partial_accumen

I’m not seeing a correlation only argument here. Where would there be correlation without causation with what I’ve posted?

I always thought the bigger miss of the common phrase is this: If “With great power comes great responsibility” then the converse must also be true “With NO POWER comes NO responsibility”. The level of responsibility must scale in direct proportion to the amount of power you have. If your boss is blaming you for something you have little to no control over, then it isn’t your responsibility, and you deserve no blame.

Your manager saying “You need to find someone to cover your shift” would then be bullshit. Unless you have the power to hire additional staff, allow for allowed time off for regular life events, or increase the pay of staff to make others more readily want to take the shift, I don’t see enough power for it to be your responsibility.

“Hiddenday”

It would be a day locked away from everyone’s consciousness until the day’s arrival. You’d be expecting your normal 7 day week, and go to bed Sunday night. Then the day after Sunday you’d wake will full knowledge of Hiddenday and everything you’ve ever done on prior Hiddendays. You’d already have a plan and knowledge if you were choosing to go to work to earn extra money, if you’d be staying home resting just a bit more, or going out to spend time with friends or family. You’d go to sleep on Hiddenday night knowing you’d forget the specific details of what you did that day ( but that you’d have that knowledge back next Hiddenday in 7 days). You’d wake up Monday morning remembering yesterday was Sunday, but you’d have any knowledge you accumulated the hidden day prior. If you worked and are paid hourly, you’d see an extra 8 hours of pay on your payslip, and no one would ever question why there were more hours. You’d carry the same rested feeling you had going to sleep on Hiddenday night but not know exactly why. Your family would tell you how much they loved spending time with you this week, and you’d feel the same, but you couldn’t put your finger on exactly which day that happened.

We’d all go to work on Monday thinking how wonderful it would be if there was a 8th day.

Older movies, but these themes are central to both The Net and Enemy of the State.

That said, the fingernail thing isn’t a myth.

Oh I don’t think flip/foldables are impervious to a strong enough press from a fingernail, I’m just of the opinion that phones get beat and broken all the time. That a flip/foldable is susceptible to a different kind of damage isn’t a dealbreaker for me.

I feel like its a bad idea for people to buy these. I mean… the screen are weak plastics that can get damaged by a fingernail.

I’ve never had a screen scratch on my flipable from a fingernail. Also, how many people do you see walking around with a blown out cracked glass screen on non-foldables? People are hard on all phones.

Seems like an expensive buy for such a terrible durability. A terrible deal in my opinion.

They’re just not that expensive secondhand which is how I buy them. You can see you can get last year’s flagship model for $200 to $400. If you get the 2023 model its even cheaper at $100-$200.

At this cost who cares if it breaks in two to three years?

What even is the use-case for these, anyways?

They are VERY small compared to normal mobile phones and you can put it in your pocket. I really like that.

What climb? Its still down 8.61% since he took office. Crazy to celebrate losing almost 9%.

By contrast Biden’s second to last year was UP 24.23%. His last year was up yet another 23.31%.

To put dollars on this:

• If under Biden you’d put $100,000 into the S&P500 on Jan 2023 on Dec 31 2023 you’d have $124,230.
• If still under Biden you left your $124,230 in the S&P500 on Dec 31 2024 you’d have $153,188.01.
• Under trump if you’d put $100,000 into the S&P500 on Jan 2025 by today Apr 13th 2023 you’d have $91,390

I see no cause for celebration here.

I’ve always seen the distinction as:

• knowledge = the body of facts
• wisdom = ability to apply knowledge to situations in the world and your life

In our society the word “smart” can be applied to either one. Ken Jennings, legendary game show player of Jeopardy, is considered smart because of his extensive depth of knowledge of trivia. I content Method Man (and other members of the Wu-Tang Clan) along with Raider Ruckus are wise for encapsulating the idea of “Cash rules everything around me, C.R.E.A.M., get the money, Dollar, dollar bill y’all”.

You’re citing Bentham Utilitarianism but you could make a stronger argument for your side if you cited Kant I would think.

If a child is homosexual, I would argue its unethical to teach them they are freak of nature and they are wrong or broken. However, its not illegal.

Their kid, their call up until the point the child’s safety is in danger.

You’re answering the legal question instead of OP’s ethical question. You’re not wrong in your legal answer, but that wasn’t what OP was asking.

The font-ends I use are called serifs.

Worse, they even forced it on Windows Server 2008 (and 2008R2). That interface had no business being on servers which many times only were only accessible by narrow higher latency remote links and many times without mice.

You cited a US law there. If you are a citizen of the United States through any other means beside birth on US soil, I would not do anything currently to put a spotlight on that like making a name change. The current administration is obsessed with expelling people and their efforts are coming up short so they keep lowering the bar for who they go after seeking the smallest excuse to deport people to make up their quota.

Maybe revisit this idea in a few years or if you decide to leave the country for more sane lands.

At least one.

I’d recommend you increase your sample size to give you additional perspective.

The problem is, I know, and everyone else knows, work culture originates top down. We’ve all had power hungry managers and we know their games.

This is too simplistic a view.

Yes, work culture originates from the top, but once in place the corporate culture is supported and re-enforced by middle managers and even the workers themselves. So once that original corporate culture is in place, swapping out the CEO doesn’t change it. It is very very difficult to change an org once it’s culture is set. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard that a process can’t be changed “because we’ve always done it like this”. Sometimes purging existing culture means firing a number of managers and workers that are unconscionably enforcing the existing culture before new work culture can exit. Sometimes it means the entire org has to go.

What it sounds like you’re describing is more of a middle management problem. As in, you’ve been under micromanagers or straight up narcissistic psychos that rose to a position of power, and use their power to abuse those under them. If those kind of people ever rise to executive leadership or even a CEO that usually means the pretty quick firing of that person or the org goes under/gets acquired.

My experience with executives is that they don’t necessarily want yes men, but there’s a range of acceptable criticism or feedback that they’ll accept. As long as you’re within that range, it’s fine.

I’ll agree with this.

If you try to address fundamental problems that might require real change… well those people tend to get suppressed.

Potentially true. I remember trying this too when I was really young in my career and getting sidelined. What I know now is that I had no idea what the hell I was talking about. I thought I knew enough, but really I just had a fraction of understanding. I had an older mentor give me some guidance around that time I didn’t understand until later, but after decades in the workplace I know how I screwed up.

They’ll happily take feedback on meeting structure or project planning or whatever. But try to do a retrospective on what the true longterm costs of their decision to go with the cheap, but unreliable solution and they’ll blackball you.

There’s some truth to your statement, but you may be missing the bigger picture, and at a lower level, you’re not privy to information you would have needed to arrive at the decision leadership did. Your job at the lower levels is to execute on the plans of leadership. You do have a responsibility to use your mind and if you’re seeing risks (short term or long term), communicate those up the chain. However, leadership may already know those, or may know about bigger risks from not moving forward you’re not aware of.

Again, good leadership isn’t absolute. There are certainly idiot leaders and CEOs. There are also good people that are leaders and CEOs that are just out of their depth in areas. Both of these can result in the same thing that they make a bad decision and the organization and the workers could suffer.

They always want people to agree with them and they certainly have a bloated ego.

Your description doesn’t match my first hand experience of working with CEOs. A couple have acted like that, sure, but the vast majority were very stressed or miserable fighting to keep their organizations going. Honestly, seeing the job, I know I don’t want it.

How many CEOs do you know or have worked with directly?

If they do that then they’re removing the “intelligence” leaving them left with only the “artificial”.

I disagree with your showerthought though. CEOs aren’t typically looking for “yes men”. That’s a stereotype. Some are, sure.

CEOs are ecstatic about AI because of the possibility of replacing expensive human labor with cheap fixed costs of hardware, software and electricity .

I’ve given you my opinion. I don’t have to back anything up.

Don’t sell yourself short. You’ve got apathy, malice or ignorance.

I don’t think things are getting worse. You do.

So you refuse to defend your spoken position with anything concrete, even though I’ve asked you about multiple specific examples that contradict your position.

And I don’t think any of this should add to the “hate” problem that some see on Lemmy. Which is the point of OP’s post.

Well why would you? You seem to be just fine with the destruction of lives around you, even making supporting statements that you think its good these things are happening to these people. Why do you think that your positions don’t deserve hateful responses? Lemmy doesn’t have a “hate” problem. Today’s leadership in the USA, and as a consequence, our society now does.

Hate isn’t the answer

I agree with that statement. However, your chosen positions are steeped in hate yet you defer or ignore it. That wreaks of hypocrisy on your part, and points back to the intellectual dishonesty I accused you of earlier.