aaron-santos

What a weird section on professionalism. The social construct of professionalism re-enforces the neoliberal hegemony. Who the hell would want to do that?

No apologies needed. The internet gives people a platform to speak without the same(but not necessarily less) social accountability that exists in meatspace. The change in accountability implies a change in the access that participants have to social scripts. What we are experiencing is a mismatch of social script access between meatspace and the digital space enabled by novel digital mediums and increased connectivity.

That is the current contradiction. My bet is that neither the meatspace social construct nor the digital social construct wins. The resolution is in their synthesis. That probably means that some meatspace social norms change and some digital social norms change. Finally, any resistance to those changes in inherently reactionary.

Thanks for explaining. Today was my day to not get a joke on the internet :)

Help me out. How does that imply war?

Why would you conflate hostile foreign power and being at war? There is a difference here between necessary and sufficient conditions. The presence of hostile foreign powers with whom we are not at war is evidence enough.

The propagandist wants the opponent to be strong enough to be a threat but ideologically weak enough to defeat. That should be enough for anyone to pause and think hard about what's really going on.

With the celebrity example I got more of a caricature effect. Excellent illusion.

My gut says that random trades have the same expected value as the underlying asset, but increased variance. I'm not a finperson, so learning why this could be wrong would be a learning opportunity.

> For decades we've been dealing with misinformation campaigns

Yes and no. Now that the labor for executing misinformation campaigns is outsourced and presented in a new way, the old wisdom of "don't trust the media", and "trust people you know" has become the new naïveté.

At least in the days of mass media, the centralization of messaging made it easy to identify and thus in some ways able to defend against. Now we're defending against brothers, sisters, aunts, and uncles who have been caught up in whatever nonsense happens to be most engaging. The commodification of social relations is rapidly progressing and there isn't any viable protection from it.

You might be surprised to learn that there are even whole books about the topic complete with reading groups, speaking events, and discourse.

I have to hand it to you. It's clear that you're adept at creating confusion around ideas by "just asking questions", and creating cohesion around fuzzy concepts by stating opinions as facts. I've participated in too many of these "debates" to know where this is headed. If you genuinely want educate yourself on these topics, there are resources to do so. I encourage you to seek these out.

Why use utility an a measure to begin with? I think we're going to have to agree to disagree simply because of the number of assumptions being brought into this discussion.

I guess I'm ok with nuance and gray areas and anti-colonialism in a way that doesn't feel like a contradiction. Sorry that's hard for you.

> The economists and politicians can't conceive of trying to restructure the economic model to the lived reality

Yeah, I mean that's the definition of thought hegemony. People think that moving the moon is easier than changing the current economic model[1].

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-rep-louie-gohmert-forest...

Surely you do not work at Purina.

It is. And this answer is why I alluded to exit interviews. Understanding the structural reasons why this standard advice exists is the first step in a line of questioning that leads to some uncomfortable conclusions for HR and businesses, but on the same turn that makes it precisely why it should be investigated.

I love how asking people why they are leaving is not on the list. Instead it's gathering metrics and data. If you treat people like numbers, that's sort of the explaination right there. Anything to avoid actually building a working relationship.

I'm less and less confident that is possible, not necessarily because personal interactions and online spaces themselves form an inherent contradiction (though they might). But because the incentive, and ability to commodify, and capitalize these interactions are necessary and sufficient conditions for the creation of these destructive social systems.

We're pretty bad at social systems level thinking, but this precise lack of skill is an opportunity for exploitation. In the same way that hobbyist day traders over-estimate their ability to turn a profit by not understanding the skill level of who they are losing against, social media participants over-estimate their ability to check out because they don't understand the skill level of players who want them to engage. This disparity in the games being played isn't spelled out and why would it be? At least there is hope in that social media systems while ubiquitous, are not yet hegemonic. As long as that holds, there is still hope.

You would have to be familiar with the 2016 libertarian party presidential debate and the obsession with toast-related licenses in order to truly know for sure.

Closing the border certainly affects citizens. It affects who I cannot do business with.

I don't need a government telling me where I can or cannot go. Absolute tyranny. What's next, a license to butter my toast?

This feels like a personal attack, bud.

Right before that there is a huge difference.

I'll add to the list. Be aware of org/process changes. For example, I was working for a company who had been acquired a couple of years earlier. They were transitioning from analog to digital, but were slower than most competitors and weren't doing too well. One day, there was an announcement that some of the merged sales channels were being un-merged. The writing was on the wall, the business unit was being separated in order to sell it off.

It was an easy few months to find another job, and sure enough a bit later the company was sold to a VC firm and then again to another corp. Things could have been fine for me, but I honestly didn't want to go through the two ownership changes. My lesson? The information usually isn't too hidden, you just have to understand the implications of the emails that you usually pass over.

Why would I want nodejs? All of that to avoid writing C for simple things?

It sounds like your saying "life is unfair so we have no obligation to try." I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it's difficult. Maybe you meant something else.

We can't blame the lords, they are a fundamental property of feudalism.

It's a fantastic way to get top comments here though.

When they determine the choices I have to live my life. Yes. That is the definition of freedom.

The market. I want to be free from it a la Freedom from the Market: America’s Fight to Liberate Itself from the Grip of the Invisible Hand by Mike Konczal[1]. As much as small government-types don't want to experience government in their everyday lives, I wish not not experience the market and its influence in my everyday life. As much as small government-types feel like they cannot escape government control, I feel like I cannot escape from market control.

[1] https://thenewpress.com/books/freedom-from-market