|
Never for get that it's just business. If they decided one day that they no longer needed you, they'd toss you out and not lose a moments sleep over it.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
It's a good bet they wouldn't give notice either.
Elephant elephant elephant, sunshine sunshine sunshine
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not even sure why as American we always feel the need to give notice (not sure if that's the norm in other countries). If the company was laying you off, they'd give you no notice most of the time.
|
|
|
|
|
Albert Holguin wrote: I'm not even sure why as American we always feel the need to give notice
Its called not burning bridges.
Albert Holguin wrote: not sure if that's the norm in other countries
In my experience... it's pretty much the same (in the UK / Western Europe at least).
Contrary to popular belief, nobody owes you anything.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Mullikin wrote: Its called not burning bridges.
Thanks Capt. Obvious. I meant why it's such a one-sided deal.
|
|
|
|
|
Albert Holguin wrote: why it's such a one-sided deal.
It's pretty obvious... 
- Employees sometime quit with no notice.
- Employers sometimes pay severance or even help with employment services.
- The risks of sabotage by "fired" employees hanging around for a couple weeks is substantial.
Contrary to popular belief, nobody owes you anything.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I've always been curious about that as well. Normally when someone is let go, they have no idea it's coming. In some cases they are even immediately escorted out. Yet we are actually expected to give notice.
Elephant elephant elephant, sunshine sunshine sunshine
|
|
|
|
|
Albert Holguin wrote: not sure if that's the norm in other countries
I worked as a contractor in the UK for many years and all of my contracts had a notice period built in (usually a month). If they wanted me out they could ask me to leave the premises immediately but would be contractually obligated to pay out the notice period. Similarly, if I gave notice I would have to be content to turn up every day for a month, if required (I did do that once and they asked me to leave immediately but still paid me out. Took a couple of weeks off and brought forward the start date of the next gig - tally-ho!). As a perm employee there are more protections in place but, certainly, the notion of at-will employment does not, afaik, exist in the UK any more, if you have been employed for more than a year or two. (Others may correct, confirm or add detail to that).
|
|
|
|
|
See that seems more fair to me... if one-side is bound by some obligation, the other side should be as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed, plus there is also contractual reciprocity; what's good for the goose, etc. Courts in the UK take a dim view of one sided employment contracts.
|
|
|
|
|
Karel Čapek wrote: Courts in the UK take a dim view of one sided employment contracts
In the US it seems to be the norm sadly.
|
|
|
|
|
Here (France/Germany), it is the law.
|
|
|
|
|
Which part? Giving notice? ...does that apply to both parties (employee/employer)? ...because in the U.S. they'll just escort you out of the building the same day they told you a lot of times.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, both. For instance, I have to notice two months before I leave, my employer has to notify me six months before throwing me out.
A former colleague of mine worked in an American company based in Germany, and they had to cut off some staff, so did exactly what you described and escorted a bunch of employees, including her, out of the building on the day of the notice. They probably did not realize that the law was a bit different here ! The former employees sued the company and they got quite a lot of money from that action !
|
|
|
|
|
That's actually pretty good... I'd think you'd want to give employees plenty of notice to find another job. Think it's paranoia that makes American employers do that, they think you'd sabotage something.
|
|
|
|
|
I actually have had two jobs altogether and when I got laid off from the first job, they didn't give me a notice, but they paid me 2 weeks for each year I've had at that company plus the oustanding vacation, which was a nice lump sum (16 weeks or 4 months pay).
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, think that's pretty standard for salaried positions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
String him up!
He uses 1TBS! 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Robert Vandenberg Huang wrote: The world could be better if we have more politicians like him
Yes, because he can show proof of something he stated earlier in public. Otherwise, I don't need any politician to know how to program, but I do require them to know how to run the country.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm curious how it works - I can't tell much from the image.
I got interested in Sudoku, originally, because I wanted to build a solver. At first it worked (usually w/3 or 4 passes), but then more difficult puzzles were introduced and it failed. Adding more algorithms quickly got out of hand with their own complexity.
Looking into it further, it seemed at the time that puzzles were generated (and solved) in a trial-and-error fashion. Very disappointing. Other interesting things were that, at a minimum, seventeen values are required to have a solvable puzzle (necessary, but not necessarily sufficient). Sometime I wonder if a puzzle is actually solvable as given: it's only possible if there's only one solution. The computer method of solving doesn't (didn't) require this.
FWIW: My own personal rules of play require no guessing trials: all values are to be filled in by deduction. (i.e., I do not take a guess, follow through, and if it fails, go back) Also, no notes in empty boxes. Finally, I work in pen. If I mess it up, there's always another bunch available the next day.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I looked at the first one on the list: basically it's what I said: trial and error.
I was working on a purely logical solver. The original scanned each location to see if it had only one possible value. If it did, it was entered into the logic, if not, next. With the easy ones (of the day) it was done in 3 or 4 passes. Once they were a bit harder, it failed miserably.
I added some more logic, but it (as I said) quickly scaled in difficulty faster than I had time to commit for recreation. The difficulty was the various ways of implementing an exclusion of all other values when the cell's value wasn't uniquely determined by exclusion of other values. It works fine in my head but translating it in discrete steps was growing ugly. The higher order process (implications of a box have an entire row filled in on values in adjacent boxes parallel with that filled in row, for example).
It's quite possible that, from a computer's point of view, the recursive trial-and-error is the fastest route.
You gave a lot of ref's: I hope I don't get Ahem'd into shame for not checking them all.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
The number 217 in the list has the correct answer. 
I don't think you can go past some clever brute force ; as you have pointed out, in some tricky situations, the determination by exclusion is not so easy.
On the other side, IRL, I never had to require some more rules than one and only one occurrence of each figure in a line/in a column/in a square, which does not seem to complicated to implement. (I realize these are the complete set of rules of the game, but in some books, they add "tricks" based on assumptions -> what would be in this cell if I put a 1 in this cell -> leads to impossible situation -> so there cannot be a 1 in this cell, etc.... I think this is what you meant with the complicated exclusions).
|
|
|
|
|
A better view of a complicated solution:
A given cell can have any of several non-excluded values.
The other grids on it's row have each have a particular value which excludes all other cells in the grid but the one in question. So, instead of N being the only value that's not excluded from the cell we have that cell as the only cell (in that 3x3) from which N is not excluded.
This, however, may also be implemented wherein of the two 3x3's contributing to exclusion by rows, the value isn't in one (or both), but the row location(s) may be inferred from other 3x3's, carried through to the original cell, and N's only allowed location is defined.
Or - one 3x3 has has three-in-a-row defined. If in another a value is in either of the other rows, it's existence is inferred in the other row, and that can be used to locate it, or mapped to the third.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
All of these have one thing in common: no value is tried. It is either deduced or it is not known. One would never need to undo a step.
Turning the above into code starts to get pretty serious.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
