There are many such projects that have done similar things that aren't getting the attention this one has.

The reason this one it getting the attention it is, is because of the replies and behaviour of the dev.

Yeah my bad, crash to desktop, or in the case of the switch, crash to homescreen

I used effectual equivalent for a reason.

I did say it was somewhat hyperbolous but there are real life examples that are possible.

Something like extended bullying directly leading to suicide, lies with the intention of causing harm or death.

Calls to violence that lead to deaths that otherwise wouldn't likely happen is a good example of one that can be technically correct but difficult to prove.

Intentionally telling someone a door leads to safety when it actually leads to a spike pit is effectually the same as stabbing them yourself.

Are those examples good enough for an answer?

Im looking for how the idea holds up at the logical extreme so I can understand the bounds of the theoretical context.

There doesn't have to be a good answer either, some ideas only work in a limited boundary and break down at the extremes.

I know its a hyperbolic example (though entirely possible in the context you describe)

What would be your thoughts on speech that had the effectual equivalent of murder?

There's no traps here im just interested in the thought process behind the context you provided.

Side note: if verbal violence is possible then it would probably track that there are degrees of violence, much like the physical equivalent.

If that's true the argument that you shouldn't regulate subjectively heavy violence because "who here hasn't physically hurt someone?" Isn't a reasonable as it sounds at first glance.

For the record, Rowling is a shitbag, the potter books are mediocre and the actors were the best thing about the movies.

None of that bias is in the foundation of my questions though.

i played this game hard for a while, but there were so many CTD progress reverting bugs that it finally killed my enthusiasm for it.

Custom printed.

The front rack grills, keystone panels and thinkcentre mounts are from a website but all the other printed parts are custom.

i'm not utilising it nearly as much as i should which is why i haven't gotten around to the failover cluster yet.

a bunch of ebay specials with more ebay parts scavenged over time + some 3d printing.

The centre tower has a miniitx mb and PSU behind those panels to run the NAS, and the drive bays are in the bottom.

The right is a failover cluster that isn't finished yet.

The answer is generic ....which means it can be applied to the specific circumstance.

Here is an example, as the answer to your question :

this man has 12 years experience as a board member. Would he not have the qualifications to perform the job?

Going by the example evaluation steps i provided, he would have the qualifications to perform the job , if:

• The success criteria for the position were known
• His history/skillset/experience/future prospects were likely to meet or exceed those criteria

If you want to know if he's the most qualified for the job you also need to:

• Rank all the candidates, based on how well they match to the success criteria.

and he would need to be at the top of the rankings.

If you're going to ask who does these evaluations in the specific example being talked about, it would be the voters, perhaps a final approval board as well, if one exists in these scenarios.

Outside of that example, it can vary.

I shouldn't have to but I’m going to point out that i said this is a simple quotable answer, not that it was the only answer, or even the best answer.

My argument has always been that evaluation of fitness for a role isn't impossible. Not that there is a perfect method, nor that these methods are being used competently or at all. Just that they do exist.

As for personal opinion, this guy sounds like an asshole, i personally know lots of incompetent people in positions they neither earned nor are qualified for, I’m not saying the current state of things is good, because i don't think it is.

From the rest of this thread i get the impression you'll appreciate this...so..

Whom is lying now?

Pretty sure that would be a who rather than a whom.

Carry on though...

Perhaps the argument that it isn't possible to assess merit for a job position is so far outside the realms of reason that asking for clarification is the only way to formulate an answer.

But if you want a simple, quotable answer for the obvious question as it is written, here you go:

• Asses the criteria for which a job would be considered to be successfully performed.
• Check if historical evidence/experience/current skill/expected future growth gives indication that the candidate could meet or exceed those criteria.
• Rank the candidates, based on how well they match to the success criteria.
• ???
• Profit?

It's tremendously disappointing to see people act like assessing fitness for a role isn't a thing that has been going on since the dawn of civilisation.

Get a grip.

Now, if you want argue that this isn't how things are currently done ? I’m right there with you.

The system is a shambolic remnant of what it should be ? couldn't agree more.

A lot of it is probably by design ? sure, i'm down for that perspective.

But "It isn't possible to assess merit for a job role", is a troll at best or extreme ignorance at worst.

If people weren't asking "are you sure that this is what you meant?" i'd be worried for the state of basic reasoning.