brayhite

This needs to be upvoted.

I’ve worked at a company with unlimited PTO since 2012.

It was the founder’s preference, as was allowing us all to work from home, because he didn’t want to babysit adults who all agreed to work towards a goal.

It’s never felt like a trap. Employees absolutely take a week+ off work, multiple times a year, and I’ve never heard of anyone ever being reprimanded.

The same founder also continued to pay an employee who was struggling with life in general, encouraging them to take off for a couple weeks and when they were ready, chat about whether they’d continue to work here.

There certainly can be scammy, predatory “unlimited PTO” policies, and maybe my experience is the exception, but I definitely prefer it over having to submit paperwork any time I have to miss working hours to take my kid to doctor, or just to take half a day to with the family on a Friday afternoon.

Just wanna note that having ADHD doesn’t mean you suffer from all of these things.

> Tasks with no clear “done criteria”, non-linear steps, or undefined processes will be the worst.

This was a major revelation for me. Even now in my 30s, I have to write out my own “acceptance criteria” for vague and ambiguous objectives at work to make sure I accomplish it, else it gets forever delayed in favor of smaller, more discrete tasks.

You have the right to swing your fist where no one else notices it happen.

Beyond that, it’s up to debate.

> I joke that the thing we get out of going to the office is to socialize.

I understand the sentiment, but in-office socializing isn’t necessarily a bad thing or counterproductive. Sure, there are introverts who will insist on how much they despite in-office social norms and culture. There are also plenty of folks somewhere in between introvert and extrovert that appreciate the ability to spontaneously socialize in low pressure situations. That socializing can build rapport and overall happiness for folks. Remote work makes it challenging to do that without it feeling either very manufactured and typically self-selective for other extroverts; or a cheesy, clumsily organized “work event” that fails to attract much attention.

Yeah, I’m not so sure we can say we’ve “adapted” to this world. In my opinion, we aren’t ready for the future with AI because we haven’t yet figured out today’s world without its prevalence.

What isn’t “clean” about it?

I’ve found it incredibly easy to navigate and digest its content. What more are you looking for?

The words “social” and “credit” appear nowhere in the article. I find it hard to believe those words weren’t intentionally used to evoke the sentiments of the PRC’s Social Credit System[1].

1 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System

This 100%. I got burned out by the classic case of working at a startup from pre-seed round. After two or three years or so of working virtually every single day, including between leisure activities on “days off” and almost always “on call” replying to emails and DMs, I just stopped. I didn’t reply at absurd hours, even if I knew the answer or had something to say. I didn’t spend hours outside of work thinking about work anymore.

Over time, I started putting more time into properly decompressing from work at the end of the day so I didn’t feel stressed about the next day.

I get burned out from time to time still, but it’s much more “in the moment” burn out vs systemic burn out.

Perhaps incorrectly, I’ve compared Cincinnati’s recent uptick in population and general reputation to Austin’s, and I’m hoping it’s handled much better.

I’ve lived in the area all my life, and it’s essentially birthright for folks born around here to think Cincinnati is just okay at best and you only stick around because you couldn’t make it elsewhere.

In my early 30s now, I love Cincinnati, with no plans on leaving, and no desire to live anywhere else in the US (at least not without a significant change in CoL or income).

That said, so many folks seem to be thinking similarly and are moving here, and I really hope all the things I love about this place either stay the same or continue to get better. I don’t know how similar we are now to Austin in 2007/8, but hopefully we’re set up better to absorb the influx without changing much about (the good parts of) our identity.

Why is this a “leftist” issue?

Does it matter that traditionally libertarian sources would agree this law is bogus? https://reason.com/2022/01/21/glenn-youngkin-qualified-immun...

I’d prefer to use AM but they’re lacking an ability like Spotify’s to play to Google Home devices and device groups. We use that feature daily, and I highly doubt Apple will ever support broadcasting to Chromecasts.

What is the measurement by which Apple, Google, etc doesn’t offer value but Amazon does?

I was reading these attempts at better analogies, kept wondering why someone wasn’t making an analogy akin to writing or books, left to read the article, then came back and saw your comment.

Your analogy is much more apropos. Nothing was tampered with or “pulled” from another location, virtual or otherwise. Everything the reporter saw was already there and accessible (the public website), they just knew how to use their lens (browser) in a perfectly legal way to see it.

Appreciate the thoughtful reply!

Lots of what you said resonates and is what I've done, so I'm happy to see some of that validation.

Having been on the interview end of things a handful of times, I 100% agree on the two-way street analogy. I've somewhat prided myself for at least trying to make interviews conversational, both because it seems to organically bring about more interesting (and relevant) parts about their job history, but also because it's a way for myself and the interviewee to get a feel for the professional culture.

That said, having not interviewed for a job in nearly a decade, I have little idea if that's the norm. Especially given how much "resume" and "interview" training from school was centered around spinning negatives into positives and glowing up a job history, both conflicting with the organic, and maybe too transparent style or resume and interviewing I gravitate towards.

Thanks for the reply and the assurance I'm not too far off track :)

> The last few times I've looked for a role I've just googled for companies I'd like to work at and browsed their careers pages.

This is my current practice. If I get a bite, it's one I'm excited for since it's a company I already know I'm interested in joining.

On the flipside, I do this rarely and it seems like exploring jobs to the extent of seeing what the job market thinks I'm qualified for is a volume game. Based on what's been posted here thus far, sounds like balancing between one of the known recruiting sites and still cherry-picking careers pages is the way to go.

Thanks!

Clicking Hacker News is seeking news the same way as clicking CNN.

Signing up for emails (presumably) isn’t organically hearing about it via billboards or voluntary conversation; it’s willfully agreeing to have news appear in your inbox.

How does this differ from the person who visits Fox News or CNN and follows a group on Facebook to see their posts appear in their news feed?

I understand how you seek financial info, but how does Hacker News come to you? How does local election info come to you?

And I don’t mean what device or medium, but literally _how_ if you aren’t actively clicking or tapping to access it by way of a bookmark or otherwise?

I feel like the original post really wanted to say “control your FOMO and critically consider what news sources you value”, but became too wrapped up in some anti-mainstream media emotion.

What you just described is far costlier on society (assuming these efforts would be covered with taxes) and likely requires severe invasions of privacy, especially considering theft can be both physical and digital/virtual.

All in all, I’d rather not aim for 100% detection + swift punishment as the improvement metrics for deterring theft.

Curious how often the “race to the bottom” versus the “planned price floor” applies to healthcare.

Sure, OTC stuff may differ given the different markets, but I’m highly skeptical of this spurring any sort of race to the bottom that doesn’t also come with large asterisks around quality, qualification to purchase, etc.

Definitely seems like a difference in interpreting “shrugging” here; basically “not sure” vs “not a big deal”.

The problem being described is an identifiable group feels like they are unwelcome or an otherwise hindered group within the industry. They use the population ratio as a mere point of evidence to argue it’s not just anecdotal.

Pointing out what groups _aren’t_ underrepresented is like saying “Yeah, we’ll, all lives matter” in response to “Black lives matter”.

Commenters here who are dying on this hill of “all marketing is evil” are forgetting that virtually all aspects of communicating _who_ created _what_ is a form of marketing being intentionally used by the creator. Does your laptop sport a logo? Does your favorite local coffee shop have a sign on its front door? Does your food come in hip colors with interesting typeface?

All of this is marketing and branding. When the author mentions the 9990 exposures to marketing, he’s likely referring to these that we all consciously rarely register or see. But it’s still marketing. Someone was probably paid to craft it.

I’m not gonna die on the hill of “marketing isn’t evil”; it absolutely can be. I’d argue though that marketing is more often than not an extension of the company’s ethos. If you find some piece of marketing to be questionable or evil, let that be a reflection on the company more than the practice of marketing.

After all, marketing is little more than paid, thoughtful, intentional opinion-sharing. Y’all are just marketing your anti-marketing sentiments for free.

I think the perspective of “happy customers = better world” is a bit sickening. I’ll give benefit of the doubt that if really pressed, that sentiment would be walked back. That sort of quippy line is how crooked politicians and their cronies come into and stay in power, though.

And no, the world isn’t a better place with them unless your definition of world excludes billions of the population.

Depending on your definition of “protests” and “demonstrations”, go to almost any Planned Parenthood or any other clinic that proactively offers abortions and you’ll likely find a group of folks who show up with some regularity to protest against abortion. I’ve not heard those folks labeled as neo-nazis.

> On a virology podcast

> mocking a woman for wearing a medical mask on a plane.

I feel like these hosts have some combination of poor credentials, ginormous egos, or that toxic desire to play up a take to their audience. attention. I hope they acknowledged how foolish they were.

I’d argue the tech to support this would require much more to be known about me by another entity and system than likely any picture taken by someone would share. No thanks.

And all those tourists in the background of your selfie at the Statue of Liberty. Need their permission, too?

I’m not comfortable being liable to being sued because my cousin decided to let us know after the fact he didn’t want to be in any of the pictures uploaded to Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/tumblr/Flickr/etc.

I admittedly didn’t read the article, so maybe your comment’s sentiment isn’t meant to include these scenarios.

> Indeed, there are fewer commercially successful artists

Source?

I reckon every decade had a handful of artists dominate the charts, so it wasn’t unheard of at all to see multiple chart toppers by the same artists at any given time. In fact, given the gatekeepers of popular music largely were concentrated around radio DJs and the “industry machine” of record labels, I’d hypothesize there’s a larger on average number of unique artists in the top 100 since the 2000s than before.

It stops when folks stop focusing on a singular angle to create arguments in bad faith. There’s a thousand examples of behavior that shouldn’t be tolerated that at some point in the last 200 years, society tolerated. Likewise, there’s a thousand examples of behavior that wasn’t tolerated by society that we by and large think should be tolerated.

But instead of talking about the merits of the behavior, folks want to throw out the “tolerance” card.

You want that to stop? Then stop.