Working with stupid people.

mikemac1 · 13-04-2012 04:52PM

Four years in college, did your technical certs and all you ever tell me to do is turn it off and turn it on again

marketty · 13-04-2012 04:57PM

mikemac1 wrote: »

Four years in college, did your technical certs and all you ever tell me to do is turn it off and turn it on again

I bet it fixes it though

mikemac1 · 13-04-2012 04:59PM

Yes, works in pretty much all cases

Ficheall · 13-04-2012 05:17PM

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

0-49 below average.
50 average.
51-100 above average.

Suppose you have four individuals, listed in order of decreasing "intelligence": A,B,C,D whose intelligence placings, shall we say, are A_i,B_j,C_k,D_l respectively.
Their average position then is (A_i+B_j+C_k+D_l)/4.
A_i and B_j are above this placing and C_k and D_l are below it. 50% and 50% respectively.
That's the clear-cut case where one has an even number of individuals.

If one has an odd number:
Individuals are A,B,C,D,E; "intelligences" are A_i,B_j,C_k,D_l,E_m as before.
The average placing then is (A_i+B_j+C_k+D_l+E_m)/5.
C_k, here, we assume is the average placing.
Thus 40% are below the average placing, 40% are above and 20% are equal to the average placing.
(If there somehow exists some small quantity e greater than 0 such that C_k +/- e equals the average placing, then the division is into 60% and 40%).

When the size of this population increases to that of the world's population, if there is some single individual in the middle, they are negligibly small.

superstoner90 · 13-04-2012 05:21PM

Ficheall wrote: »

Suppose you have four individuals, listed in order of decreasing "intelligence": A,B,C,D whose intelligence placings, shall we say, are A_i,B_i,C_i,D_i respectively.
Their average position then is (A_i+B_i+C_i+D_i)/4.
A_i and B_i are above this placing and C_i and D_i are below it. 50% and 50% respectively.
That's the clear-cut case where one has an even number of individuals.

If one has an odd number:
Individuals are A,B,C,D,E; "intelligences" are A_i,B_i,C_i,D_i,E_i as before.
The average placing then is (A_i+B_i+C_i+D_i+E_i)/5.
C_i, here, we assume is the average placing.
Thus 40% are below the average placing, 40% are above and 20% are equal to the average placing.
(If there somehow exists some epsilon greater than 0 such that C_i +/- epsilon equals the average placing, then the division is into 60% and 40%).

When the size of this population increases to that of the world's population, if there is some single individual in the middle, they are negligibly small.

For me to say, im confused would be the understatment of the year.

dulpit · 13-04-2012 05:23PM

superstoner90 wrote: »

For me to say, im confused would be the understatment of the year.

Now I feel stupid

ntlbell · 13-04-2012 05:24PM

BizzyC wrote: »

We had a woman in our office who gave out that she wasn't able to connect to the office from home with her RSA token.

As it turned out she didn't have an internet connection. She thought she could magically connect to the work network and proceeded to give out to the tech guys cause the process was stupid.

To be fair to the poor idiot, this day n age the RSA token should come with with a 10GB pipe on a USB dongle.

She's the clever one here imo

Ficheall · 13-04-2012 05:28PM

superstoner90 wrote: »

For me to say, im confused would be the understatment of the year.

Sorry

Try this way: pick 6 billion distinct numbers, put them in ascending order, and look at the one in the middle. Half of the other numbers will be bigger than it and the other half of the numbers will be smaller. The portion your middle number represents is so small we can ignore it.

ukonline · 13-04-2012 05:30PM

Ficheall wrote: »

Suppose you have four individuals, listed in order of decreasing "intelligence": A,B,C,D whose intelligence placings, shall we say, are A_i,B_i,C_i,D_i respectively.
Their average position then is (A_i+B_i+C_i+D_i)/4.
A_i and B_i are above this placing and C_i and D_i are below it. 50% and 50% respectively.
That's the clear-cut case where one has an even number of individuals.

If one has an odd number:
Individuals are A,B,C,D,E; "intelligences" are A_i,B_i,C_i,D_i,E_i as before.
The average placing then is (A_i+B_i+C_i+D_i+E_i)/5.
C_i, here, we assume is the average placing.
Thus 40% are below the average placing, 40% are above and 20% are equal to the average placing.
(If there somehow exists some epsilon greater than 0 such that C_i +/- epsilon equals the average placing, then the division is into 60% and 40%).

When the size of this population increases to that of the world's population, if there is some single individual in the middle, they are negligibly small.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRsPheErBj8

Teyla Emmagan · 13-04-2012 05:39PM

Susie_Q wrote: »

This is the communications system in the office where my friend works:

Emails come in for the director. Each email is printed off by the secretary and left on his desk. Director reads the emails and HAND WRITES a reply to each one. Secretary collects papers back, types emails and sends replies.

This usually takes a full day, if not more, depending on the volume of email.

Yeah, my Dad's business partner does this too. And not because he's stupid, just because he decided years ago that he couldn't be bothered with email. And you know what, he's the boss. And if he's happy to pay for the inefficiency, then that's how it goes. Probably much like your director..

branbee · 13-04-2012 05:40PM

I'm currently being trained in to a new job that I'm probably more qualified for compared to some of the others that work there, but I expected them to be better at the job due to their experience- not the case! the people training me are clueless and I dont want to be the snotty bitch who corrects them all the time so I pretend Im oblivious to their stupidity which just makes me look stupid! :pac:

although I'll admit I haven't a notion how to use the phone!

Shybookwormy · 13-04-2012 05:41PM

Absolutely hate working with people who simply do not know how to use their initiative. Worked with this girl once for a project in school and I swear I literally had to spell things out for her before she did them. Can't stand people who blatantly ignore work that needs to be done!!! Blaaaargggh!

token101 · 13-04-2012 05:43PM

Babybuff wrote: »

I can't do the fone thing either.

To be fair, if you can't operate a switchboard, you don't belong in the workplace.

GetWithIt · 13-04-2012 05:45PM

branbee wrote: »

I'm currently being trained in to a new job that I'm probably more qualified for compared to some of the others that work there, but I expected them to be better at the job due to their experience- not the case! the people training me are clueless and I dont want to be the snotty bitch who corrects them all the time so I pretend Im oblivious to their stupidity which just makes me look stupid! :pac:

Turns out they're all doing the same.

branbee wrote: »

although I'll admit I haven't a notion how to use the phone!

Case in point.

Sinfonia · 13-04-2012 05:46PM

Ficheall wrote: »

Suppose you have four individuals, listed in order of decreasing "intelligence": A,B,C,D whose intelligence placings, shall we say, are A_i,B_j,C_k,D_l respectively.
Their average position then is (A_i+B_j+C_k+D_l)/4.
A_i and B_j are above this placing and C_k and D_l are below it. 50% and 50% respectively.
That's the clear-cut case where one has an even number of individuals.

That seems to fall apart when you introduce numerical measurement.

If we can attribute some numerical system to the level of intelligence, and then apply numbers arbitrarily to each person in the example thusly:

A_i = 100
B_j = 51
C_k = 50
D_l = 25

Thus average intelligence = (100+51+50+25)/4 = 56.5

Of the sample of four people, 75% are below average intelligence.

So what are you saying? M'head hurts!

Ficheall · 13-04-2012 05:54PM

Sinfonia wrote: »

That seems to fall apart when you introduce numerical measurement.

If we can attribute some numerical system to the level of intelligence, and then apply numbers arbitrarily to each person in the example thusly:

A_i = 100
B_j = 51
C_k = 50
D_l = 25

Thus average intelligence = (100+51+50+25)/4 = 56.5

Of the sample of four people, 75% are below average intelligence.

So what are you saying? M'head hurts!

Aye, that was the 'weighting' I was referring to when I said in my initial post that I wouldn't argue that point. Trying to assign a "number" to the intelligence of an individual is certainly beyond me - even saying one person is "more intelligent" than another is daunting. Theoretically possible though.
I don't think that's where any of the 49%ers were coming from, though. I could be wrong. Perhaps one of them will enlighten us.

MistyCheese · 13-04-2012 05:54PM

lazygal wrote: »

Have you ever worked with someone who is just stupid?

Yes.

lazygal wrote: »

And wondered how they got the job at all?

I did used to wonder. Until one of the cleaners told me that one night she was seen in the (married with kids) boss' office, sitting on his lap.

Sinfonia · 13-04-2012 06:04PM

Ficheall wrote: »

Aye, that was the 'weighting' I was referring to when I said in my initial post that I wouldn't argue that point.

Ah, sorry, missed that somehow!

Teyla Emmagan · 13-04-2012 06:05PM

token101 wrote: »

To be fair, if you can't operate a switchboard, you don't belong in the workplace.

I don't transfer calls either. I used to, but then I realised that when people couldn't get through to their intended recipient they would just ring me, and have me run around the office like a fool and then transfer the call to the phone nearest the person they were actually looking for. So I just gave up and dropped each call systematically after that. Worked out much better for me

Potential-Monke · 13-04-2012 06:08PM

Again, to echo others, how some people get the jobs they are in is beyond me. I suppose it's who you know and not what you know.

Working as a waiter, i used to wonder how some of the colleagues kept their jobs as they have about as much interest or aptitude to do the job as a dead rat. And then they'd complain that the tips were crap, and i had to share my sizeable tips (restaurant rules), which i put alot of effort into gaining, with a useless tw@.

Scanlas The 2nd · 13-04-2012 06:13PM

Ficheall wrote: »

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

0-49 below average.
50 average.
51-100 above average.

Suppose you have four individuals, listed in order of decreasing "intelligence": A,B,C,D whose intelligence placings, shall we say, are A_i,B_j,C_k,D_l respectively.
Their average position then is (A_i+B_j+C_k+D_l)/4.
A_i and B_j are above this placing and C_k and D_l are below it. 50% and 50% respectively.
That's the clear-cut case where one has an even number of individuals.

If one has an odd number:
Individuals are A,B,C,D,E; "intelligences" are A_i,B_j,C_k,D_l,E_m as before.
The average placing then is (A_i+B_j+C_k+D_l+E_m)/5.
C_k, here, we assume is the average placing.
Thus 40% are below the average placing, 40% are above and 20% are equal to the average placing.
(If there somehow exists some epsilon greater than 0 such that C_k +/- epsilon equals the average placing, then the division is into 60% and 40%).

When the size of this population increases to that of the world's population, if there is some single individual in the middle, they are negligibly small.

Epsilon. First year analysis? Continuity of a function?

Ash.J.Williams · 13-04-2012 06:17PM

dulpit wrote: »

My manager is properly stupid, she doesn't follow the processes she sets out but murders everyone else for not following them (she "forgets"). Oh and she can't spell, but sends out emails to important clients without using a spellchecker.

I have no idea how she got her job, I should probably ask her brother, the managing director, to see if he knows...

Once or twice I've neglected to turn spell checker back on, on other people pc's, after an upgrade or whatever....they were very angry, it seemed they were so dependent on it that they were actually spelling everything arseways assuming they had the comfort of auto-spellchecker. Some clients got some weird emails that day.

Ficheall · 13-04-2012 06:24PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Epsilon. First year analysis? Continuity of a function?

Ha :pac:
Shouldn't really have used epsilon. My bad.
It's still correct as it's used for any arbitrarily small quantity in many areas of maths, but yeah... I'll go change it to an e or something less confusing...

tricky D · 13-04-2012 06:29PM

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Again, to echo others, how some people get the jobs they are in is beyond me.

It beggars belief sometimes. Had to get a birth cert a while back and the person behind the counter took over 1 minute to key in my name, restarting a few times. It's only 13 characters and common enough with no complicated Polish type spelling. Took a while for me to get my jaw off the ground after that.

mark renton · 13-04-2012 06:30PM

lazygal wrote: »

Here's a short list:
The retail manager who couldn't use a printer to print off information signs, she left it all up to me 'because you're a whizz on computers'.

To be fair though, nobody likes printers

rainbowdrop · 13-04-2012 06:34PM

Susie_Q wrote: »

This is the communications system in the office where my friend works:

Emails come in for the director. Each email is printed off by the secretary and left on his desk. Director reads the emails and HAND WRITES a reply to each one. Secretary collects papers back, types emails and sends replies.

This usually takes a full day, if not more, depending on the volume of email.

Where does your friend's boss work? The 1970s?

murraykil · 13-04-2012 06:36PM

Gee Bag wrote: »

50% of the worlds population are below average intelligence. Try as you might one of them is going to cross your path at some point

50% (of the worlds population) - 1.

mcmoustache · 13-04-2012 06:42PM

mikemac1 wrote: »

I must be stupid also
What is RSA?

edit, I'll find out, not requesting a technical explanation of RSA here

But I don't think that's so stupid,
If you're not in a technical role then you expect things to work, it's not for you to understand how they work

It doesn't really matter what RSA is. The point of the anecdote was that this person didn't think she needed an internet connection to connect to the internet.

Deus Ex Machina · 13-04-2012 06:50PM

I am as stupid as fuck and I doubt I'm that much of a chore to work with. As long as a workmate is polite and not egregiously incompetent you should be able to get by working alongside them.

D1stant · 13-04-2012 06:54PM

Susie_Q wrote: »

This is the communications system in the office where my friend works:

Emails come in for the director. Each email is printed off by the secretary and left on his desk. Director reads the emails and HAND WRITES a reply to each one. Secretary collects papers back, types emails and sends replies.

This usually takes a full day, if not more, depending on the volume of email.

Which Government dept does your friend work for?

Working with stupid people.

Comments