null_dot
@null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- Comment on Can a person who is a convicted felon/ rapist even get nominated for the Nobel Peace Price? Extra points if you can ELI5 that. 49 minutes ago:
Could he have done more than “encourage” RBG?
- Comment on Can a person who is a convicted felon/ rapist even get nominated for the Nobel Peace Price? Extra points if you can ELI5 that. 50 minutes ago:
They can and do take prizes off laureates if they go bad later.
- Comment on Can a person who is a convicted felon/ rapist even get nominated for the Nobel Peace Price? Extra points if you can ELI5 that. 51 minutes ago:
I think the point you might have missed is, a conviction shouldn’t exclude you from receiving a prize, because you may have been convicted by a corrupt court.
I’m not saying Trump was wrongly convicted, just that a conviction shouldn’t exclude you in and of itself.
- Comment on Be proud of your life choices 1 day ago:
Amazing.
- Comment on what's a good answer to placate the c-suite if you're accused of lacking motivation and being unfriendly? 4 days ago:
immediately after writing Everyone lies in interviews).
As I explained in that comment, everyone lies in interviews, but you can still select the best candidates because some don’t understand what makes someone desirable.
You made this thread asking how to lie to c-suite.
- Comment on what's a good answer to placate the c-suite if you're accused of lacking motivation and being unfriendly? 4 days ago:
Sure. It’s also what anyone who’s ever hired anyone would say.
- Comment on [deleted] 5 days ago:
Who knows what this guy really meant but we can probably infer some things.
He did not take the opportunity to say “You’re really amazing and interesting and smart and funny” or anything similar.
It’s also a weird thing to say.
- Comment on what's a good answer to placate the c-suite if you're accused of lacking motivation and being unfriendly? 5 days ago:
Telling on myself ? Oh no, some kid on Lemmy thinks I’m too bourgeois.
- Comment on what's a good answer to placate the c-suite if you're accused of lacking motivation and being unfriendly? 5 days ago:
You seem to be laboring under several misconceptions.
Firstly, that being a parasitic middle manager is somehow undesirable. It’s natural to dislike the people who are supervising you (but building some kind of ideology around that to justify your dislike is a bit cringe). However, as they progress through their lives most people want more money, more responsibility, more challenge, and with those things comes more authority.
Secondly, that anyone complaining about “parasitic middle managers” would actually refuse the opportunity to take such a role if they were able to do so.
I’m sure that “parasitic middle managers” do exist, but one feature of capitalism (which I’m sure you also despise) is that it’s very good at weeding out people that don’t produce any value. In the vast majority of cases, the parasitic middle managers you’re talking about are in fact well experienced and highly skilled professionals, who earned the role on merit because they can produce lots of value.
It’s the same way everyone that doesn’t own a home complains about landlords, but ultimately aspires to be one.
- Comment on what's a good answer to placate the c-suite if you're accused of lacking motivation and being unfriendly? 5 days ago:
Lol walk more dogs.
- Comment on what's a good answer to placate the c-suite if you're accused of lacking motivation and being unfriendly? 5 days ago:
That’s fair, but for this type of job management isn’t going to be asking you about your hopes and dreams.
- Comment on what's a good answer to placate the c-suite if you're accused of lacking motivation and being unfriendly? 5 days ago:
Everything you’ve said here is pretty much the opposite of your initial “minimum job requirements” comment.
- Comment on what's a good answer to placate the c-suite if you're accused of lacking motivation and being unfriendly? 5 days ago:
Everyone lies in interviews. However, a lot of people don’t understand what will make them desirable so they lie about the wrong thing.
Someone who understands the role enough to lie to make themselves seem desirable is better than someone who doesn’t.
- Comment on what's a good answer to placate the c-suite if you're accused of lacking motivation and being unfriendly? 5 days ago:
LOL. You sound like you’re ripe for restructure.
- Comment on what's a good answer to placate the c-suite if you're accused of lacking motivation and being unfriendly? 6 days ago:
I’m not assuming you’re an idiot, but I’m sure you agree that team members with some aspirations are better than those who like OP, tell you they’re only there for the money.
If you could choose, you surely wouldn’t choose the latter.
- Comment on what's a good answer to placate the c-suite if you're accused of lacking motivation and being unfriendly? 6 days ago:
I don’t really follow.
If you could select your own team from a large pool of employees, would you choose the person who said “I’m just here for the money and will do the bare minimum required per my role’s responsibilities”, or would you choose the person who said “I’m so passionate about whatever thing we do and I’m excited to be part of your team because I want to learn all I can from you”.
If you chose the first guy then you’re an idiot, sorry.
IDK why you’d tell that to team members honestly. It’s great that you want your team to be happy and relaxed and also great that you don’t want to take advantage of them. However, you need to balance that against helping them be the best they can be. Imagine joining a rowing team and your captain just saying “yeah so on this team we invest the minimum effort we can get away with while not sinking”.
If I looked back at the colleagues and supervisors that really received my best work and pushed me to be a little bit better than I really was … I didn’t like any of them at the time.
- Comment on what's a good answer to placate the c-suite if you're accused of lacking motivation and being unfriendly? 6 days ago:
The correct response is non-verbal. You have to demonstrate that you’re motivated and friendly.
Telling coworkers that you’re only there for the money is the corporate equivalent of telling your spouse you’re only with them because your asshole isn’t going to lick itself and you don’t have any better options right now.
Everyone goes to work to make money. You’re not special in this regard. No one would go if they weren’t getting paid. The real question is why you’re doing this job to earn money instead of doing some other job to earn money.
The correct answer is, “I’ve always been passionate about <fruit bats> and I dream of one day <farming fruit bats> so I’m starting out in this job <counting fruit> because <tangential relationship> and I’m looking forward to learning all I can from you guys.”
However, you need to walk this walk, saying the things isn’t enough.
I often find myself explaining this to new team members: things go so much easier if people like you. You don’t really have to be an especially likable person, just a little empathy, and avoid being a dick. It doesn’t take much to phrase things in such a way that people actually want to help you.
- Comment on Mapping Australia by the Nearest City with a Population of 100,000 or More 6 days ago:
I don’t think “nearest city” is the best description.
It looks like, ABS identifies every urban area with at least 10,000 people, and then tags it with “the most relevant” centre in the region, or something like that.
So it’s something like, the way in which ABS divides localities into statistically useful segments.
- Comment on Mapping Australia by the Nearest City with a Population of 100,000 or More 6 days ago:
To someone who doesn’t know where the population clusters are, this map isn’t a good visual representation.
Also, clustered populations isn’t really the reason for our house prices being what they are.
- Comment on Apple has REMOVED the ICEBlock app from the App Store due to “objectionable content.” 1 week ago:
It’s really sickening that every corporation has thrown in with the new fascist regime.
At least these assholes used to pretend to be “not absolutely awful”. Now they’re just mask-off oppressors.
- Comment on ‘My buyer’s guilt is insane. It’s $1,300 on trash’: the adults addicted to blind box toys like Labubus 1 week ago:
Not quite sure what you’re getting at.
Seeing someone you love addicted to something harmful is very sad.
Being addicted to cigarettes or any substance isn’t really relevant here.
The point I was trying to make, is that these sales tactics exploit a feature hominids have developed which would have been critical for survival. In situations where a reward is uncertain (hunting) a gland in our brain releases a stimulant to help us stay focused and look for opportunities to improve the outcome.
It’s easier to avoid a trap when you know how it works.
- Comment on ‘My buyer’s guilt is insane. It’s $1,300 on trash’: the adults addicted to blind box toys like Labubus 1 week ago:
Wolfram Schultz demonstrated in the 80s that incorrectly predicting a reward stimulates dopamine.
It’s the science or neurochemistry underlying bullshit gambling machines, gacha games, and… well… loads of things really.
- Comment on There is a limit how much power the pedal assist of an e-Bike is allowed to provide (at least in many countries). There is no limit though on how strong the exoskeletton is that you use on a regular b 1 week ago:
If you think a bike frame is as strong as a motorbike frame then I cant help you.
- Comment on Missing banana for scale. 1 week ago:
Yeah nah.
I agree that its sloppy language but it would’ve been more descriptive in the 80s.
- Comment on There is a limit how much power the pedal assist of an e-Bike is allowed to provide (at least in many countries). There is no limit though on how strong the exoskeletton is that you use on a regular b 1 week ago:
Sure ok. Whoosh. Silly me. What a hilarious joke. I’m in stitches.
- Comment on There is a limit how much power the pedal assist of an e-Bike is allowed to provide (at least in many countries). There is no limit though on how strong the exoskeletton is that you use on a regular b 1 week ago:
The limits on e-bikes are intended to protect the rider from a catastrophic failure of the bike.
Bike frames just aren’t designed to be strong enough to withstand the forces endured by heavier vehicles like motorbikes.
It’s trivial to put an unlimited e-bike kit on a regular bike and zip around at 60km/h but there’s a real can / should question that needs to be ignored.
If you want to go faster than an e-bike get a proper vehicle.
- Comment on Missing banana for scale. 1 week ago:
I just commented this somewhere else:
I think this photograph was taken in an era when the only technology available to make an image that looked like this was photography. At that time “not a real photograph” was the equivalent to the statement “a photograph of something which is not what it appears to be”.
- Comment on Missing banana for scale. 1 week ago:
I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic.
Sure but I think this photograph was taken in an era when the only technology available to make an image that looked like this was photography. At that time “not a real photograph” was the equivalent to the statement “a photograph of something which is not what it appears to be”.
- Comment on Missing banana for scale. 1 week ago:
I thinkbots a real photo of a recreation of the ape.
- Comment on [deleted] 2 weeks ago:
Sorry I don’t really understand what your argument actually is.
Since the dawn of writing, legislators (kings / politicians) have laid down the rules. Regulators (police, tax office) have enforced the rules. And courts decide whether the rules have actually been broken and what the penalties ought to be.
In the vast majority of self assessment situations, it’s very obvious how the law applies to ones situation, there is very little doubt. You just follow the rules and face penalties for breaches.
In those few situations which are unclear, you generally have a range of options:
- review other similar cases heard by courts which might be analogous to your own.
- consult a specialist who can interpret and apply the rules for you.
- ask the god damn regulator where you stand and have them help you self-assess.
Finally, most legislation relating to corporate behavior has safe harbor clauses. That is, where someone has acted reasonably, taken reasonable steps, and made a good-faith attempt to interpret and apply the rules correctly, the regulator won’t penalise them even if they’re found to have breached the rules.
That is to say penalties are usually only applied where there’s a breach, and there’s no scope to argue that it was a reasonable error.
This is a fair and transparent structure with which to ensure the rules are applied fairly to everyone. It’s very robust, tolerant of edge cases, and the most efficient compliance structure we have.
I don’t really know what an alternative would be? If you want a regulator to publish a list of which apps / companies are effected in what way, that’s just nuts. The antithesis of modern democratic economic regulation.