This is for topical issues effecting our fair world... you can quit snickering anytime. Note: It is the desire of the leadership of SFDebris Conglomerate that all posters maintain a civil and polite bearing in this forum, regardless of how you feel about any particular issue. Violators will be turned over to Captain Janeway for experimentation.
clearspira wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 3:25 pm
I didn't know that you could get salmonella from a vegetable, I thought it was just meat. Oh well, learn something new every day.
You can get infested with these guys by pretty much everything that is or was in direct or indirect contact with human or animal fesces or waste products. That's one of the reasons why you want high standards in regard to hygiene everywhere you can (e.g. regular cleaning of kitchen surfaces), because you can so easily cross-contaminate things.
The problem there though are all the people who cannot accept that reality is never 100% certain, and still get hung up on "But there is a risk!" and "how would you feel if it's your child who got ill?" and so on and so forth. And it all becomes one extreme or the other, never an acknowledgement that reality means that there's a point where risks are low enough, but not zero, where it makes more sense to just put up with them. Made worse by a combination of huge numbers of people and easy spread of information, so even very low risks will hit someone, and we'll hear about them. The alternative is to spend your life in a sealed bubble.
Another downside is that the constant fear-driving of what are actually risks so low that it's absurd to worry about them has a boy who cried wolf effect that leads to more serious ones being dismissed too (can't help thinking that's what's driven some of the nuttier Covid responses).
clearspira wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 3:25 pm
I didn't know that you could get salmonella from a vegetable, I thought it was just meat. Oh well, learn something new every day.
You can get infested with these guys by pretty much everything that is or was in direct or indirect contact with human or animal fesces or waste products. That's one of the reasons why you want high standards in regard to hygiene everywhere you can (e.g. regular cleaning of kitchen surfaces), because you can so easily cross-contaminate things.
The problem there though are all the people who cannot accept that reality is never 100% certain, and still get hung up on "But there is a risk!" and "how would you feel if it's your child who got ill?" and so on and so forth. And it all becomes one extreme or the other, never an acknowledgement that reality means that there's a point where risks are low enough, but not zero, where it makes more sense to just put up with them. Made worse by a combination of huge numbers of people and easy spread of information, so even very low risks will hit someone, and we'll hear about them. The alternative is to spend your life in a sealed bubble.
Another downside is that the constant fear-driving of what are actually risks so low that it's absurd to worry about them has a boy who cried wolf effect that leads to more serious ones being dismissed too (can't help thinking that's what's driven some of the nuttier Covid responses).
Not gonna touch the Covid part.
But when it comes to cleanliness and food processing. I think the standard of try for paranoia and 100% is because you need to shoot high to aim low. From many workers I have been beside or managing. If you find a standard you want and set to it they go under the bar. So you raise the bar above what you actually want, to get them to hit the actual targets in certain chores.
So I don't think it is "There is some risk!" or "It must be 100% clean!". But if you aim for the acceptable 80% and tell them the real risks they shrug and give you 60%.
Nealithi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:55 pm
But when it comes to cleanliness and food processing. I think the standard of try for paranoia and 100% is because you need to shoot high to aim low. From many workers I have been beside or managing. If you find a standard you want and set to it they go under the bar. So you raise the bar above what you actually want, to get them to hit the actual targets in certain chores.
So I don't think it is "There is some risk!" or "It must be 100% clean!". But if you aim for the acceptable 80% and tell them the real risks they shrug and give you 60%.
There's some truth in that, although if I was told to go for 100% I'd walk out because it's impossible. The intention might be to say that merely to get something less but still acceptable, but I'm not going to lumbered with that requirement even if I'm not expected to meet it.
Riedquat wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 5:09 pm
Another downside is that the constant fear-driving of what are actually risks so low that it's absurd to worry about them has a boy who cried wolf effect that leads to more serious ones being dismissed too (can't help thinking that's what's driven some of the nuttier Covid responses).
Oh, I agree - but the nuttiest Covid responses aren't the ones who insist there's no problem.
People are clinging to the idea that the vaccines will solve everything, ignoring the greatest probability, which is that the virus will never be driven extinct and we'll be dealing with some form of the problem permanently.
Anyway, I have a net bag of onions I recently purchased. I'll be dicing them for introduction to my slow cooker later this evening.
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two equals four. If that is granted, all else follows." -- George Orwell, 1984
Nealithi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:55 pm
But when it comes to cleanliness and food processing. I think the standard of try for paranoia and 100% is because you need to shoot high to aim low. From many workers I have been beside or managing. If you find a standard you want and set to it they go under the bar. So you raise the bar above what you actually want, to get them to hit the actual targets in certain chores.
So I don't think it is "There is some risk!" or "It must be 100% clean!". But if you aim for the acceptable 80% and tell them the real risks they shrug and give you 60%.
There's some truth in that, although if I was told to go for 100% I'd walk out because it's impossible. The intention might be to say that merely to get something less but still acceptable, but I'm not going to lumbered with that requirement even if I'm not expected to meet it.
I think from your phrasing you might want to check your attitude. A call of you must hit 100% is different than try for 100%. Must hit 100% in cleanliness in anything less than cleanroom environment? I mean walking around in sealed suits with oxygen delivered to them clean. Is still not 100%. A place that brings stuff out of the ground or cuts up carcasses and the best the workers wear is a tyvek suit? Yeah I would hold that job just long enough to find another. Because the manager is setting the standards to ludicrous levels for one bad reason or another.
But where I worked we refurbished machines for resale. And our rule of thumb was try for 100% clean because customers expect it. (Didn't work with a retired teacher we brought in. He was always spouting how he didn't care how something looked even brand new. As long as it worked. He was a handful to manage. Oh I did manage to call his hypocrisy when he bought his motorcycle and he polished it constantly. But I digress.)
Nealithi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:55 pm
But when it comes to cleanliness and food processing. I think the standard of try for paranoia and 100% is because you need to shoot high to aim low. From many workers I have been beside or managing. If you find a standard you want and set to it they go under the bar. So you raise the bar above what you actually want, to get them to hit the actual targets in certain chores.
So I don't think it is "There is some risk!" or "It must be 100% clean!". But if you aim for the acceptable 80% and tell them the real risks they shrug and give you 60%.
There's some truth in that, although if I was told to go for 100% I'd walk out because it's impossible. The intention might be to say that merely to get something less but still acceptable, but I'm not going to lumbered with that requirement even if I'm not expected to meet it.
I think from your phrasing you might want to check your attitude. A call of you must hit 100% is different than try for 100%. Must hit 100% in cleanliness in anything less than cleanroom environment? I mean walking around in sealed suits with oxygen delivered to them clean. Is still not 100%. A place that brings stuff out of the ground or cuts up carcasses and the best the workers wear is a tyvek suit? Yeah I would hold that job just long enough to find another. Because the manager is setting the standards to ludicrous levels for one bad reason or another.
But where I worked we refurbished machines for resale. And our rule of thumb was try for 100% clean because customers expect it. (Didn't work with a retired teacher we brought in. He was always spouting how he didn't care how something looked even brand new. As long as it worked. He was a handful to manage. Oh I did manage to call his hypocrisy when he bought his motorcycle and he polished it constantly. But I digress.)
Why would I want to check my attitude?
Anyone even asking to try for the impossible is still asking for the impossible. Try for a very good job, try for the best I can do - within realistic boundaries - that's what I want to hear. Asking me to try for the impossible, no thanks. It sounds too much of another case of seeing things in extremes, and for pushing in to rather ridiculous extremes. Why did you bring up that cleanroom example? Because you know it's a ludicrous extreme; if there's an implicit understanding that it is ludicrous then don't even ask for it (and even then can a cleanroom be 100% clean?)
Nealithi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:55 pm
But when it comes to cleanliness and food processing. I think the standard of try for paranoia and 100% is because you need to shoot high to aim low. From many workers I have been beside or managing. If you find a standard you want and set to it they go under the bar. So you raise the bar above what you actually want, to get them to hit the actual targets in certain chores.
So I don't think it is "There is some risk!" or "It must be 100% clean!". But if you aim for the acceptable 80% and tell them the real risks they shrug and give you 60%.
There's some truth in that, although if I was told to go for 100% I'd walk out because it's impossible. The intention might be to say that merely to get something less but still acceptable, but I'm not going to lumbered with that requirement even if I'm not expected to meet it.
I think from your phrasing you might want to check your attitude. A call of you must hit 100% is different than try for 100%. Must hit 100% in cleanliness in anything less than cleanroom environment? I mean walking around in sealed suits with oxygen delivered to them clean. Is still not 100%. A place that brings stuff out of the ground or cuts up carcasses and the best the workers wear is a tyvek suit? Yeah I would hold that job just long enough to find another. Because the manager is setting the standards to ludicrous levels for one bad reason or another.
But where I worked we refurbished machines for resale. And our rule of thumb was try for 100% clean because customers expect it. (Didn't work with a retired teacher we brought in. He was always spouting how he didn't care how something looked even brand new. As long as it worked. He was a handful to manage. Oh I did manage to call his hypocrisy when he bought his motorcycle and he polished it constantly. But I digress.)
Why would I want to check my attitude?
Anyone even asking to try for the impossible is still asking for the impossible. Try for a very good job, try for the best I can do - within realistic boundaries - that's what I want to hear. Asking me to try for the impossible, no thanks. It sounds too much of another case of seeing things in extremes, and for pushing in to rather ridiculous extremes. Why did you bring up that cleanroom example? Because you know it's a ludicrous extreme; if there's an implicit understanding that it is ludicrous then don't even ask for it (and even then can a cleanroom be 100% clean?)
Uhm I did say that even a total clean room is not 100%. You can not hit 100%. And anyone demanding such would have me around only long enough for me to find another job?
Try means try. If you won't bother with effort at all then no, it is an attitude problem. Now I can put down a Sean Connory quote on trying your best. But we should stay grounded in reality a moment. I have been a manager. Try your best has kept. coming. back. as an excuse to be lazy. And I do mean excuse. If there is a sorter/shredder type machine dealing in food and it is supposed to be opened once a day or once a shift and all the detritus hosed out. Tried your best turns into opening the side is too much a PIA so someone squirts water in from the top. That's the same thing, right?
And I know the whole 100% thing is a waste because no one can grasp what they are demanding. A friend of mine works for an MUA. (Please don't ask me what the words are, I never remember. But they handle both clean water and waste water treatment. As well as fire hydrants. The point is they test for lead in water at one part per billion. Inevitably someone asks shouldn't it be zero? Well how high do you want to take the divisor? Sorry there was an old math concept that said in theory you can't get through a door. Because the distance keeps dividing in half to infinity or something. That is the issue on the water.
Nealithi wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 8:01 pm
Sorry there was an old math concept that said in theory you can't get through a door. Because the distance keeps dividing in half to infinity or something. That is the issue on the water.
That's Zeno's Paradox. The problem with it is that as the distance you need to travel falls to infinitesimal values, so does the time spent traveling. Therefore, a constant velocity can be established and it's possible to get anywhere.
"I know what you’re thinking now. You’re thinking 'Oh my god, that’s treating other people with respect gone mad!'" When I am writing in this font, I am writing in my moderator voice.
Spam-desu
Nealithi wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 8:01 pm
Sorry there was an old math concept that said in theory you can't get through a door. Because the distance keeps dividing in half to infinity or something. That is the issue on the water.
That's Zeno's Paradox. The problem with it is that as the distance you need to travel falls to infinitesimal values, so does the time spent traveling. Therefore, a constant velocity can be established and it's possible to get anywhere.
Thank you. I remember it as something almost like a philosophy with math and someone disproved it by, well walking through a door.
