The skills of both writing useful minutes and prioritizing actually sending them out are frustratingly rare. An average meeting with five or six people has even odds of not including someone with both of those skills. I can see where reliably having a mediocre AI summary might be an advantage over sometimes having superb human-written minutes and sometimes having nothing.
I am confused. I thought the thread was about gender, and the reference to “social bullshit” and the statement “that outliers exist, doesnt mean anything” were statements in support of excluding transgender people from society. The 0.018% stat (rate of intersex if defined narrowly) is clearly a reference to sex, not gender. So now I am just lost.
I think things get taken too far in some contexts, but the underlying sensitivity is when you are talking to a person who considers themselves an outlier. Like telling someone with no legs that they don’t meet the definition of human and ADA is an abomination that should be repealed. Or telling someone diagnosed with conversion disorder that they can’t receive any physical accommodations, and can’t have any medical consults to check if their symptoms might have a different cause. I hope we can agree those would be insensitive positions to take.
I think they were trying to demonstrate the second type of dot should be increments of 10 - the missed step in the original answer - and both messed it up (started with an increment of 20 as you pointed out) and extended it way beyond what was required for the problem at hand.
Or you could soak it in prescription strength urea for a couple of days to get the nail to fall off. Less collateral damage that way.
OP might be talking about a procedure where a podiatrist or dermatologist kills the mis-growing edges of the nail root. The remaining root grows a narrower nail, but hopefully a straighter one. Sometimes the process doesn’t work the first time (hard to judge how much cell-kill stuff will get just the edges and not damage the middle) and has to be repeated.
Different people and relationships can have different solutions that work for them. That’s OK!
I’ve occasionally been part of training hourly workers on software new to them. Having really, really detailed work instructions and walking through all the steps with themthe first time has helped me win over people who were initially really opposed to the products.
My experience with salaried workers has been they are more likely to try new software on their own, but if they don’t have much flexible time they usually choose to keep doing the established less efficient routine over investing one-time learning curve and setup time to start a new more efficient routine. Myself included - I have for many years been aware of software my employer provides that would reduce the time spent on regular tasks, but I know the learning curve and setup is in the dozens of hours, and I haven’t carved out time to do that.
So to answer the question, neither. The problem may be neither the software nor the users, but something else about the work environment.