Bolt Logistics is a leading Canadian logistics and last-mile delivery provider for e-commerce shops to large retailers. Bolt provides a customer-centric and sustainable approach to fulfilment, including reliable warehousing, pick-and-pack, shipping, and last-mile delivery with facilities across Canada. Bolt also strives to be carbon negative by 2023 and is building Canada’s largest electric vehicle fleet. We’re looking for engineers who can bring fresh ideas, lead technical discussions and project implementation, and provide insight with regard to project planning, estimation, and prioritization.
Bolt Logistics | Remote (Toronto) | Full-Time | Multiple Roles | https://gobolt.com/
Bolt Logistics is a leading Canadian logistics and last-mile delivery provider for e-commerce shops to large retailers. Bolt provides a customer-centric and sustainable approach to fulfilment, including reliable warehousing, pick-and-pack, shipping, and last-mile delivery with facilities across Canada. Bolt also strives to be carbon negative by 2023 and is building Canada’s largest electric vehicle fleet. We’re looking for engineers who can bring fresh ideas, lead technical discussions and project implementation, and provide insight with regard to project planning, estimation, and prioritization.
Bolt Logistics | Remote (Toronto) | Full-Time | Multiple Roles | https://gobolt.com/
Bolt Logistics is a leading Canadian logistics and last-mile delivery provider for e-commerce shops to large retailers. Bolt provides a customer-centric and sustainable approach to fulfilment, including reliable warehousing, pick-and-pack, shipping, and last-mile delivery with facilities across Canada. Bolt also strives to be carbon negative by 2023 and is building Canada’s largest electric vehicle fleet. We’re looking for engineers who can bring fresh ideas, lead technical discussions and project implementation, and provide insight with regard to project planning, estimation, and prioritization.
Bolt Logistics is a leading Canadian logistics and last-mile delivery provider for e-commerce shops to large retailers. Bolt provides a customer-centric and sustainable approach to fulfilment, including reliable warehousing, pick-and-pack, shipping, and last-mile delivery with facilities across Canada. Bolt also strives to be carbon negative by 2023 and is building Canada’s largest electric vehicle fleet. We’re looking for engineers who can bring fresh ideas, lead technical discussions and project implementation, and provide insight with regard to project planning, estimation, and prioritization.
Consider looking at the CNN reporting team that was arrested live on television without reason? It's not a good sign if media is being censored like that.
There are at least 20 cases of credentialed journalists being attacked or arrested by police in the last 48 hours. While a few of these may have been mistaken identity, many weren't.
People can pick and choose where they stand on this incident or perhaps even choose not to participate in the partisan dialectic.
I'd just like to point out that the opposing view on that incident would characterize it as exactly the kind of sensationalized coverage which the above poster could be referring to. One narrative suggests that it was staged. Worth looking at it from both sides. As we discuss this, let's not steam roll past those concerns.
My personal view is that there's more than a little BS flying from all angles. CNN wouldn't be what I consider hard hitting or informative journalism. I don't know what really happened and I can't jump to any conclusions. Thanks.
See other threads, but this is not an isolated incident. Trying to argue that it was staged seems incredibly disingenuous and an unreasonable standard of proof given the widespread occurrences of this and police brutality in the past 48 hours.
Just to be explicit, I don't take sides, I'm not interested in advancing any argument and I am skeptical of most claims. This goes doubly so for the extreme partisan takes, which are generally unreasonable. I'm sorry this disclaimer is seemingly necessary.
My personal views are secondary to the point of my comment, which was: Perhaps we should consider both sides?
The interesting thing about these claims is that in many there are multiple film views of the same incident, and in the CNN case there was an apology issued.
If you must pry, I'll say that CNN (a highly partisan outlet) has every incentive to have their reporter arrested. I'll also say that arresting a journalist is out of line and that the police could have let it ride. However no one is perfect, certainly not myself. Therefore I have little room to pass judgement upon police officers who are clearly under more than a little bit of stress. Similarly, I can't condemn the reporter even if he is indeed (which I can't know with certainty) advancing his career in a very cynical way.
For me I'm comfortable just leaving it as an unknown instead of attempting to take sides or claiming an authoritative understanding of the event. Moral grandstanding for either claim would be a further leap too far for me personally. However you are welcome to argue your opinion with someone else. I just can't do that in good faith. Thanks for understanding.
I hadn't actually seen the CNN incident until I saw it via the Australian journalist who were arrested.
It made quite an impact here - and while you seem to think it's journalist trying to get ahead in their careers in this case that doesn't make sense. Being arrested makes it more difficult for foreign journalists to re-enter the US which has a huge negative impact on their job.
>you seem to think...
I'll just reiterate that I don't have a position on the specific incident.
Similarly, arresting reporters isn't a plus for a policeman's career.
I do take a position on outrage culture and rampant moralizing which is not serving us well. The blame game isn't the way out of this mess. One-sided, partisan takes are just more fuel on the fire.
> I'll just reiterate that I don't have a position on the specific incident.
Except that you do.
> CNN (a highly partisan outlet) has every incentive to have their reporter arrested.
> Therefore I have little room to pass judgement upon police officers who are clearly under more than a little bit of stress. Similarly, I can't condemn the reporter even if he is indeed (which I can't know with certainty) advancing his career in a very cynical way.
Police -> Under stress
Journalist -> advancing his career in a very cynical way
You seem to be using a rhetorical technique where you claim the moral high ground ("However I will refrain from making the judgement of which side is in the position of power."[1]) and then make third-person claims that you can deny are actually making an argument ("If the police department (or perhaps a social strata) were more powerful than CNN's (highly privileged) reporter then why was he released?").
No one else is calling you out on this, so I will. State your argument and stand behind it.
There's no sense in having a discussion if you can't assume good faith. Similarly, if you are going to tell me my position, then why are we talking?
You put the cart before the horse when you accuse me of using a rhetorical technique to take the 'moral high ground'. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that my reluctance to pass judgement on either party informs my statements?
You selectively quote me and ignore that I've also said that the police could have 'let it ride'. If it helps you any, I'll say here that arresting journalists is generally a bad move. Sorry if that wasn't clear from the outset.
The statements you quote were in response to the suggestion that one side was in a position of power. Symptomatically, you divorce this from context as you seek to find meat for your partisan cleaver.
As humans our views are subjective and fallible. The problem of induction etc. If I want to find fault I can most probably nit pick each respective side for hours. No, this is not an invitation to level further criticism on either party. I think we have had enough of that and it isn't getting us anywhere.
You establish the options as Pepsi and Coke and demand that I must choose a cola. Yet, I am not interested in these sugary, carbonated beverages. Here's my view: Partisan takes are all a bunch of gas, short term stimulation with no nourishment.
I'll repeat myself again in case you're still not following. Narrow views, divorced of context are not serving us well. They create a divisive atmosphere. Each respective side engages in outrage culture while offloading responsibility for the ugly outcomes onto their adversary.
Choosing not to participate and a reluctance to rush to judgement isn't a rhetorical technique. It is an acknowledgement that the choices laid before us represent a false dichotomy. It is a rejection of the toxicity of outrage culture. Thank you.
Who says people have not considered both sides, reasoned, and then come to a conclusion? Considering both sides does not mean forbidding conclusions to be made. It's clear that I find your level of skepticism to be too far for the context, we'll have to agree to disagree there.
(edits for bad spellcheck)
But at the end of the day, your stance is already siding with someone by default, the side in power. You can claim neutrality ideologically, but that's useless in practicality. I'm sorry that you are disconnected enough from the world to not take sides or draw conclusions (even with caveats) unless you have a level of information that is practically impossible to gain.
>But at the end of the day, your stance is already siding with someone by default, the side in power
This is highly presumptuous mischaracterization of my statement and intentions. We're discussing something online, unless you have a crystal ball I'd say you've made a bit of a leap here.
Not taking sides is de facto siding with the more powerful side in a situation for practical/effect purposes, this is pretty well established across many disciplines. I 100% am not saying you are ideologically siding with them, only that it is the effect of your lack of siding at all.
Thinking in realpolitik may be a viable way to inform oneself of a strategy to achieve ends, but I don't accept it personally as a method of observation or diving a moral truth of an event. I.E. the means justify the ends etc. This is where I diverge on your assumptions. Usually this method is characterized as resulting in immoral outcomes.
Furthermore, it hasn't been established that CNN, with an army of lawyers on retainer and a a massive budget isn't in the position of power. For CNN the arrest played well if not better than the normal coverage. Would you dispute that the arrest buttressed CNN's narrative? These are the ends which were achieved by this event. It is evidenced by the fact that we are having this discussion.
Who has more power in media, CNN or whichever local police department?
The relevant expression would be, "The pen is mightier than the sword". However I will refrain from making the judgement of which side is in the position of power.
Let us also observe that the reporter was released. If the police department (or perhaps a social strata) were more powerful than CNN's (highly privileged) reporter then why was he released?
No, I am afraid that I am left with more doubts after examining it at depth.
To your last point, I find it completely reasonable and something I configure for all mobile games I have on my phone. My Samsung Note 8 isn't able to handle smooth gameplay for many applications without tweaking, which I have configured through Samsung's Game Tuner app which does warn about potential overheating concerns. There are actually phone cases made specifically to help with phone cooling these days; tangent, but this reminds me of how CPU cooling gets more advanced as high performance CPUs generate more heat under heavy workloads.
This is a far-fetched guess: self-healing systems are one aspect of SRE. And since some species of lizards can grow back appendages, that's where the connection might be?
Out of curiosity, and because I'm a Canadian out of the loop with respect to American news networks, how can there be news being at ends with each other? That's something I have difficulty putting into perspective (referring to the Team CNN vs Team Fox comparison)
This is just my hypothesis: news networks discovered that they can cater to 30% of the population with an extreme message and get more viewership than they would have catering to 50% or 100%. A side effect is that the permissible extremity increases over time as radical becomes the new norm. Both sides can play off each other's increasingly radical messages.
1) the american TV news industry has slowly blurred, then obliterated, the line between straight news and editorial opinion. they're now often intermixed, with slanted analysis weaved throughout reporting. things like those news panel shows are particularly bad about this.
many people don't like to admit it because it challenges their centrist pretensions, but in the modern era, fox news started it and the remaining TV news outlets followed suit over the years.
2) but more fundamentally, there is probably no such thing as truly unbiased straight news reporting. the choosing of which facts to present is itself still an editorial process subject to human prejudice.
You're forgetting the most important point. There's no law requiring a "news" agency to report the facts. In fact there's no laws requiring them to not lie about everything they say. It seems crazy to admit, because news is suppose to be useful and factual information surrounding current events, but in America it doesn't have to be and it stopped being that way when they realize that sensational and entertaining stories got better ratings.
Actually, China was thought to have covered it up because the whistleblower originally sent a message[1] to a WeChat group of his, telling group members that 7 people from the wet markets had been diagnosed with SARS. The government had no idea what it was and I'm sure nobody in the world knew what it was at the time, hence how it's a novel virus.
Thanks for the links. It seems that the response went along the following timeline according to my understanding:
1. Dec. 30 - Doctors from the first few cases have analyzed the samples and discover how similar the new virus is to SARS. Officials tell them not to spread information to the public about the virus.
2. Dec. 31 - China tells WHO about new virus (not that they know much at this point)
3. Jan. 1 - Provincial health committee orders provincial labs to destroy samples, samples are transported to larger state facility to do testing there. The reason for this is due to the samples being considered "highly pathogenic microorganisms", and that only approved facilities should test it. (I'm guessing due to the risk of acting on the sample and contracting it?)
4. Jan. 2nd - State approved facilities map the genetic sequence but an official national statement doesn't get made until a week later, Jan. 9th.
So from lab work, until international statement, that's two weeks. During that time, wouldn't it make sense for the doctors and researchers to keep their results hidden until it can be verified lest they risk causing unwarranted panic? Considering how carriers of COVID19 can be asymptomatic [1], it does take time for verification to be done on whatever discovery a nation makes on the world stage. In hindsight, it's easy to say that they should have jumped the gun and done exactly that on whatever communications platform were available to them. However, had COVID-19 turn out to be a minor disease, that'd mark the end of all their careers.
> Jan. 11–17: Important prescheduled CCP meeting held in Wuhan. During that time, the Wuhan Health Commission insists there are no new cases.
> Jan. 14: WHO announces Chinese authorities have seen "no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus."
> Jan. 20: The first case announced in South Korea.
Zhong Nanshan, a top Chinese doctor who is helping to coordinate the coronavirus response, announces the virus can be passed between people.
> Jan. 23: Wuhan and three other cities are put on lockdown. Right around this time, approximately 5 million people leave the city without being screened for the illness.
> Jan. 24–30: China celebrates the Lunar New Year holiday. Hundreds of millions of people are in transit around the country as they visit relatives.
Where in this timeline do you see evidence that information their healthcare system had suggesting how severe COVID-19 was, was being intentionally covered up? I just see how unfortunate it is that they realized COVID-19's severity too late, else the Wuhan residents who left prior to the lockdown would not have been able to travel as freely as they did.
I think that shows exactly that China didn't realize how bad this was. For example, from the NPR link:
Jan 18: Wuhan hosts a holiday banquet for 40,000 attendees, despite reports of a contagious viral pneumonia.
We've seen similar things in so many countries - people don't understand how bad it is until lots of people start dying. China put 21 million people on lock-down when there were only 619 confirmed cases - compare that to elsewhere.
The Twitter post references an article from an Hong Kong site, which references the Japanese media (no specifics on which one), who then quotes a physician from Wuhan, yet doesn't bring up the physician's name or the hospital in which they work in.
Bolt Logistics is a leading Canadian logistics and last-mile delivery provider for e-commerce shops to large retailers. Bolt provides a customer-centric and sustainable approach to fulfilment, including reliable warehousing, pick-and-pack, shipping, and last-mile delivery with facilities across Canada. Bolt also strives to be carbon negative by 2023 and is building Canada’s largest electric vehicle fleet. We’re looking for engineers who can bring fresh ideas, lead technical discussions and project implementation, and provide insight with regard to project planning, estimation, and prioritization.
Our tech stack:
* Code: Ruby/Rails, Node/NestJS, Golang, React
* Infra: Heroku, GCP (GKE, App Engine), Docker
We're hiring for the following roles:
* Software Developer
* Senior/Staff Software Developer
* Software Development Team Lead
* Engineering Manager
* Senior Product Manager
More information here: https://gobolt.hiringplatform.ca/list/careers?category_id=28...
If interested, feel free to apply through the above link or reach out directly to me: vincent.li [at] gobolt.com