Doing the minimum or being lazy is pretty bad advice. The smart move is to educate yourself on how to organize a union and put together a game plan. This is what corporations are really afraid of and that is because it's the one thing that gives you power. Get bent with the Bolshevik revolution crap. The goal isn't to end up in a worse place.
I'm done busting my ass, doing top tier work as the expectation, for shit pay. Pay me the bare minimum you can, don't expect me to work more or harder than then minimum _I_ can. Especially after years of nothing but stellar reviews, and a token 3% raise yearly. The goal isn't to end up in a worse place, but you also shouldn't let yourself be taken advantage of out of fear of the unknown.
I agree and identify strongly with this article.
> Turn up on time. Do your job. Do it right. Do whatever is asked of you provided it's lawful, reasonable. [...] Do not one thing more than that.
>Pay me the bare minimum you can, don't expect me to work more or harder than then minimum _I_ can. Especially after years of nothing but stellar reviews, and a token 3% raise yearly.
I struggle to understand this mindset a bit. Barring early "first job" jobs, when you were hired, presumably you agreed to / negotiated a compensation that was not the absolute minimum your employer could pay or that you would agree to. So to start, they're already not paying you the least they can. But then, if you're not doing anything more than the minimums/what you're expected to do, why would you expect anything more than minimum compensation raises? If you want more pay, and higher pay, you have to be doing more than you were originally hired to do. Especially because part of the hiring process is acknowledging that you will not actually be up to speed for anywhere from a few months to a few years.
Do I think companies should do more to retain and compensate their employees? Yes. Do I think that most companies are short sighted as to the true cost of losing valuable employees over compensation issues? Yes. Do I think that companies should try to do more than "the minimum"? Yes. But I also think all the same things about being an employee. I'm not saying you give up everything to the company, but I've known more than a few people in my life who were hardline "minimalist" employees, and they were always surprised by the fact that they were treated equally minimally by the employer.
When a company hires anyone they want to pay the bare minimum for the labor. I get that. So when they hired me, they gave me the bare minimum they could at the time to get me to agree to come work for them. I didn't start out with this mindset, but the company hasn't done anything more to reward my hard work other than their bare minimum yearly merit raise. Accounting for inflation my purchasing power now is WORSE than when I was hired.
> But then, if you're not doing anything more than the minimums/what you're expected to do, why would you expect anything more than minimum compensation raises?
I put this back in the companies court. Why would I want to go out of my way to do more than the bare minimum when you won't offer more than that for my efforts? I didn't start out with that mentality but it's been shown that these companies will absolutely take advantage of that for their benefit. For over a decade I've done Way more than the bare minimum for work, taking on more projects, responsibilities and impossible deadlines. Delivered 'steller' results, and pioneered work efficient improvements, etc. Every single year have gotten a 'top performer' yearly review. Every year except 1, received a measly 3% raise and told I should be happy it's so high.
After a decade of being lied to, shit on, and taken advantage of; tell me _why_ would I continue to put in amazing efforts for shit compensation increase? I don't expect great raises for mediocre work. But I did expect great raises for documented great work. That hasn't happened and frankly, I'm beyond busting my ass for piddly pay and being told I should be thankful for it.
Again, what I said in my parent comment. They want to pay the minimum, they'll get the minimum effort.
The point is you're not solving anything with this approach. You have chosen a lose-lose solution. What people need to understand is that the same problem exists outside of capitalism. You will continue to get the short end of the stick until you gain leverage.
When I go to the store, there is a listed price for an apple. I pay that price, and nothing more. I get an apple, and nothing more. That's not lose-lose.
> Turn up on time. Do your job. Do it right. Do whatever is asked of you provided it's lawful, reasonable.
This is a totally reasonable transaction. You're not slacking off. You're not failing to do your reasonable duties. You're not showing up 2 hours late, or playing hooky.
> Do not one thing more than that.
If someone is asking you to do something unreasonable, you should have the freedom to refuse that. It should not be considered a defection or a betrayal. It might not always solve things, but it should be a normal and satisfactory outcome.
Again, this is the outcome every time I go to the grocery store
> You will continue to get the short end of the stick until you gain leverage.
How you gain leverage is situational. At some companies, going above and beyond actually _reduces_ leverage, because you may find that after five years working at said company, the value you add is mostly tied to your knowledge of company internals (processes, systems, people, etc), and you may have actually fallen behind in the actual "transferable" skills that the market values.
The thing that doesn't make much sense to me is the variety of shapes these things come in. Saucer, triangle, tic tac, pyramid, cube, etc. The triangles are probably just military, but where does that leave this other stuff? The military has had supersonic drones for a long time so that could explain many other sightings. The thing about aliens is it's exciting. The thing that makes me wary is that even if the military declassified hypersonic saucer drones people would just call it a psyop.
It's basically the same as the System 1 which was just a ripoff of the stuff at Xerox PARC. That is where things really went from zero to one, on a lot of things. The same thing happened with programming languages. C sparked a revolution and languages have been getting incrementally more bloated (and terrible) ever since. I think the difference stems from academic versus capitalist roots. I mean, even Xerox didn't want the stuff they had created.
>It's basically the same as the System 1 which was just a ripoff of the stuff at Xerox PARC.
People say things like this and because they haven't researched the matter more deeply they miss out on some great gems from that such as the way overlapping windows worked on Apple's Macintosh compared to how Xerox did things because the Apple engineers didn't know how Xerox did it, thought they were doing more than they did and in the course of trying to recreate it invented something better.
The bottom line is that even re-implementing something can lead to creativity and extend the original in exciting new ways as a result. To my mind that makes it much less a 'ripoff' since it's a new way of doing things.
I'm not sure what you are referencing from that. It reiterates what I stated, not what you are saying. "Great Artists Steal" etc. The developers sat down and had everything explained to them. I'm not sure what you mean by "engineers didn't know how Xerox did it."
> which was just a ripoff of the stuff at Xerox PARC
It was not a ripoff. They had a license agreement and a whole bunch of people went from PARC (where they felt they had amazing technologies but could not do much with them because Xerox did not care) to Apple (where they could actually put a lot of ideas in practice).
> That is where things really went from zero to one, on a lot of things.
Some things. Others did not exist at the time and there have been a lot of improvements since then. Things done at PARC also depended on a lot of groundwork done by people like Turing and in places like the Bell Labs. Yet we don’t argue that Babbage was the real revolution and nothing of note happened since then.
Disrupt, yes. Replace, no. Programming is moving to ever higher levels of abstraction. It's just a continuation of the trend. You'll still have the lower levels when you need them. It reminds me of WordPress. It will get the job done for most people but at the end of the day it's a piece of crap.
I would move the project to be under the company instead of your personal account. Place links back to the company on the package website. Link back to your company in the terminal output. I wouldn't go beyond that.
I don't think it's sufficient to say we enjoy music because we evolved to hear animal noises. This lazy hand-waving explanation can hardly be called a hypothesis. Hitting something with a stick and making sounds with your voice is something a cave man could do. We're talking about something so old that it likely evolved and developed with us as a species. Birdsong developed through sexual selection. That's not too far from what we see in our species, to be honest.
Anxiety and depression have a close relationship and both represent a chemical imbalance in the brain. When you have an issue like this to the point of disorder, it's unlikely to be the only problem. Psychiatric labels like PTSD, GAD, OCD, BPD, serve to categorize the behavioural manifestation of the imbalance.
I don't claim to have a cure for depression. However, meditation has been a significant help in balancing my emotions and achieving calm. I am convinced poor diet and sleep hygiene are major contributors to mood disorders. Work on those in tandem with practicing meditation. If that doesn't work for you after a few weeks, the medication will still be available.
Everyone gets different search results. Suppressing content is a form of censorship. You're just out of the loop. Silicon valley is left wing. Anyone paying attention can see they're using these platforms to enact social change. What do you think this whole Elon/Twitter thing was about?
> What do you think this whole Elon/Twitter thing was about?
Interesting that the first version of your comment didn't include that; you added it as an afterthought.
I don't know what you think "this whole Elon/Twitter thing" is about. What I think is, it's about Musk being bored and saying one thing one day, and another another day, and having armies of lawyers scrambling around to clean up the mess he makes. Musk hates lawyers; I think he enjoys giving them unwinnable cases.
But do you think Musk is trying to fight "left wing censorship"? Or was? (since he doesn't want to buy Twitter anymore).
Please share your opinions or insights, because we can't guess what's on your mind.
You didn't acknowledge your lack of understanding about search results. The algorithm suppresses results based on location data. Ranking is based on your prior search history. Censorship varies by country. There is no point in continuing discussion when you are ignoring my points entirely.
>I don't know what you think "this whole Elon/Twitter thing" is about. What I think is, it's about Musk being bored and saying one thing one day, and another another day, and having armies of lawyers scrambling around to clean up the mess he makes. Musk hates lawyers; I think he enjoys giving them unwinnable cases.
>But do you think Musk is trying to fight "left wing censorship"? Or was? (since he doesn't want to buy Twitter anymore).
You probably don't see the bias in what you say but if I say that say some left wing tech guy did something to push his agenda you'll probably say "that's conspiracy theory" then you go on and say the exact same thing about Elon, sure he probably doesn't care about it that much as to spend 44 billion $ to try and fix it, but he's been talking about it for a very long time, if you see some of his interviews from 2018 where he speaks about AI (in that context he means something different) he gives the example of the emergent system that's made from Twitter and its users becoming by itself an entity with its own motives, etc. (imagine the brain where each neuron is a used and the rules between their communication is twitter, the neurons can't conceptualize what the brain wants or means or tries to do, but as a whole it's something more than its components).
I think it would cause a lot of harm. Part of the grieving process is accepting that they are gone. The pain is terrible but I'm not sure that makes it a bad thing. The perspective you gain is powerful.
