While more than job culture might be needed to make it into a suicide, I think it's plenty important to note that misery and hopelessness can easily come out of job culture alone, and this article should be a wake-up call for that.
Some people are naturally courageous. Others can easily find themselves in this situation. You were once a great developer. Now you moved to a new job, and miss a few deadlines. They tell you you're not so hot. Maybe overtly, maybe not -- maybe they just hound you about stuff over and over, or rewrite all your code, or not invite you to important meetings. At first you may still think, I am still a great engineer, they are just treating me unfairly. After a while, though, many people start to believe, I do suck, and it's kind of a fluke of resume that I actually got hired here in the first place. Maybe I can't get another job. Maybe I haven't spoken to my recommenders in years. Maybe there's other pressure -- not to be misogynistic, but I've been there personally -- maybe the wife spends 100% of their income. So what do you do? You're stuck. Without depression, maybe you don't do anything drastic, you just slowly let your health deteriorate. Doesn't sound so unbelievable to me.
Maybe you start having panic attacks, and attend group therapy, where your therapist drops dead in front of you, and then THAT finally gets you to make a change...
Walking away is hard. You never know how you will deal with it until you're in the situation. In many cases, toxic situations have the tendency to reduce self-esteem -- after missing a few deadlines, he may have been convinced his talent had dried up. They also tend to create (possibly true and possibly false) impressions about the consequences of leaving -- "never work in this town again", or maybe on a lesser note, now he has nobody to ask for a letter of recommendation. And the thing is, it doesn't take overtly evil people to cause this -- it can happen even with just callousness and arrogance.
And yes, some people are naturally courageous, and I truly envy them.
It's also OK to change your mind, and say one side had a point. On at least one issue. But that's a far cry from the current regime. As Bill Maher said, "I'd convert to Mormonism to get Mitt Romney in the White House now." Also keep in mind not everyone unites 100% behind every 'mocker' or person on the same side. Dems are well known for NOT uniting with each other enough -- we do think independently, even if those straw men put up never seem to...
No, but quite frequently you deal with "different" but effectively the same corporations. They reduce to suboptimal consumer outcomes because of prisoner-dilemma type situations. Government protections are a way around this.
"If a community simply predicts the potential damage or harm a company can do, and requires a protective financial bond to cover said risk, it would minimize riisks by factoring in a cost to the companies"
Get libertarians to infiltrate the Republicans and advocate for a carbon tax based on that.
We can argue the finer points of regulation after we solve that one
However all that does is shift regulatory and legislative capture to judicial corruption.
Does that also have the side effect of being reactive instead of proactive, as well? (I.e. you have to wait for measurable damages before a suit can be filed?)
The usefulness of looking at the collective good is as a tool to look at individual good -- without actually picking a particular person. The goal is the same -- you want to maximize an individual's happiness. Just "independent of coordinate system". It is impossible to maximize each individual's objective independently, since everyone is competing for shared resources, there will be trade-offs.
that people make mistakes. It happens. Would be nice if we could just relax, it wasn't a NASA launch or anything. Don't need to get the process engineers and managers coming out of the woodwork to figure out how to make the system 'more resilient'...
These are all deflections of the argument. Different people are trying different solutions to the same global catastrophic problem, people with different opinions on what they don't mind giving up. Don't like the solutions? Then come to the table, and we'll negotiate a better one we can all agree on. Don't deflect and deny.
Couple of side points: (1) No, it is not the "same people" protesting nuclear plants as trying to combat global warming. (2) Solutions don't have to be terribly invasive. Markets show great progress on the cost of renewable energy sources (Source), all we need is a slight bump (probably subsidy) to make sure they win in the near term instead of the distant future. (3) You want to ban charter flights, fine. It doesn't take away from the message. In fact it only strengthens it -- change will not ever happen at the consumer level, because it's very difficult to give up convenience for the greater good, especially if one's peers don't either. It's really just the prisoner's dilemma, scaled up. And as a really minor note, Di Caprio did pay a voluntary carbon tax to offset emissions from flying to produce "Before the Flood."
There is plenty of evidence. To all who disagree with climate science -- what would change your mind? If the answer is 'nothing', then your belief is not falsifiable, and that's a problem.
I completely agree -- and as a very left-leaning person myself, what boggles me is that affordable housing is supposed to be a core tenet of liberalism, and yet, it seems like it's not a priority at all in practice! I live in MA now, and it has the same issues. There are no affordable homes unless you want to live far from your job, or have a (both well-paid) dual income household. And you will probably live in an 80 year old house with poor insulation to boot.
I always thought that in the future, the cost of necessities like shelter would decrease, and increase in quality. It's the future now, and it hasn't happened. It's not that I feel entitled to these things, but it just seems like it should be doable as a society. Just... build more, and build higher. But instead we prioritize home prices, historical districts, and keeping certain towns such that they are "a privilege to be able to live in."
Yes, most of those sound good. However, the problem with libertarianism in general is the prisoner's dilemma: any situation where the best solution requires nobody to "cheat", will always devolve into everyone "cheating" if there is no external regulation. And the sad fact is it's very common -- health care, treatment of workers, pollution, education, banking... they all fall victim to this phenomenon.
It's more complicated than that. The fact is, we need to reduce our carbon footprint as a whole, not necessarily cap it. We can approach the solution from a criminal standpoint, or a civil one. Is it criminally wrong to pollute, or does it simply come with a cost? Assuming the latter, which I think is reasonable, then you simply need to have your activities cost to you, the actual/projected cost of emitting that CO_2, long-term. Will it cause sea level rise and property damage? How much? Etc.
At that point, it becomes a matter of paying for it. Who can afford to pollute? The rich. If pricing is done reasonably, even the rich would think twice, and only the billionaires would be able to do it regularly. Is that OK with us as a society? You might think that sounds unfair. But I think the issue is less, should billionaires be able to do it, than, should there really be billionaires? Regardless of the answer, I think having 10-20 of them carting around in their planes is not the worst effect they will have caused in their lives.
That said, Leo's actions can be justified in a different sense, in that, if having made this film has an impact enough to cause people to care about climate change, then the negative cost in emissions of the film would be easily balanced out. Also at the end it says they paid a voluntary carbon tax -- maybe we haven't reached a point where the amount calculated is accurate, but it's a start.
I agree that doing something about it is more effective, and it also has the side benefit of also raising awareness. That said, doing things by yourself will not solve the problem, and I refuse to judge people who choose not to, as hypocrites. Myself, coming off of a bad situation, neither own property nor have much time of my own to plan eco-friendly activities. I can't afford to live closer to work -- and changing jobs is moot, since all the good tech companies in my area are actually in or immediately around the city. Going out of your way to make an impact can strain you if you're not already in a comfortable position. I would love to do them nonetheless, but only if everyone else had to do it as well. It's the prisoner's dilemma -- we all had better cooperate (via policy), otherwise I'll be the poor sap sacrificing myself for my ideals, when my neighbor will enjoy his Hummer, paid for by the savings from shopping at Walmart.
I have a thought, that if you live in a world complex enough that can give rise to self-replicating life and consciousness, then it's probably real enough.
It's like being Turing complete...
Slashdot Mirror
While more than job culture might be needed to make it into a suicide, I think it's plenty important to note that misery and hopelessness can easily come out of job culture alone, and this article should be a wake-up call for that.
Some people are naturally courageous. Others can easily find themselves in this situation. You were once a great developer. Now you moved to a new job, and miss a few deadlines. They tell you you're not so hot. Maybe overtly, maybe not -- maybe they just hound you about stuff over and over, or rewrite all your code, or not invite you to important meetings. At first you may still think, I am still a great engineer, they are just treating me unfairly. After a while, though, many people start to believe, I do suck, and it's kind of a fluke of resume that I actually got hired here in the first place. Maybe I can't get another job. Maybe I haven't spoken to my recommenders in years. Maybe there's other pressure -- not to be misogynistic, but I've been there personally -- maybe the wife spends 100% of their income. So what do you do? You're stuck. Without depression, maybe you don't do anything drastic, you just slowly let your health deteriorate. Doesn't sound so unbelievable to me.
Maybe you start having panic attacks, and attend group therapy, where your therapist drops dead in front of you, and then THAT finally gets you to make a change...
I'd say there's a decent chance of lawsuit if this happened at any company.
oops, meant to reply to grandparent :)
Walking away is hard. You never know how you will deal with it until you're in the situation. In many cases, toxic situations have the tendency to reduce self-esteem -- after missing a few deadlines, he may have been convinced his talent had dried up. They also tend to create (possibly true and possibly false) impressions about the consequences of leaving -- "never work in this town again", or maybe on a lesser note, now he has nobody to ask for a letter of recommendation. And the thing is, it doesn't take overtly evil people to cause this -- it can happen even with just callousness and arrogance.
And yes, some people are naturally courageous, and I truly envy them.
Actually, they have extensions you can request :)
It's also OK to change your mind, and say one side had a point. On at least one issue. But that's a far cry from the current regime. As Bill Maher said, "I'd convert to Mormonism to get Mitt Romney in the White House now." Also keep in mind not everyone unites 100% behind every 'mocker' or person on the same side. Dems are well known for NOT uniting with each other enough -- we do think independently, even if those straw men put up never seem to...
No, but quite frequently you deal with "different" but effectively the same corporations. They reduce to suboptimal consumer outcomes because of prisoner-dilemma type situations. Government protections are a way around this.
Just put it in the tube. It'll get there.
"If a community simply predicts the potential damage or harm a company can do, and requires a protective financial bond to cover said risk, it would minimize riisks by factoring in a cost to the companies"
Get libertarians to infiltrate the Republicans and advocate for a carbon tax based on that. We can argue the finer points of regulation after we solve that one
However all that does is shift regulatory and legislative capture to judicial corruption.
Does that also have the side effect of being reactive instead of proactive, as well? (I.e. you have to wait for measurable damages before a suit can be filed?)
The usefulness of looking at the collective good is as a tool to look at individual good -- without actually picking a particular person. The goal is the same -- you want to maximize an individual's happiness. Just "independent of coordinate system". It is impossible to maximize each individual's objective independently, since everyone is competing for shared resources, there will be trade-offs.
that people make mistakes. It happens. Would be nice if we could just relax, it wasn't a NASA launch or anything. Don't need to get the process engineers and managers coming out of the woodwork to figure out how to make the system 'more resilient'...
Or what about Sneezy, Phylum, Europe, Sloth, Guacamole, Data Link, Colossus of Rhodes? https://www.xkcd.com/1417/
Or we could just skip to putting the machines in charge.
I think I'm on the nocturnal plan. Blue light reminds me of dawn, as you say, and actually puts me to sleep...
These are all deflections of the argument. Different people are trying different solutions to the same global catastrophic problem, people with different opinions on what they don't mind giving up. Don't like the solutions? Then come to the table, and we'll negotiate a better one we can all agree on. Don't deflect and deny.
Couple of side points: (1) No, it is not the "same people" protesting nuclear plants as trying to combat global warming. (2) Solutions don't have to be terribly invasive. Markets show great progress on the cost of renewable energy sources (Source), all we need is a slight bump (probably subsidy) to make sure they win in the near term instead of the distant future. (3) You want to ban charter flights, fine. It doesn't take away from the message. In fact it only strengthens it -- change will not ever happen at the consumer level, because it's very difficult to give up convenience for the greater good, especially if one's peers don't either. It's really just the prisoner's dilemma, scaled up. And as a really minor note, Di Caprio did pay a voluntary carbon tax to offset emissions from flying to produce "Before the Flood."
into the Third Life!
There is plenty of evidence. To all who disagree with climate science -- what would change your mind? If the answer is 'nothing', then your belief is not falsifiable, and that's a problem.
I completely agree -- and as a very left-leaning person myself, what boggles me is that affordable housing is supposed to be a core tenet of liberalism, and yet, it seems like it's not a priority at all in practice! I live in MA now, and it has the same issues. There are no affordable homes unless you want to live far from your job, or have a (both well-paid) dual income household. And you will probably live in an 80 year old house with poor insulation to boot.
I always thought that in the future, the cost of necessities like shelter would decrease, and increase in quality. It's the future now, and it hasn't happened. It's not that I feel entitled to these things, but it just seems like it should be doable as a society. Just... build more, and build higher. But instead we prioritize home prices, historical districts, and keeping certain towns such that they are "a privilege to be able to live in."
Yes, most of those sound good. However, the problem with libertarianism in general is the prisoner's dilemma: any situation where the best solution requires nobody to "cheat", will always devolve into everyone "cheating" if there is no external regulation. And the sad fact is it's very common -- health care, treatment of workers, pollution, education, banking... they all fall victim to this phenomenon.
It's more complicated than that. The fact is, we need to reduce our carbon footprint as a whole, not necessarily cap it. We can approach the solution from a criminal standpoint, or a civil one. Is it criminally wrong to pollute, or does it simply come with a cost? Assuming the latter, which I think is reasonable, then you simply need to have your activities cost to you, the actual/projected cost of emitting that CO_2, long-term. Will it cause sea level rise and property damage? How much? Etc.
At that point, it becomes a matter of paying for it. Who can afford to pollute? The rich. If pricing is done reasonably, even the rich would think twice, and only the billionaires would be able to do it regularly. Is that OK with us as a society? You might think that sounds unfair. But I think the issue is less, should billionaires be able to do it, than, should there really be billionaires? Regardless of the answer, I think having 10-20 of them carting around in their planes is not the worst effect they will have caused in their lives.
That said, Leo's actions can be justified in a different sense, in that, if having made this film has an impact enough to cause people to care about climate change, then the negative cost in emissions of the film would be easily balanced out. Also at the end it says they paid a voluntary carbon tax -- maybe we haven't reached a point where the amount calculated is accurate, but it's a start.
I agree that doing something about it is more effective, and it also has the side benefit of also raising awareness. That said, doing things by yourself will not solve the problem, and I refuse to judge people who choose not to, as hypocrites. Myself, coming off of a bad situation, neither own property nor have much time of my own to plan eco-friendly activities. I can't afford to live closer to work -- and changing jobs is moot, since all the good tech companies in my area are actually in or immediately around the city. Going out of your way to make an impact can strain you if you're not already in a comfortable position. I would love to do them nonetheless, but only if everyone else had to do it as well. It's the prisoner's dilemma -- we all had better cooperate (via policy), otherwise I'll be the poor sap sacrificing myself for my ideals, when my neighbor will enjoy his Hummer, paid for by the savings from shopping at Walmart.
New stellar physics would be cool too though.
Isn't that already how it is? Play CoD for more than 5 minutes without someone being accused of hax...
I have a thought, that if you live in a world complex enough that can give rise to self-replicating life and consciousness, then it's probably real enough. It's like being Turing complete...