I guess? But imagine if enough people took a couple minutes to post about how organization XYZ sucks, and (because the stock markets are irrational vibes based) that caused their stocks to drop a few points. That’s the only thing they care about. I’m willing to put in a few minutes if it might emotionally harm an asshole.
I was going to write “this depends on the ATS used” but I thought that was a safe assumption. Seems not so!
Tried to submit one and it didn’t seem to go through.
My hypothetical is a lot of recruiters are kind of bad at their job, but there’s so many desperate candidates that they don’t need to do much to get passable results.
A hiring manager told me when she fills a position, it automatically sends the email to the other candidates. It’s not a human touch.
I think it’s undeniable there are a lot of very stupid people, and many of them are loud gamers.
One of the problems is humans are social creatures. Facts don’t change minds. In-group pressure changes minds. (And sometimes horrific trauma, but only sometimes*). The typical person, confronted with an idea that contradicts a non-trivial belief, will evaluate primarily if the person presenting the belief is in-group. The same kind of message delivered by different people has very different outcomes.
With the Internet, idiots and assholes can find their own social groups to reinforce their shitty beliefs.
If we want to fix this, we’d have to do the long, expensive, and thankless work of getting them to see us as in-group, and getting them to then adopt better ideas. Incidentally, that’s how the right wing has been operating.
Laughing at them for being fucking morons is satisfying, but it’s like picking at a scab. It’s not going to heal.
I read somewhere that being or feeling watched makes people behave better, so just pictures of people will have an effect.
Makes sense. They see what looks like a person, the brain eagerly looks up “how do I act when there’s someone here?”, then realizes it’s just a painting, but the good behavior is already looked up.
but take any increased productivity for themselves
Many people seem confused and this.
Worker makes charts and reports. Owner sells for profit. Worker suddenly is making double the charts. Owner makes double the profit. Worker… ???
Just like… What do they expect to happen.
I leave my PR in draft until the checks pass. I don’t want anyone reviewing it when it’s broken.
Unfortunately, stupid people will not be able to connect these dots. They live in an emotion driven fantasy land, and no amount of external evidence showing their in-group hurting them will change their mind.
The only things that change minds are in-group pressure, and trauma. So it’s possible that some trumper will have seven hours of screaming diarrhea and while curled up at death’s door realize the error of their ways, it seems a lot of people would rather die than be momentarily embarrassed.
Cool. The Senate kind of ducks.
Cool. Fuck Microsoft
I hate how normalized victim blaming for sexual assault is. It’s all around us and it takes effort to reject it
I wouldn’t do it based on join time. Age doesn’t always map to quality, and it might encourage people to make sleeper accounts to age up.
I would do it based on a graph of trust.
Let’s say you’re user 0. You trust yourself. You can then invite or vouch for a user. If they misbehave, it should reflect badly on you. If they post good content, you should share some of the glory. If one of those users invites someone, the good and bad flow upstream.
People no one has vouched for have very little power. You can filter them out with a toggle.
You’d be able to see the web of behavior. If someone keeps inviting or endorsing assholes, then they’re a problem.
Endorsing is different than upvote. You can upvote whatever, but endorsing is saying you trust this person and you’re willing to put your own reputation and access on the line.
Something like that.
The later you start learning a language, the harder it is. High school is so late it’s sad.
It’s a shame there isn’t more language education in the US. We had one class on a foreign language starting in sixth grade, which is pretty late.
Most things here are mono lingual. I visited Montreal and I feel like if I was there for a few months, my rudimentary French would really develop. Unfortunately, the one time I tried to speak to someone there who didn’t speak English, it didn’t go super well. She was patient, but we weren’t really understanding each other. All my French is reading and writing, so I have an incredibly bad accent.
But on the flipside, it’s hard for me to stay concentrated while at home.
While I believe that is true for you, I don’t believe it justifies the lost time, health, and environmental damage of mandating in-office for everyone.
The office is super distracting for many people.
Oh, I read your thing backwards then.
I can’t imagine wanting to go into the office on the regular. The commute. The lost time (can math out to like a 20% pay cut, if you spend two hours a day traveling + getting ready). The sickness. The lack of control over environment (temperature, sound).
Can’t relate to it. And I’m a very social person that likes interacting with people.
Every day I’m a little surprised there’s no news story of some workers beating their “no, you have to come into the office” manager to death. They’ve got means, motive, and opportunity, and it’s extra funny because if they’d been allowed to work at home they wouldn’t have at least two of those.
But really we’re ruled by the worst of us. Cowards and fools.
Maybe unionizing is safer than hitting the decision makers with an office chair while screaming “you made this possible” until they can’t even cry anymore.
Working from home doesn’t appeal to the emotional needs of fragile managers.
Interesting. I find that where I work, often the biggest problems are non-technical. It’s the upper manager that says “we don’t have time for automated testing” and then our releases take two days of manual testing and bug fixing.