![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://programming.dev/pictrs/image/170721ad-9010-470f-a4a4-ead95f51f13b.png)
Upvote for use of real interrobang alone.
Upvote for use of real interrobang alone.
I’ve no significant opinion of India beyond anti-Modi, and that’s a product of John Oliver. Most of my engineering team are Indian and some I like, some I tolerate. And a fear of Indian traffic by reputation alone.
But you could swap “American” with “Indian” in that first paragraph, change nothing else, and it be largely (if not entirely) accurate.
My grandmother was the county coroner for a while. She was a pharmacist professionally. In those places, it’s more “give it a quick kick and say they’re dead” (she never did that) more than anything else. She only declared death, not attribute cause to my knowledge.
The other part of it is that, for whatever reason, in my county the only higher arresting authority than the sheriff was the coroner. It was her job to serve him with papers when he was being sued and, not that it ever came up, arrest him when it needed done.
Weird system.
What, my ~7 paragraphs isn’t simple? /s
You’re correct. I think I was chafing at the systems in question predisposing friendliness to mean modes that I personally am unskilled at or uncomfortable with despite my value.
My problem with your example is that the loner didn’t have comparable value. If it was supporting other things, then it failed. If it was doing something non obvious, it shouldn’t be compared to the support. It feels fallacious, though I can’t name one specifically.
System sight is itself an issue. Many companies evaluate an employee solely on some performance metric, typically tied to money. Because it’s easy (and lazy).
I’ve had several positions where my task was to keep things running. I added no value, I prevented loss. And those positions get screwed because they’re very difficult to quantify worth and very hard to see (and if it doesn’t create money, they don’t care). You only notice them when something goes wrong. Such an employee may keep everything running all year and get a “meets expectations” because there’s an upper limit on how much contribution the system sees, and the system doesn’t want to put in the effort to see better. I may have had to climb over an air handler to get to a transducer to calibrate, but that’s not sexy and even if I report such effort, it’s what I’m supposed to do (even if I wasn’t, weekend nights are weird).
No one is going to write down “keep machine running 80% of the time” because people unassociated with the task will insist that 100% is the expectation, despite that being unreasonable.
A system built of people is not a black box. We can see them and evaluate them based on the task they’re supposed to do, but the evaluators don’t want to put in the effort to do their tasks in a way that means more work for them.
There’s a comment to be made also about scope creep for a position so that a company doesn’t have to hire marketing and engineering if they can get the engineers to do it. Despite them being suboptimal for the task. Something something down with unrestrained capitalism.
Ok. I’ve lost the plot at this point and made my point. Have a good one.
That’s a pretty contrived setup. If the two top components are not factored into the performance of the whole and they are both defined by their ability to improve other components, then the one doing it’s own thing is not, in fact, a top performer. It’s task is to support others and it fails to do so.
And what if the loner’s task is foundational? It doesn’t have much direct output, but if he’s gone and everything else goes to shit? Those ones are very hard to measure. I know, that’s been my job for a good portion of my career. And things like that are common. Expecting a given performer, say an engineer, to also be good at public speaking has always struck me as impractical.
Were you predisposed to vote for Trump? Then yes.
Yup. There’s an appeal to a simple job that you can just do and no larger stress beyond the physical. But if that job involves waste of assorted kind, then you gotta pay enough and treat people with dignity.
I’m so ashamed I didn’t immediately think of that. That comic was the first thought any time someone used ‘adjective-ass noun’ for years.
I knew what it was, but I was panicked and unable to calm down before it passed. I was deeply affected by not being able to move anything. I imagine other personality/neuro types would handle it differently, but I did not care for it.
That said, I get being curious about experiencing something benign but possibly scary.
I’ve had this. No you don’t. It isn’t fun. Experiencing full body paralysis for a minute was a deeply unsettling and terrifying experience. I hated every second. Unless you’re prepared in some way, having the presence of mind to try to sleep again seems difficult.
I didn’t have a hallucination with that one though. I have that with a different parasomnia. I’ve had a hypnopompic (upon walking up) hallucination one time. That was freaky but only lasted a few seconds.
That seems like a perfectly normal phrase…
The American way.
The ones near me don’t, but it’s still there. Just push buttons till it’s quiet. For mine, it’s the fourth button.
Did you have my professor for intro to C? This guy was well known for failing people for plagiarism on projects where the task was basically “hello world”. And he disallowed using if/else for the first month of class.
I imagine the mental gymnastics are way easier if you’re uninformed about how things work.
Does it qualify as bad faith if I ask my previous questions knowing that he had nothing and/or complete unhinged nonsense?
Fair, I intended that more as an idiom really. I mean whether or not the punishment goes through. He’s so damned slippery I’m not taking anything as truth until the buildings have been seized/ he’s in jail.
But yeah, they did make up their minds there.
Is this not the point of a trial? To ascertain fact and adjudicate appropriately? Hell, this is explicitly the point of a grand jury, to determine if a trial is merited in the first place. And they’ve found, several times, that taking the charges to trial is justified. Not even that he’s guilty, but that it’s worth looking into.
Additionally, what facts am I missing? He wasn’t exactly subtle with seeking to commit crimes (“Only stupid people pay taxes” comes to mind as a softball, but the fact that he was never held to the emoluments clause also stands out. Plus all the fraud and rape). Where is the misunderstanding in all this? He was found to be a rapist by a judge. He was found to have committed fraud by a different judge.
I’m in a doctor’s office and trying so hard not to disturb everyone around me and it’s not going well.