You know, i read one of your links, and the name Mike Rowe rang a bell in my brain, but could not recall exactly who that was...so after looking it up, then remembered him as host of TV show "Dirty Jobs"! Also, very cool idea he has with his org, namely, "In 2008, Mike created the mikeroweWORKS Foundation to launch a national PR campaign for skilled labor..." - neato!
I remember an episode of Dirty Jobs where there was an old candy plant or something that bees had gotten into, and they made blue honey from the syrup that was left over in the plant.
I've had to send in stool samples several times for various reasons, and every time I imagined some poor lab tech having to handle it. Too bad they never did a "Dirty Jobs" episode about that profession.
I learned a lot from the Dirty Jobs episode, where again Ed Currie is just fine, but one of the crew ends up lying flat on the floor after trying a chip dosed with Pepper X.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TZtQAYOtnA
In the beginning of the episode Ed had a scoop of Carolina Reaper seeds, about 25k of them, and says he gets $7 for every 10, I wonder how Pepper X will end up working out.
I think you are overlooking how in this modern economy many people do in fact go and work their next job at 17:30 rather than going home to relax.
Dirty Jobs may show some some clocking in and out of only one job and then going home to relax but as a television show that is highly selective of what it decides to show it is not a representative window into how the mass amount of people on this planet live (just like HN is not such a window either).
Simply reading the local news tells me more about the economic hardships of the common worker than a reality tv and internet forums ever could. And those hardships are harsh in many cases.
Destin has a knack for taking relatively mundane topics and making them interesting. I’ve had low expectations going into his videos on coast guard search patterns, center-pivot irrigators, and a film factory tour, but ended up enjoying them because of his emphasis on the little optimizations that are inherent in all human endeavors, and the people who carry them out. It’s like Dirty Jobs (which I also liked) but for engineers.
In this case I groaned a bit when I saw the title (“another Rupert’s Drop video?”), but it was fascinating to watch that team working together, and learn a bit about the process of glass blowing. I found the result a little underwhelming to be honest - at least in its attempt to capture the violence of a Rupert’s Drop exploding - though it was still a cool piece of glass. But the journey to get there kept me captivated the whole way through.
I'd like to see an AI snake out a plugged toilet. Or do literally anything else from the Dirty Jobs TV show. We're making some progress on the software side, but hardware lags far behind.
Reminds me of this Dirty Jobs episode about recycling the scraps from the Vegas buffets at a local pig farm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKTQtNuJ_0w
It's not about lazyness. It is a matter of having all your needs and wants fulfilled and not needing to work. Where you can finally simply pursue hobbies. Why do any kind of labor if everything is met. Especially janitorial, plumbing, heavy lifting, dredging in miserable conditions, or any other number of difficult thankless jobs.
Go watch dirty jobs the tv show, it's an eye opener. There are even people who climb down in sewers and scrap our feces off the walls in big cities. Who would want to do that if they could just get on UBI and build gokarts in their spare time instead.
You know those wind turbines the power grid relies on? Dirty jobs had an episode that showed how they have to climb up inside them, crawl into really tight spaces, and clean out debris to keep the turbines functioning. It's a tough, harrowing, frightening and claustrophobic experience.
Cost effective and comes with a few benefits such as: natural material which won't taint water, and it has good insulating effects in winter.
There was a Dirty Jobs episode which featured Mike accompanying a water tank crew doing a roof top replacement. They shape the boards of wood at the shop, truck it in, and use manual labor to schlep the boards up to the roof. Old boards come back down the same way. No extremely expensive crane service or metal working necessary. So it is quite cost effective.
My father started his own house painting business when I was born. It's tough work and not great pay, but he loves the peace of mind of being his own boss. I worked with him growing up and can attest that owning your life in this way is actually very liberating.
Being in NZ, I wonder: do you know Mike Rowe, from the American TV show 'Dirty Jobs'? If not I encourage you to research him and the TV show. It's not very often I recommend television.
This is why I'm a big advocate (but not affiliate) of the "mikeroweWORKS" foundation. Mike Rowe, from the TV show "Dirty Jobs", is using his foundation to revive interest in trade schools and jobs. There are a lot of people who could be great machinists, electricians, plumbers, etc., but due to social pressures, they start college and soon drop out, then work for peanuts (if they can find any job at all). We need to eliminate the stigma against trade schools and encourage people to work with their hands if that's their passion.
Your parent probably meant dirty in a very physical way, not, as you seem to have taken it, a demeaning way. I don't think of "dumb" when I hear "dirty"; maybe the popular Discovery TV Show "Dirty Jobs" is a reason for that.
Also, while I've never been to Norway or Netherlands, I think you're underestimating the number of "dirty jobs" that support you. Who's tilling the land? Mining the minerals? Excavating land? Driving the garbage trunks? Emptying the lobster traps? De-greasing the engines? Tending the public spaces?
I'm not against legalized prostitution, but I think its a strong strike against any claims of higher responsibility towards society.
Yes, many of these things might be automated one day, but that seems far away (a century at least). Your parent's question is valid and, as far as I'm concerned, there's no place on earth that comes remotely close to what you seem to be describing.
This whole TDD discussion reminds me of the "Safety Third" episode of Dirty Jobs.
Testing is definitely and activity that needs to be kept in mind (i.e. "Safety Third" or near the end, Rowe mentions that it's more like Safety Always). It shouldn't be overdone to the point that you cannot get your objective done.
In reality, there are lots of projects with insufficient automated testing. Preaching about the TDD might sound great until you find out that putting the test there would easily mean nothing gets done. Everyone would love to be able to stop all work and put tests in, but that just ain't gonna happen.
Also the preachiness gets to people - it isn't like people don't know they should write tests; it's just they also have to balance other objectives.
This lead me to think that Uncle Bob kinda misses DHH's point.
I think very few people equate intelligence with getting any job or making any money at all. Can you point me to someone who has? (Okay, I guess a more general form of 'intelligence' suggests it would be impossible for a slug to apply for and get any job on the market.) Similarly I don't think people equate intelligence with getting a good, high-paying job, but there is a good correlation showing more intelligence matches with higher income, and if you use that correlation in your predictions they will be more accurate.
I watched "Dirty Jobs", great show. I agree a lot of jobs don't require much in terms of IQ, creativity, or rationality, but as you move up the scale of which jobs pay the most, you'll find they do start to require such things that commonly go into 'intelligence' definitions. You'll find counter-examples (like programmers that shouldn't be let anywhere near a computer, or CEOs who don't know a thing about their own business), but fewer and fewer. Bringing this comment back momentarily to the predictive power of intelligence, I would bet that a high IQ compilers programmer can learn to competently do any construction work job (many of such jobs use tools and methods that required high IQ people to come up with...) while a mid or low IQ construction worker couldn't learn to competently do compilers programming. In other words, having higher intelligence makes it a lot easier to change job fields, not just find and work at any job at all. (If you can find me someone with an IQ less than 110 who can understand this and create their own reference implementation without referencing the existing one http://ridiculousfish.com/blog/posts/labor-of-division-episode-iii.html I'd be interested in meeting them! It's possible they could change my view on a lot of things.)
I'd rather less people learn to do trades, because trades are the target of two big factors for job displacement: the first is from humans who will do the same work (maybe less quality, maybe not) for less (immigrants, foreigners, starving students, people who just got fired and were living check-to-check so will do anything...), the second is from automation when even the cheap workers are too expensive. http://lesswrong.com/lw/hh4/the_robots_ai_and_unemployment_antifaq/9fw8 is a nice comment on the question of whether and how much automation is hurting the jobs market. I would like more companies to get back into the role of educating their workforce and being more willing to accept people with little or no real experience, but I can only see them doing that if either they can get guarantees of working there for X years with the option to fire them at any time, or if the universities are producing so few people capable of working that the companies are forced to educate or otherwise not have anyone to do the (presently expensive to automate) work.
I also don't think we have nearly enough "smart" people already. There are other benefits besides wealth that a more rather than less intelligent average populace receives. So it's worthwhile on those grounds as well to improve a nation's average IQ. Other forms of intelligence enhancement include wiring up computers with internet directly to the brain to allow for even easier access and processing of human knowledge. I'm currently reading What the Dormouse Said, one of the first interesting bits of info was how Doug Engelbart was motivated to augment human intelligence with technology while John McCarthy wanted to retire human intelligence with better AI. I like both approaches but ultimately I'm in the McCarthy camp, though I think a stepping stone may involve R&D of intelligence enhancement through DNA changes. Humans are roughly 4% different genetically from chimps, is there some sort of super-human that could be made that's some small % different to humans yet confers the same breadth of intelligence capabilities over humans that humans have over chimps?
Edit: One other thing I kind of wanted to bring up, is that I do see a lack of empathy among better-off folks for the lesser-off folks. I don't feel much empathy for a lot of lesser-off folks myself, especially ones that consistently make poor decisions in addition to being poor. (There is a question of how much is really "their fault" if you suppose that making good decisions is impossible without a certain level of intelligence...) But I think a lot of it is simply "no one likes a whiner" and a perception that it's the poor people whining when the well-off social justice warriors complain 'on behalf' of the poor. "Dirty Jobs" is a good show if only just to see how those people are just like other people, just like yourself perhaps in some ways, and in fact aren't whining all day about "I have to clean this and I'm being paid this little? How will I feed my family? Gosh life is so hard and privileged people suck."
The one thing that I never get in posts kinda like yours (and yours), is how it seems when you're talking about jobs, you directly equate "intelligence" with being able to get a job or make an income. I don't believe this is true, and many people who have less "intelligence" can still find jobs. Granted, they might not be the most "cushy" of jobs, but they will still pay and are likely relatively satisfying. I would recommend watching the show "Dirty Jobs" (if you haven't already) to see many, many of the kinds of jobs where you don't need to be a college graduate with good scores to be able to get them. Heck, you can even get a job somewhere where most people would consider you having to be intelligent to get into, without actually being good at that job. (see thedailywtf for examples of "programmers" who have jobs, and just make life miserable for everyone else) So many of the jobs that I've seen in Dirty Jobs, I cannot do. (at least right now, I guess I could learn, but it would be hard) They require a completely different degree of intelligence/intuition that I've never developed. Most would consider me "intelligent" as a programmer, but I just see it as having a certain skill set, out of many, many skill sets that exist. I doubt I'm any more intelligent than a good construction worker.
I'd rather see more people learn to do trades, than become "smarter" and likely have even less of a chance of getting a job. We have more than enough "smart" people already.
I have, intensely. Yet I came to believe that the root cause (the external situation, real, perceived or otherwise) and the emotional reaction to it (self-doubt, depression, sense of failure) do not need to be intimately connected.
In other words, your emotional health is not contingent upon your external circumstances to a large degree. To wit, a lot of very distinguished persons (as well as celebrities) battle very hard with the exact same feelings that you have. A lot of people in circumstances you might consider worse than yours (oh just watch a couple episodes of dirty jobs on discovery channel) are quite happy. Of course the reverse applies as well, but you can see how in the larger scheme of things, external circumstances do not dictate your emotions.
That's fine. I dropped Time Warner and Comcast years ago. Oddly enough, between Youtube, podcasts, Netflix, iTunes, and bittorrent I have no need to have "channels" any more.
If there's a movie or tv show I want to see, Netflix -> iTunes -> bittorrent.
I've actually been finding I watch Youtube more than anything else. I have a particular set of interests and have found a particular set of regular independent producers on Youtube and subscribe to them.
Beyond that, I listen to a variety of podcasts about tech and photography.
I literally have no need for cable tv and haven't for years. All of the interesting stuff is online.
What I'd really love to see is a popular tv show with a loyal fan base but marginal viewers on cable to just switch over 100% to Youtube. Put the episodes in full HD and run regular Youtube ads. Maybe do some in-show advertisement, product placement, that kind of thing.
Recently, Dirty Jobs was cancelled after 8 years by Discovery. That was a really cool show with a loyal fan base. Its numbers got too low for Discovery so they canned it. It'd be the perfect example to try switching to a pure online model.
Oh not at all. Traditional market economics going on here. Sweden needs trash. Norway has too much. It's beneficial to both parties to trade.
There is an American show called Dirty Jobs. In an episode sometime in the last couple of years, the host visits a medical waste recycling plant. It's a family business, and the owner describes how he got started.
Years back, there were no state laws governing the disposal of medical waste. The owner had been working as a forensic cleaner (cleaning up bodies after murders and such). His mother was a nurse. Around that time, the state passed new laws regulating med waste disposal. His mother, who knew about this because of her job, made an offhand comment that her son should start a business disposing of the waste. So he ran with it.
Over the years, the owner and his sons have built a thriving business based on the disposal of medical waste. It's a dirty, hard job, but apparently profitable.
Don't forget, there's lots of ways to build a business if there are market opportunities.
This is so full of bullshit I don't even know where to begin. Has this person never worked an actual job that sucks? Dude needs to watch some episodes of Dirty Jobs.
There was an episode of Dirty Jobs where Mike Rowe was recording the narratives in a hotel room by simply going under the blanket of his bed with the microphone. I'm sure there was additional tweaking production value, but this is good advice!
Mike Rowe of Dirty Jobs got to drive the crawler in one episode. It was a cool episode. You appreciate just how big it is when you see him standing next to the treads.
I saw an episode of "Dirty Jobs" (Discovery Channel) and they humourously demonstrated and explained how the dirty job of "baby chicken sexing" is done. The episode first aired on Aug 16, 2003.
Yet, there article claims ...
"Chicken Sexer the chicks after a few days differ, although the sexual characteristics until after four weeks to train. If you ask these people how they do that, they can not explain it."
It makes me wonder if the rest of the article on stock-picking is similarly inaccurate.
I think a large part of the problem is that the content is increasingly crap!
My TV watching is basically Food Network, Ovation TV (artist & musician documentaries) some History channel, a bit of Discovery channel (Mythbusters & Dirty Jobs), Cartoon Network adult swim and movies. I haven't watched broadcast TV in almost a decade and I don't get the local satellite feed. My local news comes from the radio during my commute.
Fox, ABC, NBC, etc. simply don't exist for me. CNN I have watched exactly ONCE in the last year: I heard that a plane landed in the Hudson river and I rushed home to watch it on TV then got disgusted by the usual crappy CNN coverage and switched it off.
A local bar could have an open mike night streamed online and I would watch that (with the bar's name prominently displayed in the background) over just about anything on TV. And when I got tired of watching I could go to the bar :-)
Hacker Cinema
30 comments on Hacker News
You know, i read one of your links, and the name Mike Rowe rang a bell in my brain, but could not recall exactly who that was...so after looking it up, then remembered him as host of TV show "Dirty Jobs"! Also, very cool idea he has with his org, namely, "In 2008, Mike created the mikeroweWORKS Foundation to launch a national PR campaign for skilled labor..." - neato!
I remember an episode of Dirty Jobs where there was an old candy plant or something that bees had gotten into, and they made blue honey from the syrup that was left over in the plant.
Rare, but possibly the bees were doing a swindle.
I've had to send in stool samples several times for various reasons, and every time I imagined some poor lab tech having to handle it. Too bad they never did a "Dirty Jobs" episode about that profession.
I've watched enough episodes of Dirty Jobs to know there are still many people out there digging ditches in weird places.
I learned a lot from the Dirty Jobs episode, where again Ed Currie is just fine, but one of the crew ends up lying flat on the floor after trying a chip dosed with Pepper X. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TZtQAYOtnA
In the beginning of the episode Ed had a scoop of Carolina Reaper seeds, about 25k of them, and says he gets $7 for every 10, I wonder how Pepper X will end up working out.
I think you are overlooking how in this modern economy many people do in fact go and work their next job at 17:30 rather than going home to relax.
Dirty Jobs may show some some clocking in and out of only one job and then going home to relax but as a television show that is highly selective of what it decides to show it is not a representative window into how the mass amount of people on this planet live (just like HN is not such a window either).
Simply reading the local news tells me more about the economic hardships of the common worker than a reality tv and internet forums ever could. And those hardships are harsh in many cases.
Destin has a knack for taking relatively mundane topics and making them interesting. I’ve had low expectations going into his videos on coast guard search patterns, center-pivot irrigators, and a film factory tour, but ended up enjoying them because of his emphasis on the little optimizations that are inherent in all human endeavors, and the people who carry them out. It’s like Dirty Jobs (which I also liked) but for engineers.
In this case I groaned a bit when I saw the title (“another Rupert’s Drop video?”), but it was fascinating to watch that team working together, and learn a bit about the process of glass blowing. I found the result a little underwhelming to be honest - at least in its attempt to capture the violence of a Rupert’s Drop exploding - though it was still a cool piece of glass. But the journey to get there kept me captivated the whole way through.
I'd like to see an AI snake out a plugged toilet. Or do literally anything else from the Dirty Jobs TV show. We're making some progress on the software side, but hardware lags far behind.
Reminds me of this Dirty Jobs episode about recycling the scraps from the Vegas buffets at a local pig farm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKTQtNuJ_0w
Which member of the camera crew was crushed to death? I've seen most of the Dirty Jobs episodes and don't recall that accident.
It's not about lazyness. It is a matter of having all your needs and wants fulfilled and not needing to work. Where you can finally simply pursue hobbies. Why do any kind of labor if everything is met. Especially janitorial, plumbing, heavy lifting, dredging in miserable conditions, or any other number of difficult thankless jobs.
Go watch dirty jobs the tv show, it's an eye opener. There are even people who climb down in sewers and scrap our feces off the walls in big cities. Who would want to do that if they could just get on UBI and build gokarts in their spare time instead.
You know those wind turbines the power grid relies on? Dirty jobs had an episode that showed how they have to climb up inside them, crawl into really tight spaces, and clean out debris to keep the turbines functioning. It's a tough, harrowing, frightening and claustrophobic experience.
Season 7 of Dirty Jobs on the Discovery Channel showed this in action (I still enjoy reruns of Dirty Jobs)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dirty_Jobs_episodes#Season_7_(2011%E2%80%9312)
Cost effective and comes with a few benefits such as: natural material which won't taint water, and it has good insulating effects in winter.
There was a Dirty Jobs episode which featured Mike accompanying a water tank crew doing a roof top replacement. They shape the boards of wood at the shop, truck it in, and use manual labor to schlep the boards up to the roof. Old boards come back down the same way. No extremely expensive crane service or metal working necessary. So it is quite cost effective.
My father started his own house painting business when I was born. It's tough work and not great pay, but he loves the peace of mind of being his own boss. I worked with him growing up and can attest that owning your life in this way is actually very liberating.
Being in NZ, I wonder: do you know Mike Rowe, from the American TV show 'Dirty Jobs'? If not I encourage you to research him and the TV show. It's not very often I recommend television.
[2014]
Dirty Jobs did an episode there in 2012 (which is probably where Gizmodo got their inspiration from)
http://www.tv.com/shows/dirty-jobs/onion-processor-2392294/
This is why I'm a big advocate (but not affiliate) of the "mikeroweWORKS" foundation. Mike Rowe, from the TV show "Dirty Jobs", is using his foundation to revive interest in trade schools and jobs. There are a lot of people who could be great machinists, electricians, plumbers, etc., but due to social pressures, they start college and soon drop out, then work for peanuts (if they can find any job at all). We need to eliminate the stigma against trade schools and encourage people to work with their hands if that's their passion.
http://profoundlydisconnected.com/foundation/
Your parent probably meant dirty in a very physical way, not, as you seem to have taken it, a demeaning way. I don't think of "dumb" when I hear "dirty"; maybe the popular Discovery TV Show "Dirty Jobs" is a reason for that.
Also, while I've never been to Norway or Netherlands, I think you're underestimating the number of "dirty jobs" that support you. Who's tilling the land? Mining the minerals? Excavating land? Driving the garbage trunks? Emptying the lobster traps? De-greasing the engines? Tending the public spaces?
I'm not against legalized prostitution, but I think its a strong strike against any claims of higher responsibility towards society.
Yes, many of these things might be automated one day, but that seems far away (a century at least). Your parent's question is valid and, as far as I'm concerned, there's no place on earth that comes remotely close to what you seem to be describing.
This whole TDD discussion reminds me of the "Safety Third" episode of Dirty Jobs.
Testing is definitely and activity that needs to be kept in mind (i.e. "Safety Third" or near the end, Rowe mentions that it's more like Safety Always). It shouldn't be overdone to the point that you cannot get your objective done.
In reality, there are lots of projects with insufficient automated testing. Preaching about the TDD might sound great until you find out that putting the test there would easily mean nothing gets done. Everyone would love to be able to stop all work and put tests in, but that just ain't gonna happen.
Also the preachiness gets to people - it isn't like people don't know they should write tests; it's just they also have to balance other objectives.
This lead me to think that Uncle Bob kinda misses DHH's point.
I think very few people equate intelligence with getting any job or making any money at all. Can you point me to someone who has? (Okay, I guess a more general form of 'intelligence' suggests it would be impossible for a slug to apply for and get any job on the market.) Similarly I don't think people equate intelligence with getting a good, high-paying job, but there is a good correlation showing more intelligence matches with higher income, and if you use that correlation in your predictions they will be more accurate.
I watched "Dirty Jobs", great show. I agree a lot of jobs don't require much in terms of IQ, creativity, or rationality, but as you move up the scale of which jobs pay the most, you'll find they do start to require such things that commonly go into 'intelligence' definitions. You'll find counter-examples (like programmers that shouldn't be let anywhere near a computer, or CEOs who don't know a thing about their own business), but fewer and fewer. Bringing this comment back momentarily to the predictive power of intelligence, I would bet that a high IQ compilers programmer can learn to competently do any construction work job (many of such jobs use tools and methods that required high IQ people to come up with...) while a mid or low IQ construction worker couldn't learn to competently do compilers programming. In other words, having higher intelligence makes it a lot easier to change job fields, not just find and work at any job at all. (If you can find me someone with an IQ less than 110 who can understand this and create their own reference implementation without referencing the existing one http://ridiculousfish.com/blog/posts/labor-of-division-episode-iii.html I'd be interested in meeting them! It's possible they could change my view on a lot of things.)
I'd rather less people learn to do trades, because trades are the target of two big factors for job displacement: the first is from humans who will do the same work (maybe less quality, maybe not) for less (immigrants, foreigners, starving students, people who just got fired and were living check-to-check so will do anything...), the second is from automation when even the cheap workers are too expensive. http://lesswrong.com/lw/hh4/the_robots_ai_and_unemployment_antifaq/9fw8 is a nice comment on the question of whether and how much automation is hurting the jobs market. I would like more companies to get back into the role of educating their workforce and being more willing to accept people with little or no real experience, but I can only see them doing that if either they can get guarantees of working there for X years with the option to fire them at any time, or if the universities are producing so few people capable of working that the companies are forced to educate or otherwise not have anyone to do the (presently expensive to automate) work.
I also don't think we have nearly enough "smart" people already. There are other benefits besides wealth that a more rather than less intelligent average populace receives. So it's worthwhile on those grounds as well to improve a nation's average IQ. Other forms of intelligence enhancement include wiring up computers with internet directly to the brain to allow for even easier access and processing of human knowledge. I'm currently reading What the Dormouse Said, one of the first interesting bits of info was how Doug Engelbart was motivated to augment human intelligence with technology while John McCarthy wanted to retire human intelligence with better AI. I like both approaches but ultimately I'm in the McCarthy camp, though I think a stepping stone may involve R&D of intelligence enhancement through DNA changes. Humans are roughly 4% different genetically from chimps, is there some sort of super-human that could be made that's some small % different to humans yet confers the same breadth of intelligence capabilities over humans that humans have over chimps?
Edit: One other thing I kind of wanted to bring up, is that I do see a lack of empathy among better-off folks for the lesser-off folks. I don't feel much empathy for a lot of lesser-off folks myself, especially ones that consistently make poor decisions in addition to being poor. (There is a question of how much is really "their fault" if you suppose that making good decisions is impossible without a certain level of intelligence...) But I think a lot of it is simply "no one likes a whiner" and a perception that it's the poor people whining when the well-off social justice warriors complain 'on behalf' of the poor. "Dirty Jobs" is a good show if only just to see how those people are just like other people, just like yourself perhaps in some ways, and in fact aren't whining all day about "I have to clean this and I'm being paid this little? How will I feed my family? Gosh life is so hard and privileged people suck."
The one thing that I never get in posts kinda like yours (and yours), is how it seems when you're talking about jobs, you directly equate "intelligence" with being able to get a job or make an income. I don't believe this is true, and many people who have less "intelligence" can still find jobs. Granted, they might not be the most "cushy" of jobs, but they will still pay and are likely relatively satisfying. I would recommend watching the show "Dirty Jobs" (if you haven't already) to see many, many of the kinds of jobs where you don't need to be a college graduate with good scores to be able to get them. Heck, you can even get a job somewhere where most people would consider you having to be intelligent to get into, without actually being good at that job. (see thedailywtf for examples of "programmers" who have jobs, and just make life miserable for everyone else) So many of the jobs that I've seen in Dirty Jobs, I cannot do. (at least right now, I guess I could learn, but it would be hard) They require a completely different degree of intelligence/intuition that I've never developed. Most would consider me "intelligent" as a programmer, but I just see it as having a certain skill set, out of many, many skill sets that exist. I doubt I'm any more intelligent than a good construction worker.
I'd rather see more people learn to do trades, than become "smarter" and likely have even less of a chance of getting a job. We have more than enough "smart" people already.
Dirty Jobs?
http://www.episodeguide.us/dirty-jobs/skull-cleaner/episode/814614/summary.html
I have, intensely. Yet I came to believe that the root cause (the external situation, real, perceived or otherwise) and the emotional reaction to it (self-doubt, depression, sense of failure) do not need to be intimately connected.
In other words, your emotional health is not contingent upon your external circumstances to a large degree. To wit, a lot of very distinguished persons (as well as celebrities) battle very hard with the exact same feelings that you have. A lot of people in circumstances you might consider worse than yours (oh just watch a couple episodes of dirty jobs on discovery channel) are quite happy. Of course the reverse applies as well, but you can see how in the larger scheme of things, external circumstances do not dictate your emotions.
That's fine. I dropped Time Warner and Comcast years ago. Oddly enough, between Youtube, podcasts, Netflix, iTunes, and bittorrent I have no need to have "channels" any more.
If there's a movie or tv show I want to see, Netflix -> iTunes -> bittorrent.
I've actually been finding I watch Youtube more than anything else. I have a particular set of interests and have found a particular set of regular independent producers on Youtube and subscribe to them.
Minecraft: Etho's Lab Starcraft: HDStarcraft and Husky Bread baking: multiple Telescope mirror making: multiple Photography: multiple
Beyond that, I listen to a variety of podcasts about tech and photography.
I literally have no need for cable tv and haven't for years. All of the interesting stuff is online.
What I'd really love to see is a popular tv show with a loyal fan base but marginal viewers on cable to just switch over 100% to Youtube. Put the episodes in full HD and run regular Youtube ads. Maybe do some in-show advertisement, product placement, that kind of thing.
Recently, Dirty Jobs was cancelled after 8 years by Discovery. That was a really cool show with a loyal fan base. Its numbers got too low for Discovery so they canned it. It'd be the perfect example to try switching to a pure online model.
Oh not at all. Traditional market economics going on here. Sweden needs trash. Norway has too much. It's beneficial to both parties to trade.
There is an American show called Dirty Jobs. In an episode sometime in the last couple of years, the host visits a medical waste recycling plant. It's a family business, and the owner describes how he got started.
Years back, there were no state laws governing the disposal of medical waste. The owner had been working as a forensic cleaner (cleaning up bodies after murders and such). His mother was a nurse. Around that time, the state passed new laws regulating med waste disposal. His mother, who knew about this because of her job, made an offhand comment that her son should start a business disposing of the waste. So he ran with it.
Over the years, the owner and his sons have built a thriving business based on the disposal of medical waste. It's a dirty, hard job, but apparently profitable.
Don't forget, there's lots of ways to build a business if there are market opportunities.
This is so full of bullshit I don't even know where to begin. Has this person never worked an actual job that sucks? Dude needs to watch some episodes of Dirty Jobs.
There was an episode of Dirty Jobs where Mike Rowe was recording the narratives in a hotel room by simply going under the blanket of his bed with the microphone. I'm sure there was additional tweaking production value, but this is good advice!
Mike Rowe of Dirty Jobs got to drive the crawler in one episode. It was a cool episode. You appreciate just how big it is when you see him standing next to the treads.
Have you seen the TV show Dirty Jobs? Those people.
I saw an episode of "Dirty Jobs" (Discovery Channel) and they humourously demonstrated and explained how the dirty job of "baby chicken sexing" is done. The episode first aired on Aug 16, 2003.
Yet, there article claims ...
"Chicken Sexer the chicks after a few days differ, although the sexual characteristics until after four weeks to train. If you ask these people how they do that, they can not explain it."
It makes me wonder if the rest of the article on stock-picking is similarly inaccurate.
I think a large part of the problem is that the content is increasingly crap!
My TV watching is basically Food Network, Ovation TV (artist & musician documentaries) some History channel, a bit of Discovery channel (Mythbusters & Dirty Jobs), Cartoon Network adult swim and movies. I haven't watched broadcast TV in almost a decade and I don't get the local satellite feed. My local news comes from the radio during my commute.
Fox, ABC, NBC, etc. simply don't exist for me. CNN I have watched exactly ONCE in the last year: I heard that a plane landed in the Hudson river and I rushed home to watch it on TV then got disgusted by the usual crappy CNN coverage and switched it off.
A local bar could have an open mike night streamed online and I would watch that (with the bar's name prominently displayed in the background) over just about anything on TV. And when I got tired of watching I could go to the bar :-)