• 3 Posts
  • 99 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 21st, 2023

help-circle












  • I wish I could remember where I saw it, but years ago I read something in relation to policing that said a certain amount of human inefficiency in a process is actually a good thing to help balance bias and over reach that could occur when technology could technically do in seconds what would take a human days or months.

    In this case if a person is enough of a problem that their face becomes known at certain branches of a store it’s entirely reasonable for that store to post a sign with their face saying they are aren’t allowed. In my mind it would essentially create a certain equilibrium in terms of consequences and results. In addition to getting in trouble for stealing itself, that individual person also has a certain amount of hardship placed on them that may require they travel 40 minutes to do their shopping instead of 5 minutes to the store nearby. A sign and people’s memory also aren’t permanent, so it’s likely that after a certain amount of time that person would probably be able to go back to that store if they had actually grown out of it.

    Or something to that effect. If they steal so much that they become known to the legal system there should be processes in place to address it.

    And even with all that said, I’m just not that concerned with theft at large corporate retailers considering wage theft dwarfs thefts by individuals by at least an order of magnitude.


  • I would likely in turn ask what makes him a bad person?

    As I alluded to I have plenty of criticisms of him, but does that make him a bad person? Maybe using the terms “good” and “bad” are a bit too binary. Like a lot of things in life those terms can be at least somewhat subjective and most people exist on a spectrum. Most people however don’t have large portions of their personality exposed to the world to see, nor do they have the livelihoods of over 100 people relying on that personality. I know for a fact that if my personality were broadcast to as many people as his is there are plenty of people who would take issue with certain aspects of it.

    As to why I don’t lump him in with people like Elon Musk or Jack Welch? He doesn’t strike me as being a complete self interested sociopath. He seems like he is usually trying to do right by those around him and that he does care about those people. For example the turnover rate at LMG is very low in comparison to other related industries. If he were that terrible to his employees it’s pretty hard to retain people as smart and talented as a lot of them are if they don’t like it there.

    I could come up with a lot of examples where he made some pretty bad decisions or how he doesn’t know when to shut the fuck up, but does that make him a bad person? At worst he strikes me as someone a bit brash and ambitious that got really lucky before learning how to temper that and is now having to learn it as he goes along while sometimes being in over his head.


  • TonyOstrich@lemmy.worldtoMemes @ Reddthat@reddthat.comDifficult decisions
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I have a similar sentiment about Linus. He seems like he is overall a decent person, and I bet we would probably even be decent friends if we were to meet at a time before LTT/LMG, but I agree about wanting to punch him in the face sometimes. Some of the things he decides to dig his heels in about and be stubborn are really annoying. If he were just one of my friends, it would be pretty easy to either have a rational conversation with him or decide not to engage seriously and roast him about it, but instead he has a very large platform and a certain amount of influence that makes some of his takes a little more frustrating/damaging.

    All of that said, I have still had worse bosses and the bulk of my career has probably been spent working at much less fun companies.

    I’m not sure where I was going with that other than acknowledging that nuance exists and that he isn’t evil or anything, just annoying.


  • Chiming in to echo others with my experience in my current job I had three interviews (that I remember, but I think it might have actually been four). The interviews that I remember in order were HR, engineering management, the rest of the engineering team. The HR interview was by phone and mostly to validate that we were on the same page as far as things like pay, qualifications, job description, etc. The second interview was with engineering management and done via Teams with video. The third was in person and in addition to another brief talk with engineering management they also showed me where I would be working and had me talk to various people on my current team to see how they liked me.

    It has pros and cons. The biggest con I think is having HR and ATS at the front of the process as there are likely really good candidates that are filtered out as a result of not being able to balance their resume in such a way that both HR and Engineering sees their value.






  • Ehhh, I get what you are saying but I would rephrase the above poster’s comment a little then. If a person is paying for 100Mbps and they are able to get/find a source or some combination of sources that are able to supply them 100mbps of data then that’s what they should be getting. The easiest example being a torrent for popular Linux distros.

    I personally think the solution to that should be some kind of regulatory minimum around the advertisement of speed or contractual service obligation. For example if a person pays for a 100Mbps connection then the ISP should be required to supply that speed at +/- 5% instantaneous and -.5% on average (because if you give them a range you know they will maintain the lowest possible speed to be in compliance).

    Don’t look too hard at my numbers, I pulled them out of my ass, but hopefully it gets across the idea.


  • Nah, don’t regret saying what you did. I’m mildly on the spectrum and I completely understand what you were saying. The issue here (and most places really) is that of nuance and intent. Within the conversation you have things being filleted through absurd funny lenses as well as serious ones and everyone basically picks which combination they want to look through.

    Sharing your own experience and perspective didn’t negate anyone else’s and you were pretty clear about neutral in your presentation. For whatever any of that is worth.