spangry

Was that on a per-thread basis i.e. if I start a thread, I have the power to publicly ban other users who reply to my thread?

> After you fold, three things happen:

> Word gets out that “all you need to do to get a raise is to ask for it.” You have sent out the message that raises aren’t tied to performance.

> Less aggressive employees will be denied a raise simply by being apolitical.

> The lesson to your team is that the most politically astute employees get raises. Prepare for more politics!

If an employee comes to you with a 'competitive offer' (read: pays more), then it means someone else judges their market wage to be higher than what you are paying. If your assessment of that employee's value is higher than the amount they're being offered, you should admit to yourself that the jig is up, they're no longer going to accept being paid below their market wage, and you should match or better the offer. It's not 'caving', it's paying a sufficient wage to retain a valued employee. It's not 'politics', it's the labour market. I find the whole undertone of this section, that it's somehow being sneaky or 'political' for an employee to figure out that you're underpaying them, to be borderline offensive.

Fine, your perfectly rational strategy might be to sacrifice one high-value employee so you can continue to underpay your other employees (wouldn't want them to get the idea that they can ask for a raise, right?), but it's the dishonesty of this section that gets me.

Their proposed solutions are equally silly:

> Put a process around raises. Do them annually, and don’t make them out of band.

> Create a leveling system that can be referred to objectively.

> Never cave to people who have competing offers.

Sounds like a good way to steadily lose your best talent to your labour market competitors.

Giving these dummies what they want won't defuse anything. Thus far, doing so has not retarded the progress of this sort of language policing, but has led to increasingly insane demands. It's like handing your lunch money over to a bully in the hopes she will stop bullying you.

I think the way to stop outrage culture is to stop incentivising 'outrage' by refusing to indulge these lunatics.

For example: "Hey John, I'm spangry and I just started this week in team foo. So and so tells me that you're the resident expert on x. I'm planning to do some work related to x and figured, given I'm new and all, I should talk to you before starting. Have you got a moment to talk about x?" Then ask your favour and they will likely oblige. After you've thanked them, that's your opportunity to launch into a more general conversation where you show interest in their background or subject of interest (e.g. 'So how long have you been at [company] for? Got any tips for a new starter?' or 'I did a little research on x before calling and read that y is a big issue at the moment. Just curious, what's your take on y issue?')

It goes without saying that being genuinely interested and curious about them helps greatly. I think the above works because (1) most people want to help, and they remember what it was like to be new (2) it's respectful, even flattering, that you're coming to them for their expertise and (3) broadening the conversation (but still keeping it on safe ground) generates additional conversation paths and further opportunities for building rapport.

Lastly, asking for small favours (which are obliged) may actually make people like you more as a post-hoc rationalisation for why they did you the favour (this is known as the Ben Franklin effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Franklin_effect).

I configured an Alpine Linux docker container with openvpn and a proxy server (I think I settled on squid for stability), and a bash script to to start up the openvpn connection and proxy server with config for both passed into the container. Then just generated a long, line by line list of every possible vpn connection config line by line, shuffled and duplicated.

Then in my outer scraping function: grab a line from the config file, start up a vpn-proxy container (passing in the config), do one page download through the container proxy and then stop and delete the docker container. This allowed me to download pages in parallel, with all connections originating from different IP addresses (as long as I made sure not to exceed VPN simultaneous connection limits).

Kinda messy, and I spent ages fiddling to get the container config just right, but it worked.

Listening to the piece first is always helpful, but be careful not to become overly dependent on learning by ear - it can cripple your sight reading in the long run. Same goes for separate hand practice. While both of these can speed up your progress early on, becoming a good sight reader pays dividends later on.

So both sides of US politics, and their surrogates in the media, are incentivised to stir up outrage against their opponent, leading to a more divided country in the long run.

"This tool provides teachers an opportunity to examine their actions, beliefs, and values around teaching mathematics. The framework for deconstructing racism in mathematics offers essential characteristics of antiracist math educators and critical approaches to dismantling white supremacy in math classrooms by making visible the toxic characteristics of white supremacy culture (Jones and Okun 2001; dismantling Racism 2016) with respect to math. Building on the framework, teachers engage with critical praxis in order to shift their instructional beliefs and practices towards antiracist math education. By centering antiracism, we model how to be antiracist math educators with accountability."

> Why do some social problems seem so intractable? In a series of experiments, we show that people often respond to decreases in the prevalence of a stimulus by expanding their concept of it. When blue dots became rare, participants began to see purple dots as blue; when threatening faces became rare, participants began to see neutral faces as threatening; and when unethical requests became rare, participants began to see innocuous requests as unethical. This “prevalence-induced concept change” occurred even when participants were forewarned about it and even when they were instructed and paid to resist it. Social problems may seem intractable in part because reductions in their prevalence lead people to see more of them.

The board positions are elected so these sorts of policies are presumably what the people of San Francisco want.

The whole employment services provider model is a weird frankenstein pseudo-market which operates according to bureaucratic rules and artificial 'prices'. And this model requires the bureaucracy to monitor the pseudo-bureaucracy (employment service providers) to ensure they're delivering employment services appropriately. The thinking behind this model is similar to arguments made in favour of privatisation - that private firms will always be more efficient than direct government service provision.

Lots of policy trade-offs to consider: Should government directly provide employment services or is a pseudo-private market more efficient? Should we just drop mutual obligation entirely at the cost of potentially higher structural and hardcore unemployment (and so higher government outlays on transfer payments)?

There are countries that 'action' this exact policy. Take Australia for example. Unemployment payments are based on the concept of mutual obligation, where those receiving unemployment benefits must demonstrate that they are searching or training for future employment: https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/individuals/topics/mutu...

Those who are unable to work, based on certain medical eligibility criteria, do not have to meet mutual obligation requirements to receive the disability support pension: https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/individuals/services/ce...

> You can also contribute to society in ways that are not defined as work. What happens to someone that is taking care of children, or taking care of their sick parents? Should they be assisted financially, or not? If so, how do you define that?

Again, this is a policy question that is answered in Australia and which is implemented administratively via the 'carer payment': https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/individuals/services/ce...

I agree with your point that people will fall through the cracks and that there will be mistakes in administering any system like this. But that is simply the nature of a rules-based bureaucratic system, which trade off the ability to handle edge cases with scalability.

Perhaps not the best example. Two people have been shot and killed in the CHAZ, one of them a 16 year old boy who was killed by CHAZ 'security forces'.

People are fast growing tired of China's aggressive and abusive approach to 'diplomacy'.