I have worked remotely since 2018 and camera-on is certainly the only way to go. Sure, large meetings or recorded sessions mine gets turned off. Cameras on for meeting where you are actually involved is an absolute necessity for trying to make the human connection.
I don’t fully understand the “I won’t turn my camera on” insistence. This is akin to someone in-office bringing a curtain into a conference room saying “don’t look at me”.
> I don’t fully understand the “I won’t turn my camera on” insistence.
It might help to consider that many of the people insisting on this don't understand why others find it weird that they insist. Personally, I don't understand the "You need to let me watch you" insistence.
(If you don't like the phrasing of, "You need to let me watch you" consider, at least, that might be how the insistence is perceived.)
Then again, it is most often the boyfriend. I think when I initially listened to Serial I didn't realize that fact to quite the degree I know it now. That doesn't make him legally guilty, but it does seem to be the Bayesian center of likelihood.
Well, that's a pretty extreme interpretation of what I said. It's just one piece of bayesian evidence, not a 100% determiner. Are there any witnesses who claim that this other individual killed her? Because there is one for Adnan. Also, it seems like a recent ex is probably more dangerous than a new lover.
All this “smart” stuff kills me for basic appliances that no Wi-Fi should ever be needed for.
Example: I am in the process of building a custom home with the ability to purchase whatever we want - when looking at ovens I told the salesperson that I didn’t want anything that has to connect to the internet and the response was that I would need to pick out something lower end because everything “high end” has the connectivity now. Even dishwashers.
I went through something similar. I just made sure all the high end appliances I got didn’t need WiFi to work. Having the capability (but not connected) hasn’t limited anything at all so far.
The diamond water paradox is one of the first concepts learned in an introductory Econ class; hopefully not until a “history” class.
I was an Econ professor in the past and this was quite literally the first thing I spoke about in introductory courses. This is the analogy used to describe what the science of economics is, the study of the allocation of scarce resources.
I was an Economics major and also took AP Economics in high school and there may have been other analogies used but I don't remember hearing the D/W paradox till that history of econ class.
That class was wonderful b/c it taught me a lot of the "first principles" of economics using real stories and examples instead of "here is a supply/demand chart, accept that it's true".
Which brings me back to my original point, methods of teaching that explain HOW we got to the current way of thinking, IMHO, are the best way to teach people. The variety of responses in other threads show that not everyone is taught that way unfortunately. Your point in particular shows that even someone with an Econ background (aka me) may not have gotten this form of instruction.
Condos like this aren't really marketed in public. The exclusivity is part of the draw. It took some effort for her to look the part, they won't show them to just any rando who shows up.
I thought the same thing, but I found it hard to find views of inside of the apartments I sampled from the article. A lot of the apartment websites just talked about the amenities. Some had a floor plan, but no pictures of what the inside actually looked like. For a $7mil+ condo I was expecting a little more, but I'm also not really the target audience of those condos either
