capability to reason their way into getting their resume and applying to new jobs. To remember that comment would be to remember 25 calls ago that someone told you to find a new job.

> He was empathetic.

I don't understand what this means when people say it. Empathetic means having empathy for someone, which means imagining being in their situation, and feeling the feeling associated with that situation. That takes a long time for me, like a few minutes, uninterrupted, at least. So either I would have to lie and say "wow, that must be so frustrating", which is not empathy, that's just saying words that sound like empathy. And that brings me next to the next thing I don't understand... either that person was also lying or somehow people have the ability to just contemporaneously download the feelings of other people, feel them, but also not act like they're feeling them (because how are you supposed to feel frustrated without being frustrated?) so as not to make the customer upset.

Customers hate to hear (in a sort of "stop being upset that's annoying" way) sadness or anxiety or the braced statements of a person (often perceived as rude) used to having to repeat, for the 50th time, something people don't want to hear. I do have the empathy to recognize this when a customer service agent does it and cut them the slack because probably had to spend all their empathy on someone else.

Then I read about things like surface acting vs deep acting and see that the surface acting part is bad for your emotional health but that deep acting takes a lot of extra energy [1]!

Finally I ask the question of am I evolved to even be able to socially interact with 120 strangers in a given day?

"that's all it takes" might be underselling the dynamic here.

[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/25/opinion/interrupting-coop... https://archive.is/I4RpG

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_labor#Surface_and_de...

I remember using it and worrying about losing the EIN at the last step, so I saved the document several times and printed it several times too.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47526797

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

have a fkin boring substack, write abt your car (whimsy typo, not cringe like "doggo")

This has been a thing in wired headphones since at least 2007 lol

The purpose of using AI to identify suspects in criminal cases is to ease the burden of manual searching for a suspect (or insert whatever the purpose of statement you want). Ok, but we're getting false positives that are damaging people's lives already in the early stages. And I don't want to hear "trust me bro, it will get more accurate" as an excuse to not regulate it.

At a minimum, we should enshrine the right to appeal AI and have limits on how it can be used for probable cause.

This isn't even the only recent case of this happening. There was another case of mistaken identity due to AI. [0] Sure 4 hours isn't the same as 5 months, but still this guy wanted to show multiple forms of ID to prove who he was! The bodycam footage was posted a few months back but never got traction here.

Like if the police officer can't read numbers, they can't do breathalyzer tests on people. If the AI can't be used responsibly, then it can't be used at all.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPUBXN2Fd_E

Propaganda can galvanize, but propaganda can also lull.

Which you need to do if

> You do not need it to "interpret" past dates.

you want to interpret past dates. Mainly you need a historical record of the offsets. Or you're trading inaccuracy of duration measurement from one or two days out of the year to every day of the year by not keeping track of historical offsets or taking them into consideration.

It is absolutely not esoteric for a user to want to know, for example, an accurate duration measurement between a past departure time in one zone and a past arrival time in another zone. (inb4 the user is supposed to somehow anticipate all possible datetimes and calculate these durations in advance in case they need them)

> Combining these two concerns with insanely different scopes is precisely the issue with the tzdb.

I'm laughing so hard at what I just visualized. "Oh, no you only use this zone library for current times, use this other library for past times".

Then someone gets this crazy idea to use just one library and realizes it's quite ridiculous to need a DNS client to pull in the records when they have this other library that has the historical and current zones in a few text files. So then they drop the DNS client and just start using tzdb. It can even work for future dates and times too!

As soon as you create a timestamp, it becomes a recording that needs to take historical zone information into account when interpreting it.

Another thing is that I've found certain old movies can only be streamed from weird websites - as in https://weirdstreamingwebsite is the only licensed entity to have it. I could either buy a VHS (which is what we did) or stream it. But since a physical copy might not be available, the only option would be to use that weird website to stream it. There is no app!

Weird trick to get unblocked: follow the standard three-email procedure to sender support, then send a fourth email ccing buscond@microsoft.com telling them to unblock or next step is attorney general.

The thing about a lot of attorney generals is they LOVE to smack down a big corporation like Microsoft for the little guy.

This has been affecting reputable senders who take spam reporting seriously, including MXRoute and Discourse.

> No reports probably means your reporting system is broken.

"No reports" can mean a lot of things. There is no "probably".

The "you" in "your" is Microsoft because under a certain volume of email, they don't even send reports. I regularly test the abuse contact address for my server because of this exact unfair assumption - that it must be my fault. I have never once gotten an abuse report notification from Microsoft, but I have gotten a bounce message saying that I'm blocked because I apparently send spam! Btw, this was in reply to an email from a Microsoft user.

Worse, I figured I'd just disallow any email from a Microsoft property - if an outlook (or hotmail or live or anyone else) sends an email, I can just bounce it and tell them to use a different service to reach me since I can't reply. Nope! Microsoft won't surface the bounce message to the user.

So, I am barred from replying to Microsoft emails. I am also barred from informing the sender that their email won't reach me.

It's defamation - the sender is always going to assume that it is my fault if I didn't reply even if the reason I "didn't reply" is outside of my control.

> So putting that together, it seems like a small ISP screwed up and let spammers go wild, and Outlook blocked them for it. I can't really fault Outlook for that.

Yes, in your imagined scenario, you can't really fault outlook. In the real world, however, outlook is very much to blame.