In a previous job, some coworkers and my boss perceived me as being grumpy. Resting B*tch Face, more reserved, generally didn't partipate in break time video game sessions. In reality I just wanted to get my work done and go home to the family. It was one of (though not the reason) I was let go from that position. I've tried to learn from that experience, but still struggle with fitting in with those who think work is social hour and seem to get ahead by schmoozing and not head-down work. I know it's a balance, but it seems rigged for the outwardly social.
Yeah I totally understand that. I think it's important to remember that people are social creatures generally speaking. So what one may view as schmoozing, others may see as simply being social and relating to each other. People enjoy feeling good and liked.
I got off on the wrong foot with a coworker. The first time I needed to talk to him was because his code wasn't working, he tried to blame user error, it did not go well.
It took me months at the coffee machine talking about anything he wanted to talk about before he warmed up. Now he's often the first to say 'hi' when I enter a meeting room or support an idea I presented, instead of avoiding me.
The Danish National Symphony Orchestra has a great rendition of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. The guest conductor is Sarah Hicks, of the Minnesota Orchestra
I don't understand this. For all of my life I thought racism = discrimination against someone due to their race. In the same way that sexist = discrimination against someone due to their sex. Ageist = discrimination against someone due to their age. Is this not the clear cut definition anymore? At what point did it diverge?
An '-ism' is an ideology which is used for organizing the world. The big difference is whether it's an individual ideology or a systemic ideology.
1 person renting out property = a rentier. Private ownership of land = capitalism.
1 person not hiring women = a misogynist. Companies not offering parental leave and assuming the primary caregiver is the mother = sexism.
Zuckerberg saying "young people are just smarter" = a bigot. Focusing on algorithms in software interviews which new-grads will have an easier time solving = ageism.
It's very common to call a prejudiced or discriminatory individual a "-ist" because the individual is subscribing to an ideology. But, that's emphasizing the individual rather than the society. If you only look at individual people as racist, they feel like isolated cases which don't have good solutions. Furthermore, you're absolving people who aren't explicitly discriminatory but who are still supporting systemic discrimination.
- This company will hire anyone who's qualified, but they're full of ivy-league graduates because they rely heavily on campus recruiters. Even though they aren't prejudiced when hiring, they are classist because they cater to high-class people.
- This bank will offer a mortgage to anyone with a steady paycheck and a safe-investment property. However, due to red-lining and racial covenants, Black people weren't able to purchase safe-investment homes so they didn't get good mortgages.
Granted, it's an uphill etymological battle because the individual usage is so common. When people argue for the systemic definition, they're arguing that we should focus on processes rather than individuals.
If you haven't noticed, we've spiraled down to the point where group think determines what is real, not facts or logic. If you can convince thousands people to scream that something is racist, then it "becomes" racist, no matter whether it meets any factual concrete definition of what racism is. Once this behavior started, it was then used as justification to change the definition of racism to something it never used to be.
While not directly related to buttons, recently my father ran into a deer, causing moderate damage to the front right bumper of his 2017 Suburban. It cost $5000 to repair due to all the sensors and technology. It would have been $1000 or less in a 1997 Suburban.
But when one of those sensors saves him from having a crash, or even saves his life, that $4k difference isn't worth even thinking about. Even a minor crash involving another car can cost well over $4k, after you consider how much your insurance rates are going to increase.
The vast majority of increasing complexity I see in vehicles in the last decade has nothing to do with life saving sensors, and more to do with gimmicky features.
But I agree, with driving being so hazardous to health I would certainly be willing to pay more for a vehicle that has a significantly improved accident survivability.
> While not directly related to buttons, recently my father ran into a deer
So, uh, he ran into a deer even with the sensors.
We could give the benefit of the doubt and say maybe the sensors slammed the brakes when the deer was on the road and did so before he could ever react but I doubt it.
I took a couple days off when my children are born, but as any dad/husband knows, after mom is set up at home and extended family visit and leave, there isn't much to do. I was bored after a few days so didn't mind working. Baby eats, poops, and naps. Dad gets in the way. :)
As a counterpoint, my paternity leave was one of the most rewarding experiences of my life. California provided 7 weeks; I took 3 weeks immediately after my daughter was born and the rest spread out over the first year of her life. My daughter was a relatively easy newborn to take care of, she didn’t have any serious health issues and she was (and still is, thankfully) a very good sleeper. Even so, being home the first 3 weeks was an invaluable help to my wife. My wife fed our daughter every 4-5 hours, so I helped do things like grocery shop, make food, change diapers, put the baby to sleep, do laundry, tidy the house, etc. so my wife could get some sleep in between feedings. I have very fond memories of my daughter falling asleep on my chest while swinging in our hammock. I wouldn’t trade that time for anything.
It's a shame people are down voting you for sharing a personal experience. Perhaps it's some sort of moral judgment?
My experience was similar. When my children were born my in-laws came to visit for months and did almost everything. There wasn't much for me to do and I felt like I was mostly just in the way, so after a couple weeks I went back to work. Fortunately I had a short commute and a somewhat flexible schedule so I could come out and help when needed.
> It's a shame people are down voting you for sharing a personal experience. Perhaps it's some sort of moral judgment
The "Dad just gets in the way" part earned my downvote. If that was his personal experience, well, there's no nice way to put this, but that means he's bad at being a dad/husband. Even if we accept that Dad has no role in breastfeeding, there's still diaper changes, laundry, baths, and cleaning up various messes. Then there's helping out mom recovering from child birth and all of the cooking/cleaning to support normal life. With all that needs to be done and the best you can do is just get in the way? Not a good look.
Ha! Thanks for the judgement. I'm a very good dad/husband, and I never said I did nothing. I just stated i went back to work after a few days. I was always home in the evenings, weekends, mornings.
Most of the cooking/cleaning can be done after work depending on your life style, so it seems a bit of a leap to suggest he wasn't doing that even if he was working.
Exactly. It wasn't like I wasn't around or did nothing. It's just from 9-5 I worked. Did chores / helped the wife out all other hours of the week. Not sure why it offended some. The traditional notion of nuclear family roles is really dying it appears.
This works in families where the extended family is actually useful and or respectful. In my case I was the only person available to directly support my wife after child birth.
