I think you misunderstand the concern, suppose a user enters gov.mil as a domain to test with which they are unaffiliated.
The tools test it and with disastrous affect all governmental and military services go offline.
It would be reasonable to then take legal action against the platform rather than the user, as the user did not confirm they had permission to perform testing or that they understood the risks involved.
If you're MBS and you determine Twitter is the most likely source a the black swan event leading to your regime's overthrow maybe it makes sense to pay the money.
Suppose we want to change just one link? Would it be better to make a new class with all the same attributes except the color and apply that to the specific link.
> Suppose we want to change just one link? Would it be better to make a new class with all the same attributes except the color and apply that to the specific link.
Why copy the attributes? Just override the one you want to change. You can even use style="…" if you're sure that it's just one link.
I don't mind them. Some feel more forced than others. That said, there's a time and a place to use them. A layoff announcement is possibly the worst place to use them, perhaps second to a death announcement. "Today we are devastated to announce that longtime Hackeronie Phil Sludge has lost his battle to colon cancer."
Slightly, it feels... hivemind-y? Working at a company I identify most with my direct colleagues/team, less so with wider orgs. Feels comparable to what I felt during high school "pep rallies".
Hackeroni sounds like a pasta, and I'm sure I'd meme the shit out of it if I worked there
That seems like the point of the company demonym, got to drink that kool aid. What I find personality disingenuous (or perhaps even insidious) is the push to make everyone feel like they are an integral part of a group and then treat them like disposable objects when it’s more convenient at that moment.
Exactly. When I work, I work for myself; for money and mental stability. A company-wide identity feels like something I can't accept calling myself. It's too broad, vague, and the identity itself is defined/controlled by the company/HR, with little input from those labelled as such (at least in the orgs of size I've been at). It removes a lot of individuality from my own thoughts/mind, as I would have to consider "how I reflect on the organization" (as I was taught in Catholic school) to the detriment of my own expression.
Largely depends on the existing culture of the company imo. I imagine in some climates it might come off as tone-deaf or degrading, whereas in others it might feel unifying or endearing.
From an outsider looking in on this one... I dunno. Firing your beloved hackeronies kind of grates.
There's not much middle ground between "try to have some fun at work because there's no reason not to" and "don't do something someone might take issue with". A completely sterile work environment isn't really any better, and for some it's definitely oppressive and worse.
Is it sometimes an intentional cult-building tactic? Definitely. Is it always? Heck no, people come up with in-group names all the time. Groups of all kinds develop their own terms and memes and whatnot, it's normal.
> There's not much middle ground between "try to have some fun at work because there's no reason not to" and "don't do something someone might take issue with".
There’s a whole Earth between no fun and clown fiesta.
> There's not much middle ground between "try to have some fun at work because there's no reason not to" and "don't do something someone might take issue with".
You don't see the middle ground between "make no one uncomfortable" and "make everyone uncomfortable?" It seems to me you're viewing this completely in black and white and then insisting that it really is black and white in actual reality, when in fact what you need is a better TV.
(To strain the turn of phrase to its breaking point.)
e: I mean, shit, even in the false dichotomy of "make no one uncomfortable" and "make everyone uncomfortable" there is middle ground: making everyone a little bit uncomfortable vs making everyone extremely uncomfortable.
No, I'm saying that hackeronies does not make everyone uncomfortable / is not necessarily cult indoctrination. Stuff like that can and does arise naturally in groups of people (and can also arise as a control mechanism).
You're saying there are pure non-creepy fun actions for everyone that a business can do. I'm saying it's too gray to make that assertion, not too black and white. So I'm curious what you think is perfectly safe for everyone.
Note that I'm reading 'There's not much middle ground between "try to have some fun at work because there's no reason not to" and "don't do something someone might take issue with",' as a general assertion on your part - now I'm thinking maybe that's not what you meant. In that case some of what I said might not apply.
that said:
> You're saying there are pure non-creepy fun actions for everyone that a business can do.
I didn't say that. I don't think you'll please everyone with team-building exercises and frankly some people find the entire concept distasteful which is fair enough. That doesn't mean that all team-building stuff is equally bad (or, equally good).
We're probably on the same page then. And I completely agree that there are better and worse options.
I mean that "fun harmless in-crowd things" can be disturbing from the outside - context and intent matters. A strange in-crowd name is pretty far down the "there are harmless causes for this" side of things imo. Using it in a layoff announcement is probably not the best place though, unless they honestly think the laid-off feel good about it. A large enough package might achieve that tbh, but that's obviously rarely the case.
I'm honestly not sure if there exists a thing that a business can do that its employees would enjoy that will not be interpreted as creepy by some. Everything excludes someone somewhere somehow, the most you can do is target your crowd as best you can... and people commenting on a forum are not in that target audience, so I find the obsession over the name here to be pretty dumb. (Not claiming you're obsessed, just that it's the majority of the comments here so far)
In small groups and organic kinda thing that the individuals come up with is fine.
IBMer back in the day felt natural and inoffensive. But it was also pretty generic.
Organizations of even moderate size and it gets slapped on like a label on your forehead by management… and it starts to feel weird and insincere…. and as they trend towards cutie affectionate names it gets really creepy IMO.
Personally I prefer a little more professional disconnection.
"Twittarians" sounds lofty, a knowledgeable group. "Redditites" sounds like a mob, possibly armed with sticks. "Coinbese" sounds... like a mindless herd? But "Hackeronis" is just patronising, considering their audience why are they not simply "Hackers"? That can't be a bad word in their context!
Human brains are wired for kinship relationships. There are studies that find that just assigning people to random groups activates in-group/out-group dynamics. There's no wonder corporate HR wants to plug into this wiring and use it to improve group cohesion and morale.
It's no weirder than Linux users sporting Tux (the penguin) logos and getting excited about Linux desktop marketshare or Rust advocates referring to themselves as rustaceans. People are tribal.
You can't be fired from Linux, and if you contribute to the codebase, you do own it under the terms of the GPLv2. (Idk if Linux does copyright assignment but even if they do, it's still GPL).
Whereas a company can tell you to fuck off for literally no reason, give you nothing, and shove you out onto the street with no healthcare and no salary, and then sue you if you if you try to do anything about it.
Founder conceit made manifest through a culture of overwrought branding & marketing? Workforce infantalization? Former summer camp coordinators turned HR executives?
Chatgpt loves lists like this, then length and "tone" can be the most obvious indicators. You can modify those attributes through prompting but that should help find unmodified output
