Apologies for my lack of originality.
208 karma · joined September 5, 2018
I do wonder, though, how I would keep track of the list of phrases I'm no longer allowed to say without being fired, shunned, or worse.
Maybe it was always this way, and I never noticed.
I've been on one or two interviews where this requirement was brought up. For the common good, I just excuse myself.
It seems possible that some people can actually produce good results via pair programming, but I'm not aware of any examples myself.
What are they saying here that is objectionable, and what is your rebuttal?
Once you've seen the inside of the hiring process, you'll never take this stuff personally again. It's utter garbage. At best, the process manages to select for a few traits that are probably useful, while de-selecting for others they didn't realize were crucial for ultimate success.
If you doubt this, ask yourself how one of the tightest hiring sieves in the world managed to produce Google+.
More damningly, that article has nothing useful to add beyond ad hominems. Instead, try this: https://heterodoxacademy.org/social-science-hidden-tribes/
If it absolutely, positively has to work, don't do it with a Google account.
The telephone seems like a better model. Yes, people can do bad things with it, and law enforcement has significant resources for policing it. But we don't just turn off people's phones because we don't like them.
Is this really an offense worth ending someone's career over?
(And is it any surprise that we might all deduce the lesson if it is?)
This sort of willful misunderstanding of concerns feels like a subtle gaslighting campaign.
The vast majority of men being discussed here have zero problems in their treatment of women. They quite rationally have calculated that being around women at work is now a significant risk to them, with little or no upside in return, so they're bowing out.
You can preach all you like, but in my experience it's almost impossible to get people to act against their own self-interest, especially when the welfare of their loved ones is on the line.
Welcome to the new normal.
Does that sound awful? Does it matter, if it works?
Are we evolved to have religion? Maybe, but the answer to that has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether or not evolution itself is true.
This isn't exactly what the word "groped" conjures up in my mind. (I don't frequent the club scene, though, and I don't know anything about Brazilian culture.)
The judicial leeway comment was a separate issue, and was simply the consensus of several lawyers. I could have rolled the dice, but at best that would merely have decreased my ex's take, and her kids' financial situation, not improved mine. Every extra hour spent in a divorce does significant damage to your end net worth.
From a legal point of view, if you are or have recently made a lot of money, the ironclad assumption is that you will continue to do so, at least through the duration of alimony. There will be no mercy. On the flip side, at least in my case, the starting assumption is that the recipient will be able to earn zero, regardless or their skills or prior employment.
As for "fair", I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. Justice is just a fairy tale in my book.
One bit that surprised me is that there is no reluctance to set alimony (considered on an NPV basis) larger than your net worth. It kind of sucks to have every dollar you've ever saved wiped out in one stroke, replaced with a nice pile of debt.
In my case, made it clear during negotiations that I simply could not keep up with my current job, and planned to downsize dramatically. (All quite true.) Noble of me, but probably a mistake to mention during negotiations. I was in serious denial about just how far my ex would push things.