Same! I just got an emulator working this weekend for my PC and realized I can run the game directly from my original Ape Escape disc and use an Xbox controller. It's really bringing me back.
I try to remove common enhancing adverbs when writing emails at work. Removing "very," "definitely," "absolutely," etc. makes professional communication come across more authoritatively and clearly. I still use adverbs to be clear, but they need to communicate something specific that is otherwise hard to articulate.
There's a Chrome Extension for Gmail and Outlook for web that helps you send more confident emails by warning you when you use words which undermine your message.
Interesting wiki article, very insightful! As a manager myself, I think it's very important to be aware of whether you are playing the "rescuer" and perpetuating dysfunction, or acting as a "coach" and helping others to actually change and learn.
The wiki covers that scenario. The rescuer uses their role to say they "tried" and then justify negative feelings to the victim. Essentially becoming the persecutor
It seems to me like there's two main kinds of lies that interrogators use:
1. Lies about the process / promissary lies. e.g. "If you just confess, you can go home."
2. Lies about evidence. e.g. "We talked to {Friend|Family|Co-conspirator} and they said you did it and they have the {item} to prove it. It's not going to look good if you continue to lie to me."
#1 seems obviously bad to me. Too high of a risk of tricking innocent people into thinking they can end the stress by falsely confessing.
#2 seems less bad, possibly beneficial. There are other comments about how this can speed up interrogations by getting people who are guilty to think they've been caught and confess. I could be convinced otherwise.
In my opinion, sounds like 1 and 2 should be illegal for minors. But 1 should be illegal in general, for adults too.
An innocent person who hears #2 may reason that the police are faking evidence, they'd better give a fake confession because otherwise the police will just use the faked evidence in court. He may not be up to date on the laws about exactly at what steps in the process the police are allowed to use the fake evidence.
Alternatively, he might think that his friend actually implicated him and that he has the choice of saying nothing and being convicted because of that, or confessing to a lesser charge.
Alternately, he might just think that police who'd fake evidence are corrupt, and that corrupt police could do a lot worse, like fake evidence against his whole family or just shoot him, so he'd better confess just to come out of this alive.
Agreed. I think the intent of the previous commenters was more along the lines of "How do we determine which employees are working earnestly and effectively vs working without motivation or ineffectively?"
Its important to take time out of the question, because time spent, after a very small minimum, isn't a strong indicator of performance.
I agree with the sentiments about mob rule on social media being extremely negative.
The thing that always amuses me about any sites with ratings is that most people (the site owners, the reviewees, the reviewers) often assume that everyone has the same barometer for 1-5 stars. That's very likely not the case.
Take Goodreads as an example. My Personal barometer is
* 5 star = I would re-read this multiples because it was so interesting/engaging/life changing.
* 4 star = I really liked this book. I probably wouldn't re-read it but it was memorable.
* 3 star = Pretty good book.
* 2 star = Book had some flaws or it didn't appeal to me for specific reasons. I didn't like it.
* 1 star = I did not like this book at all, and I would tell people not to read it.
I think there are probably a lot of people that disagree with my barometer :) Maybe their 5 star is anything "pretty good" or above, and their 1 star is "this author should be banned from authorship, that's how much I disliked this book."
I work in an interesting tech career that does need to assess this: Pre-sales Engineering.
At my current job, we have our candidates do a short take-home assignment to assess coding skill, but we also have them do a live presentation to assess their pre-sales skills and ability to present under pressure.
We try to separate the two tests to get a better read on the two skill sets we're looking for. So far we've hired strong candidates. We prioritize avoiding false positives over false negatives; in other words, we prioritize turning candidates away over hiring someone we're unsure about.
Your stance is removing yourself from the conversation.
Meanwhile, in this moderate preacher and congregation allegory, the congregation has not left the building, because there is no leader to explain to them why they need to shut the trolls out of their life, so they are sitting ducks to become radicalized.
This is what grandparent was saying afaict - moderating voices leaving the conversation capitulate the space to the radicals.
The moderating voices are tired of explaining to people that the earth is not flat, so they are leaving. So the flat earthers can take to the pulpit.
FWIW my strategy is to build a better church down the road. I don't know if I can make it more appealing than the megachurch dominated by trolls, but I think a lot of people are looking for something different.
How would you act instead? In the eyes of a someone with a sufficiently incompatible position you are a loonie who gets ignired after the dirst dissenting statement with a simple mouse click, never to be seen or heard from again on that platform. This is just so much easier than in the real world.
1) Exit social media and save yourself. This is the best option
2) With unending patience, choose an individual and just interact with them at a human level till both sides achieve understanding ( no matter how distasteful or difficult the process ). This does not scale
3) Begin to invest in PR, think tanks, media firms, groups and so on to craft a message to sway large groups of people at one go. This scales and what most people are resorting to, and what is creating the problem in the first place.
Just a thought about this. I wonder if the improved creative thinking has anything to do with increased heart bpm and blood flow to the brain that is stimulated by walking or other exercise. I noticed the article said "creative juices continued to flow even when a person sat back down shortly after a walk." Perhaps this could be because after a short while a person's heart rate will go back to resting bpm, and the brain blood flow will return to resting state levels.
No hard evidence on my part to back this up, just a thought.
You're probably on to an interesting idea. Another topic to google for is blood sugar and insulin levels immediately after exercising.
I once worked with a type-2 and a type-1 diabetic (not the same guy obviously) and as you'd expect with a control loop malfunction illness, both predictable and unpredictable effects were in play.
If I recall correctly the type-2 guy complained that his innards would release lots of glucose while exercising and continue shortly after but his insulin production (or response?) was not so good, so his blood sugar measurably spiked high after exercise while the type-1 had his drop unless he adjusted his dosages. Or perhaps it was the other way around wrt the type 1 guy and the type 2 guy.
Being a spectrum disease, I suspect even a "healthy" individual might have some peculiar short term changes to blood sugar and/or insulin levels.
