Tarmor's Terribly Tantalizing Tarasque Terrrifying Random Banter #234

[Lacco]

Consider the following: most smart people will pass it over and make no action (e.g. that would lead to legal repercussions, or even delays to the scammer) and will just chuckle and feel smart. Those smart people who could theoretically make trouble to the scammers are usually just filtered.

So it works on multiple levels. The guys who fall for it are usually those that will be able to make steps to counter the scammers.

[Peelee]

Nah, it's still stupid. But sometimes you don't need intelligence.

That's not as pithy. Plus, below.

Counterpoint: If it's stupid and it works, it's still stupid and you got lucky.

The meaning is that something that can seem inadvisable on its face can actually be, in fact, effective. It's to look past our own preconceptions and have a more open mind and willingness to be wrong and learn.

Or we can just say "ah it's luck" and not consider anything else.

This legitimately feels less like a "filter out anyone smart enough to avoid the scam" and actually feels like genuine short-sightedness on the part of the scammer.

Really? Glaring typos, random SMS which is easy and cheap to shotgun to an enormous number of phones with little to no effort, doesn't seem like a basic gullibility filter? What short sightedness are you seeing here?

[Rater202]

Peelee, I'm not talking about text messages.

I'm talking about prerecorded messages sent by an autodialer.

Prerecorded messages that were made with a TTS program that doesn't even sound remotely human. Stilted monotonous dialog with very clear signs of being digitally generated. Like, I'm 90% sure that it was the exact same TTS program that came bundled with a children's edutainment computer game I had back in the 90s.

If it sounded like a person bu made mistakes, I'd believe it was an attempt to filter out people too smart to fall for the scam. But this just seemed lazy.

You half-ass a voice message via the cheapest TTS program you can find and set an autodialer to keep spamming it to numbers in hope it works.

I'm reasonably certain that a child could tell it was fake.

[Peelee]

Peelee, I'm not talking about text messages.

I'm talking about prerecorded messages sent by an autodialer.

Prerecorded messages that were made with a TTS program that doesn't even sound remotely human. Stilted monotonous dialog with very clear signs of being digitally generated. Like, I'm 90% sure that it was the exact same TTS program that came bundled with a children's edutainment computer game I had back in the 90s.

If it sounded like a person bu made mistakes, I'd believe it was an attempt to filter out people too smart to fall for the scam. But this just seemed lazy.

You half-ass a voice message via the cheapest TTS program you can find and set an autodialer to keep spamming it to numbers in hope it works.

I'm reasonably certain that a child could tell it was fake.

Ahhhhh, my bad.

But I promise you, you would be surprised.

[Anonymouswizard]

That's not as pithy. Plus, below.

Oh, I agree with the sentiment, just not with the saying. Plus a smart person knows when to and abandon the thinking.

I'll also agree that this isn't stupid. Automated calls can reach more people, and now when you have to personally yeah to then you've filtered out most of the ones who won't fall for it.

[Amidus Drexel]

There are two main approaches to scams/phishing attacks/etc. Which approach a given criminal organization takes depends a lot on their goals and their budget.

1. Attempt to look as legitimate as possible. If you're trying to get someone's admin creds at a large organization or install a lot of malware on privileged user accounts, this is probably your best shot, but it's a lot of work. Appearing to be legitimate also tends to mean you lose widespread applicability, because you kind of need to target a specific group with your attack to appear legitimate.
   
2. Appeal to the lowest common denominator to filter out all the people that will waste your time. Your success rate will be lower per unit of population you send the attack to, but if you're messaging more people, that averages out. The main upside here is that it's low effort, and your conversion rate (people who call you back/don't hang up immediately that actually give you money/credentials/etc.) is high - you've gotten rid of basically everyone who'd notice it was a scam before you get past the initial pitch.

[Peelee]

Oh, I agree with the sentiment, just not with the saying. Plus a smart person knows when to and abandon the thinking.

I'll also agree that this isn't stupid. Automated calls can reach more people, and now when you have to personally yeah to then you've filtered out most of the ones who won't fall for it.

To the first part, fair.

To the second, it defo falls into it - on the surface, it seems silly, and people often point out how the emsils/messages are badly misspelled or the calls are ridiculous for suggesting the IRS accepts apple gift cards, for example. But it works because it is thought out and simply appears stupid on its face, which is the essence of the saying. It's not just for redneck engineering.

[tomandtish]

*sigh* It's going to be one of those frustrating days. A certain co-worker is once again not listening, which has resulted in problems before. It's just... I can't constantly watch their work like a hawk to make sure they don't mess up and they're apparently unwilling to learn, so... I don't know! I should really learn to just step back, wash my hands of the matter and accept the inevitable issues and/or downright disasters it'll lead to somewhere down the line. It's still ^&$#%@#$! frustrating.

Obviously I'm not in position to judge the office politics, so whether it's a good idea to do what I'm about to suggest is yours to determine.

But I'm a huge believer (both as a worker and a supervisor) in documentation. Depending on the circumstances you don't even necessarily have to name names.

(Boss),

When i received (work item x), I had to spend 2 hours correcting the following mistakes before I could begin to perform my own work. Those are: (List)

Form

Hell, I actually got offered a job once where as part of my answer to a question I criticized the work performance of a Boss who WAS ON THE INTERVEW Panel.

Them: Name a time you were on a project that failed.

Me: (Names project, points out problems that caused it to fail)

Them: Why do you think those problems existed

Me: Unfortunately because the project manager didn't communicate information in a timely fashion. We often ended up having to make decisions literally with hours to go when we really needed days to analyze potential ramifications.


They offered me the position.

[Rater202]

Does anyone actually have to write in cursive on a regular basis?

In elementary school, every year we'd waste a couple of weeks that I think could have been used on other things on learning to write the alphabet and specific sentences in cursive and they'd tell us that someone day we'd be writing in it all the time, something that to my knowledge is commonly said in elementary school and to my knowledge is not true for any career.

As far as I know, most people only use cursive for their signature and even then...

Do careers where you have to write by hand, in cursive, exist?

[Fyraltari]

Does anyone actually have to write in cursive on a regular basis?

I don't have to, but I do. Writing letters unconnected feels weird.

[Jasdoif]

I get annoyed that RPGs tend to make spears a less potent weapon than swords. How am I supposed to live out my fantasies of being {scrubbed} workout a spear?

If it makes you feel any better, I recently discovered great spears are excellent weapons in Sil.

I don't have to, but I do. Writing letters unconnected feels weird.

Similarly, I discovered that my cursive writing takes less time and is more legible. Though to be fair I only write lower-case in cursive, I still write capital letters in print.

[Qwertystop]

Does anyone actually have to write in cursive on a regular basis?

In elementary school, every year we'd waste a couple of weeks that I think could have been used on other things on learning to write the alphabet and specific sentences in cursive and they'd tell us that someone day we'd be writing in it all the time, something that to my knowledge is commonly said in elementary school and to my knowledge is not true for any career.

As far as I know, most people only use cursive for their signature and even then...

Do careers where you have to write by hand, in cursive, exist?

Plausibly, when they told you that (or at least when the curriculum was set) computers were less widespread? So the assumption of a lot more handwriting would have made sense, just as a routine thing.

[Rater202]

Plausibly, when they told you that (or at least when the curriculum was set) computers were less widespread? So the assumption of a lot more handwriting would have made sense, just as a routine thing.

No, because they also taught us how to type.

And even if that had been the case, that's still not... Nothing about handwriting actually requires cursive, as far as I know... And never did.

It doesn't seem like it's required for anything but school.

[Anonymouswizard]

Does anyone actually have to write in cursive on a regular basis?

In elementary school, every year we'd waste a couple of weeks that I think could have been used on other things on learning to write the alphabet and specific sentences in cursive and they'd tell us that someone day we'd be writing in it all the time, something that to my knowledge is commonly said in elementary school and to my knowledge is not true for any career.

As far as I know, most people only use cursive for their signature and even then...

Do careers where you have to write by hand, in cursive, exist?

No, but I have to write most days, even if it's just a handful of words.

I don't have to, but I do. Writing letters unconnected feels weird.

Yeah, weird and slow. While my writing would probably be slightly more legible in print it's not exactly unreadable as is, and my dyspraxia thanks me for the slightly fewer movements.

I've met nobody properly skilled with cursive/script who writes in print. There's no benefit to giving up the speed and potential legibility, and if you have a good hand it'll look better as well. Although I don't do cursive capitals, we're taught they're bad form.

While we're on the subject of writing, standard ball point pens suck. I've got a cheap cartridge not-technically-a+fountain pen, and it's so much more comfortable to use (at least partially due to being larger).

But yes, writing in print or block capitals is inconvenient.

Plus any meeting where I have to take notes, which is any kind of formal meeting, script is useful. I'll really get through two sides of narrow ruled A4 in an hour long meeting.

[Peelee]

No, because they also taught us how to type.

That does not mean that computers were not as widespread. IIRC was taught to type on an Apple II in the 80's, a time when handwriting was still common in business and PCs were not as ubiquitous.

[Anonymouswizard]

I was at school in the 2000s and was not taught to type. Well, not taught at school, my mum got me on a week long touch typing course one summer. It just wasn't considered that necessary of a skill despite most coursework being done via word processing by the time I got my GCSEs.

Both handwriting (+cursive) and knowing how to actually. Computers really haven't made paper obsolete, and for various reasons I write faster than I type despite a lot more experience with the latter.

[Qwertystop]

While we're on the subject of writing, standard ball point pens suck. I've got a cheap cartridge not-technically-a+fountain pen, and it's so much more comfortable to use (at least partially due to being larger).

But yes, writing in print or block capitals is inconvenient.

Plus any meeting where I have to take notes, which is any kind of formal meeting, script is useful. I'll really get through two sides of narrow ruled A4 in an hour long meeting.

How do you mean, not technically a fountain pen?

That does not mean that computers were not as widespread. IIRC was taught to type on an Apple II in the 80's, a time when handwriting was still common in business and PCs were not as ubiquitous.

Yeah; typewriters were around well before computers, but even so it wasn't like everyone could carry a typewriter around with them all the time, or everyone would reliably have one in their home, or even that you'd have one at work if you didn't have a job that involved a particularly large amount of writing.

[Anonymouswizard]

How do you mean, not technically a fountain pen?

Doesn't spray ok everywhere.

Or, more seriously, I think it has to do with the shape of the nib.

[Rater202]

When I say they taught us to type, I feel I should specify that they taught us to type specifically because "everything will be done with computers."

I recall a typing computer game that I could never get past the first stage of despite doing everything right and I recall being taught how to use MS Word.

And regardless, a belief that we would have to handwrite everything becuase computers were not widespread would not justify spending weeks every year learning cursive. As far as I know, there are no situations at all where someone is required to learn cursive, outside of school, and every possible benefit of learning cursive could be gained just as effectively by spending that time practicing the form of writing we were using for 99% of all things we had to write by hand with.

Which is why I have to ask... does anyone know of a real-life scenario, like a job, where you have to write in cursive?

[halfeye]

How do you mean, not technically a fountain pen?

Does not have a refillable internal ink container. You can get converters for most posh brand cartridge pens (Waterman, Parker etc.).

The problem I have with cartridge pens is that the ink in cartridges is often/usually washable (for use by kids), which means fraudsters can erase what you wrote and perpetrate their darstardly deeds more easily. Non-washable ink is still erasable, just not so easily.

Ink bought by the bottle is much cheaper than ink bought in cartridges, but I tend to find my fountain pens dry up between uses since I don't use them very often. Maybe cartridge pens would dry out the same way, but I'm tempted to get some cartridges if I can find non-washable ones, because changing cartridges would be much easier.

A third sort of real ink pen, the sort that really did splatter, was the one with no stored ink at all (except for a little hole at the top of the nib), you had to dip the nib in an inkwell every line or two.

[Beeftank]

National Anthem at NFL kickoff was a bit jazzier than usual.

I’ll always remember that time Aretha Franklin had a super long rendition and immediately after the game the Simpsons episode with Bleeding Gum’s Murphy’s 25 minute performance was on.

[Amidus Drexel]

When I say they taught us to type, I feel I should specify that they taught us to type specifically because "everything will be done with computers."

I recall a typing computer game that I could never get past the first stage of despite doing everything right and I recall being taught how to use MS Word.

And regardless, a belief that we would have to handwrite everything becuase computers were not widespread would not justify spending weeks every year learning cursive. As far as I know, there are no situations at all where someone is required to learn cursive, outside of school, and every possible benefit of learning cursive could be gained just as effectively by spending that time practicing the form of writing we were using for 99% of all things we had to write by hand with.

When (and where) was this? I still consider myself fairly young (mid-20s), and when I was in grade school, cursive was taught for a year or so, then more or less discarded in favor of the far-more-legible print. Typing was learned later, was (semi-)optional, and we were still expected to hand-write most things until I went to college (and frankly, many things were hand-written even there).

Which is why I have to ask... does anyone know of a real-life scenario, like a job, where you have to write in cursive?

Calligraphist?

An argument for learning cursive that I heard a while back was that many old legal documents (for example, the US declaration of independence, the US constitution, and other documents of that importance and vintage) were written in cursive, and thus the ability to read cursive (and thus, the original documents and not copies) was valuable from a cultural and historical perspective.

I have a great many skills that aren't terribly practical or job-worthy, so I'm not too put-out by knowing that some fraction of my childhood was 'wasted' learning how to connect my letters in one motion.

[Qwertystop]

Does not have a refillable internal ink container. You can get converters for most posh brand cartridge pens (Waterman, Parker etc.).

The problem I have with cartridge pens is that the ink in cartridges is often/usually washable (for use by kids), which means fraudsters can erase what you wrote and perpetrate their darstardly deeds more easily. Non-washable ink is still erasable, just not so easily.

Ink bought by the bottle is much cheaper than ink bought in cartridges, but I tend to find my fountain pens dry up between uses since I don't use them very often. Maybe cartridge pens would dry out the same way, but I'm tempted to get some cartridges if I can find non-washable ones, because changing cartridges would be much easier.

A third sort of real ink pen, the sort that really did splatter, was the one with no stored ink at all (except for a little hole at the top of the nib), you had to dip the nib in an inkwell every line or two.

I had considered cartridges and converters as fountain pens; to me the distinction is that a fountain pen has both a nib (unsealed, free-flowing ink held in place by surface tension only) and an internal reservoir, where a dip pen has a nib but no reservoir (must be dipped in a bottle frequently) and a ballpoint pen has the ink kept sealed when not writing by a pressure-released ball to prevent leaks (which also can produce a smoother and more even line than a nib).

[Rater202]

When (and where) was this? I still consider myself fairly young (mid-20s), and when I was in grade school, cursive was taught for a year or so, then more or less discarded in favor of the far-more-legible print. Typing was learned later, was (semi-)optional, and we were still expected to hand-write most things until I went to college (and frankly, many things were hand-written even there).

I do not feel comfortable revealing my real location or anything tht could be used to trace it over a public internet forum at this time.

As for when... Late 90, the early 2000s. Typing was mandatory and cursive was a thing for several weeks every year

Until Fifth Grade, which was at a different school in a different town. In fifth grade, we didn't have to do crap with cursive, but we did calligraphy in art class for a week.

An argument for learning cursive that I heard a while back was that many old legal documents (for example, the US declaration of independence, the US constitution, and other documents of that importance and vintage) were written in cursive, and thus the ability to read cursive (and thus, the original documents and not copies) was valuable from a cultural and historical perspective.

I'm aware of this argument, but it's a fallacious one.

Every single one of those documents is available in print. The Declaration and the Constitution were made available in print when they were both first written.

So you do not need to be able to read or write in cursive in order to understand any legal document. If it's of any importance, then a printed version is available somewhere.

The main reason cursive is taught, as far as I can tell, is that there's a belief that writing in cursive is good for cognitive development and the "you're gonna use this all the time" is a lie to get the kids to do it... except it turns out that those cognitive benefits can be obtained by writing or drawing literally anything.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'm fairly certain that many old and still important legal documents over here didn't have print versions when first written/published. Many aren't even in modern English.

Plus again, note taking. Print is slow to write, and units your handwriting is truly terrible you should be able to read your own notes. And yes, you should be taking your own notes in every meeting you're in, even if somebody's doing the minutes. If you don't have your own notes how can you know if the minutes were alerted? (Also note taking is a very good memory improvement technique regardless.)

[Form]

I was taught to write in cursive and have always done so since. It's a bit faster, but I've never had to write in cursive. It's legible enough, but my handwriting isn't exactly something to write home about.

And I've discovered a new source of decent mead to sort of replace the old one that disappeared. Yum!

[halfeye]

I'm fairly certain that many old and still important legal documents over here didn't have print versions when first written/published. Many aren't even in modern English.

Plus again, note taking. Print is slow to write, and units your handwriting is truly terrible you should be able to read your own notes. And yes, you should be taking your own notes in every meeting you're in, even if somebody's doing the minutes. If you don't have your own notes how can you know if the minutes were alerted? (Also note taking is a very good memory improvement technique regardless.)

Shorthand is for taking notes, I took notes in longhand (cursive) because I didn't know shorthand, but people talk faster than I can write by quite a factor of two or more.

[Peelee]

When I say they taught us to type, I feel I should specify that they taught us to type specifically because "everything will be done with computers."

I recall a typing computer game that I could never get past the first stage of despite doing everything right and I recall being taught how to use MS Word.

And regardless, a belief that we would have to handwrite everything becuase computers were not widespread would not justify spending weeks every year learning cursive. As far as I know, there are no situations at all where someone is required to learn cursive, outside of school, and every possible benefit of learning cursive could be gained just as effectively by spending that time practicing the form of writing we were using for 99% of all things we had to write by hand with.

Which is why I have to ask... does anyone know of a real-life scenario, like a job, where you have to write in cursive?

Cursive is never mandatory. Cursive is simply easier and faster, like shorthand.

[Rater202]

Cursive is never mandatory. Cursive is simply easier and faster, like shorthand.

...I have the weirdest case on the Mandella effect right now.

Until I started this everyone I'd ever asked on the subject had cursive, thought that printing was easier to read and write, and so on.

A little while back my mother(who actually can use cursive, for context) and I spent over an hour trying to decipher what a doctor wrote as the cause of death on a relative's death certificate.

And now multiple people are telling me it's easier.

I could have sworn that "cursive sucks" was a universally held opinion.

[Keltest]

...I have the weirdest case on the Mandella effect right now.

Until I started this everyone I'd ever asked on the subject had cursive, thought that printing was easier to read and write, and so on.

A little while back my mother(who actually can use cursive, for context) and I spent over an hour trying to decipher what a doctor wrote as the cause of death on a relative's death certificate.

And now multiple people are telling me it's easier.

I could have sworn that "cursive sucks" was a universally held opinion.

For what its worth, most of my family holds that view and is equally confused as to the point of cursive, including my mother who has to teach it sometimes.