In all the back and forth that goes on, with people taking sides, and building up walls, it's lovely to see someone go back to basics, and actually say something simple and constructive!
Alas, mental illness being what it is, finding another job becomes impossible when you start suffering from some variants of it.. That's what led to the sad outcome.. But if there had been more of the friendly engagement, I suspect that it would never have gone as far as it did..
There's lots of "could have", but there are some cold, hard facts:
* One of the duties of the duties of man management is to ensure your staff are functioning correctly (not just meeting targets, but that they are not overloaded to the point of breaking them). If you don't believe someone is capable, you performance manage them (and either improve them or fire them). * The man had proved that he was eminently capable, by performing very well in similar roles at other companies. * His family had correctly identified that he was suffering from comorbid anxiety and depression and referred him to the doctor. * He had stated that his boss didn't like him (indicating problems with management).
As he had been performing extremely well, in well managed environments, then he is shown to be capable. As his family had identified this, it can be considered that he was dispaying symptoms serious enough that any person who dealt with people as a profession could have determined that there were serious problems. As it could, and should have been identified by management, why wasn't it? This is either a case of incompetence, or negligence. Either one leaves the company culpable, as management are there to act on behalf of the company. If it was identified, but company culture is to burn up and hire again, then this needs to change, or this will happen again. Legal action in this case is extremely well supported. If company policy isn't to run employees on maximum burn all the time, and this was a management failure, why was this manager in post if they were incapable of performing a core function of their job? The company hired them for this, so they take responsibility. Again, company culpable. Management isn't just about calculating figures and generating reports. If that's all they test, then they need a wake up call. Heavy legal case would help them re-evaluate.
I've had an episode very similar to this, and was very well on the way to "taking the 'easy way out' too". Management caught me in the spiral, brought HR in, and supported me though a heavy cycle of medical treatment and an analysis of the role, to bring it in line with what is actually workable (the role wasn't possible, though that's not how it was advertised to me before I joined). That's management and company working how it's supposed to work.
I'm definitely with you that the west lives to work though, in the main.. I've travelled a fair old bit myself, and consider Western values to be very skewed. But I'm very much of the opinion, from available information, that the employers have failed in their duties.
If.. If only he hadn't been that depressed.. I've been there and very narrowly survived the experience. It cost me dear, in many ways.. If it'd been caught and handled internally with HR referrals, and occupational health evaluations, and company referral to counselling services, along with management supporting a valid workload. Lots of ifs, and none of it happened.. Which resulted in a guy topping himself.. This is a sad story, and I don't see any way that Uber can come out of it looking good, as management should have intercepted (that level of depression is extremely obvious, and any manager tasked with man management can see it and can at least find the right person to refer to. If they didn't, they're either incompetent, or negligent. Either way, Uber as a company put that manager in place to represent them, so they carry the can).
You what? Nowhere does it say he had a bad family life (actually, the fact she got him to see a doctor indicates that she was doing all she could). So blaming his wife is flat out contrary to what the article indicates.
This is purely and simply a management issue. If the manager didn't catch severe depression from overwork coming up on one of his employees, they're no manager at all. It's a _huge_ part of management, ensuring that your staff are performing correctly (and that doesn't mean just 'hitting targets', that's easy, it means "they're performing as human beings, with resilience and sufficient endurance"). And yes, I do management as well as having done the working all the way up to it. Hell, I've run companies before, and keeping people with high morale as much as possible is what gets you through the tough times.
When you become depressed and anxious (the article indicates he was suffering from comorbid anxiety and depression), then looking for an alternative is _not_ an option. The brain convinces you that you're not capable, or that nobody would want you.. Or that he'd fail his family and it would all go wrong unless he kept the money coming in.. All sorts of things, so it makes you prone to trying to keep what stability is there... Though his history shows that he was clearly able to perform in well managed environments, and excel.
There is one obvious variable that changed, and that's his workplace. After working at Uber, he tanked, after excelling at previous similar roles. This points to management and environment causing undue anxiety leading to depression. This was not identified at Uber (him saying that "his boss didn't like him" was quite possibly true, and at least shows that there was a huge disconnect in his direct management).
Not sure what the internals of the company are generally like (though it sounds like there's vast rumbling of discontent, which indicates that it's not being run properly), but it definitely points to a failure of management, and management represent the company. It's going to legally be tough for them to wriggle out of.
Much though I dislike 'Ambulance Chasing', I don't think this is chasing ambulances. It's a failure and negligence on the part of the management chain, and possibly general management focus too. If there's no penalty to doing this, it'll continue.
So, the government are guilty of failing to take Simpson's Paradox into account? Again? Nice to hear an insider account, as that's more than most of us who pontificate on the matter have to go with.
Interestingly, there have also been studies that investigate the responses according to race. There is a large statistical bias that shows black police are also more likely to arrest a black person. And that there are significantly more convictions made in this way even when jury composition has been factored for.
There are many possibilities, depending on what you factor in, and things are rarely as cut and dried as people would have you believe, especially when confirmation bias is being involved (and it usually is on emotive subjects like this).
Companies have this odd idea these days that everyone is replaceable (well, big companies.. Smaller ones still sometimes have a clue).. They often lose the good people, and assume they can replace with anyone, and it can be years later before everything falls over in a catastrophic failure that the good skills would have avoided entirely... Think it was RBS that had a critical failure because they'd got rid of all their good techs, and the 'cookie cutter cost cutting replacements' used to save money made a mistake that the real skills knew had to be watched like a hawk and managed carefully. Big oops that took days to sort out, and cost billions, and a huge reputational hit.
Companies are being run by accountants and financiers these days.. Don't give them too much credit for understanding operations, or what's critical.. One anecdote I have, as example, was attending a disaster recovery symposium for a huge national (and life critical) institution. This was intended for management levels, and being as I was one of the prime technical managers of one of the local sites (still with 5k employees at that site), I was in attendance. I consistently scored at the top of the assessments in each of the activities in the groups I was placed in, as due to IT experience over the years, I practically lived, breathed and slept disaster recovery and business continuity. When queried how I got such high marks, I simply explained to people that this was how IT had to run, and had been running for years to keep things running with as few issues as there were, which gave a lot of people around a new found respect for the trade (which was good). In the final phase of things, when we are all together for the last question and answer session (a good couple of hundred of us, all the groups combined), one of the chief executives of a local site piped up, and asked how this seminar was supposed to be any help, as it was all much too detailled, and she didn't need any of this this, and didn't need to consider it. The guy running the seminar (who was responsible for implementing the business continuity of the organisation as a whole) asked her what she thought was needed.. The response was that all she thought she needed was the contact details of all her managers so they could talk to each other over mobile phone in case of a disaster. He returned a pointed question, inquiring as to what about all the general staff who dealt with the clients, and ensured safe operation. She replied that they were always just there, and so didn't need consideration in a disaster recovery plan.
That is the level of myopia that is often encountered. Bosses aren't magically endowed with a real understanding of anything. They don't understand that people, especially ones with experience, are critical to keeping things running smoothly. Sure, you can bring in people with general theoretical knowledge of something, but when there's a crunch, or an abnormality, by and large, you want people who are well drilled over years, not someone who'll be re-reading all the documentation with no in depth knowledge to make the process smoother. Yes, you can, with extremely good documentation, keep things running with little experience and knowledge available, but don't expect it to be anywhere near as painless as it would be with skills and experience.
Actually, after being a boss, and being a worker, the bosses don't know more than most think. They know other stuff, if they're any good. A good boss is an exercise in logistics and being more of a generalist than anything. If you know more about the particular subject than the person you've got working for you, you've either made a bad hire, or you're being wasted in the wrong job (most likely)..
Whatever made you think someone signed up for long hours? Likely they were a conscienscious worker who put in the time when it was needed because they wanted the team to succeed.
No, shinks don't get any bonus for saying you have any form of abnormality. What they actually get paid for is to get people back to effective work as quickly as possible when there's been an issue raised. They're very good at spotting burn out, or near burn out conditions, because they've seen so many. Same as a good tech knows when a machine is on its last legs, and what to do about continuing service as effectively as possible.
But, feeding the troll (and you always do excellent trolls, hats off to you).:)
What? Just because someone'e intelligent, they don't have a different thought process? I've done the whole university thing, and run my own business as well as contracted and done the full timer thing..
One thing I can say about University people is they have radically different approaches to things. There is no magical "diverse through process" that can be gained by _not_ having a degree. What the degree does is expose those natural thought processes to approaches that will make code more maintainable, more efficient, more able to be worked at in groups and teams, also which approaches may be a best fit to achieve the aim you're heading for.
It isn't about cookie cutter training you to think a particular way, it's about giving you tools to do the job.
I've met super intelligent people that do seem to be great at nearly everything.. Same as I've seen some that are fantastic in a limited range, but useless at loads of other things.
Amber Rudd is not being driven by the intelligence communities, or anyone who actually understands what this is all about. What she sees is a complete outsider's view of "Think of the " without actually thinking whether there's a problem that putting measures in place will fix.
All the view of the intelligence communities and professionals is that there is no purely technical solution that can be put in place to fix this, without shooting off both feet. Still, she's adamant that "Things must be done", without a clear plan of what must be done, or, more importantly why it must be done and what impact it will have (real impact, not something that exists in her head, therefore it must be true!)..
I used to dislike the old Labour government for knee jerk, uninformed action, creating situations worse than the ones they were trying to solve. And it just continues on this government. The running theme behind the two is career politicians.. If we got rid of those, then we'd be a step closer to real solutions.. Another step would be to make up the policy creation bodies from experts in the field (or at least very experienced people in the field, who are able to liaise with experts when serious policy decisions need to be made)..
Idiocracy here we come.
Actually, that's more an enterprise feature than a home one.. Information Governance will love this.. Especially if it's not just a phone, but another token that talks to windows that can be worn on a name badge for example..
71% of the eligible voters attended. 51% of those voted leave. That's 37% of the people.. That's anything but clear. And it was also iterated beforehand that this was a non-binding referendum, which suddenly became 'well, it's not binding, but we're doing it anyway'..
The guy in question kept his sex life contained to a private community (account and password required, and TOS that you have to keep the contents of community private and that you are a member of this community). He was targetted by another person, who decided to delve into this private life, and 'out' it.
Now everyone that's worked with him (male and female) testifies that he was purely professional, and evenly aided people irrespective of gender, and was extremely supportive.
So, he has been very discreet, and kept public and private completely seperate, yet been outed (this is the 'information' that was disclosed). And yet the Drupal board decided to oust the guy from the community based on something he kept private, and had no bearing on his work or interaction.
This dismissal contravenes Drupal's own rules of conduct. Bunch of hypocrites. And the guy that performed the outing has had no action taken against him for invasion of privacy (one of the rules of the Drupal community).
You've read the testimonials of the women that have worked with him, and stated openly that he was entirely supportive, gender agnostic, and a pleasure to work with? If he's been sexist at all, HR would have been all over him a long time ago.. Instead, it seems he was one of the least demonstrably sexist people in the organisation. Then the SJWs dug into him and discovered this part of his sex life, on a closed community (if it was an open community, it would be no account/password and agreeing to keep things private, and you being a part of this community).
So, it's fine for people to dig for dirt, out someone who has only been a benefit all round, and tear him down for something private that has not affected his work one bit, or his relationships in the workplace, because . No.. This is flat out wrong, based on evidence and testimonials from people that actually worked with him.
This political crap is exactly the reason Trump got a wide range of support from people that otherwise would not consider that approach, because the SJW outrage thrown his way has absolutely no effect on him, and he just calls them out every time.. I don't have a lot of time for the guy, but I'm quite amused at watching the SJW outrage fall flat on its face.
Except he was outed by a few SJWs in the Drupal community. They referred to his profile, which was on an account required private server as evidence that he was 'a bad man'. He was accused of being sexist and discriminatory towards women, despite his being an author of the founding rules that said no discrimination based on sex was allowable, and despite female colleagues that worked with him stating that he was helpful and agnostic towards gender, treating everyone equally.
This is pure SJW targetting and outing. The SJWs in question should be banned from the community for violating the non-discrimination and harrassment, and right to privacy rules of the Drupal community.
That's exactly what I hear from a lot of people, yes. There is this magical 'White Privilege', and magical 'Male privilege' that's talked about a lot in the political activists (and almost all SJWs) that goes along the lines of "You cannot say anything against the poor oppressed non-white-males, because they don't have the magical privilege, so they have every right to target the oppressor and discriminate against them at will, so we can get have some of this magical privilege for everyone". They don't, of course, take into account that this privilege only applies to a very small subset of that group who have fought like demons to acquire that privilege and gone through years of education and training to get it.. Along with serious sacrifice (not always of themselves, some of them are actually pretty sociopathic).
But, they generalise this small subset and apply it to every instance, and thus magically say it's ok to oppress white males, and target them at will, and more than that, it's every non-white-male's duty to do this.
Wonder what the women in the group think.. Would honestly be interested in hearing their side.. Or do they have to be submissive to your mindset and not have an opinion on how happy they are with this?
If this is consensual, between adults that may want to think something, and both sides are happy.. I see no harm, as long as neither side are truly suffering and want to get out..
Being intolerant that other think other than you is the path to the great SJW, where everyone is free to think for themselves, as long as they think like you..
Their mindset may be alien to me, but I don't see people suffering, or crying to get out.. So I let them get on with what happiness they can eke out of quiet a stark world.
No, we definitely haven't passed that point. What it needs though is a well written story; that's what made the Half Life series great. Good fun, humour and a compelling story.
Do they need a groundbreaking engine? Nope. Do they need something twinkly and flash? Perhpaps, but not necessarily exceeding what's already out there.. What they DO need is story. It's the thing that made the Mass Effect series so popular (and so lambasted when they 'broke' the story)...
Good writers, and an immersive plot that doesn't just end in "pick one of three options".. Have that, and HL3 would be well received. Break the story, and it'll get panned.
The problem is that it's so damn difficult to get an easy suicide:
Guns, sure.. In the UK, we're not allowed them, so scratch that.
Pills.. The stuff that'd take you down quietly and peacefully is controlled quite strictly (and an OD on a street drug isn't pretty or painless)..
Knives.. That's a painful and traumatic way to go.
Jumping.. As above.. That's a traumatic and stressful way to go.
Hanging.. Again, a traumatic and painful way to go.
That's the simple stuff that springs to mind, and it always leaves a mess for some unsuspecting person to have to deal with (usually your friends, or immediate family; that is pretty damn traumatic for them too).
Euthanasia is a controlled environment, where the exit from life is as peaceful as it can be. It's all planned, so there's no horrific discovery. It's all taken care of by people who are geared to doing this (medical professionals, who are used to mortality, and the system is geared to handling it gracefully and with a minimum of trauma).
I'm definitely on the side of pro-euthanasia.. We put animals down to save them suffering, because it's the kind thing to do. We're just not kind enough to our own to let us choose for ourselves if we want to put ourself down quietly.
Slashdot Mirror
In all the back and forth that goes on, with people taking sides, and building up walls, it's lovely to see someone go back to basics, and actually say something simple and constructive!
Alas, mental illness being what it is, finding another job becomes impossible when you start suffering from some variants of it.. That's what led to the sad outcome.. But if there had been more of the friendly engagement, I suspect that it would never have gone as far as it did..
There's lots of "could have", but there are some cold, hard facts:
* One of the duties of the duties of man management is to ensure your staff are functioning correctly (not just meeting targets, but that they are not overloaded to the point of breaking them). If you don't believe someone is capable, you performance manage them (and either improve them or fire them).
* The man had proved that he was eminently capable, by performing very well in similar roles at other companies.
* His family had correctly identified that he was suffering from comorbid anxiety and depression and referred him to the doctor.
* He had stated that his boss didn't like him (indicating problems with management).
As he had been performing extremely well, in well managed environments, then he is shown to be capable.
As his family had identified this, it can be considered that he was dispaying symptoms serious enough that any person who dealt with people as a profession could have determined that there were serious problems.
As it could, and should have been identified by management, why wasn't it? This is either a case of incompetence, or negligence. Either one leaves the company culpable, as management are there to act on behalf of the company.
If it was identified, but company culture is to burn up and hire again, then this needs to change, or this will happen again. Legal action in this case is extremely well supported.
If company policy isn't to run employees on maximum burn all the time, and this was a management failure, why was this manager in post if they were incapable of performing a core function of their job? The company hired them for this, so they take responsibility. Again, company culpable. Management isn't just about calculating figures and generating reports. If that's all they test, then they need a wake up call. Heavy legal case would help them re-evaluate.
I've had an episode very similar to this, and was very well on the way to "taking the 'easy way out' too". Management caught me in the spiral, brought HR in, and supported me though a heavy cycle of medical treatment and an analysis of the role, to bring it in line with what is actually workable (the role wasn't possible, though that's not how it was advertised to me before I joined). That's management and company working how it's supposed to work.
I'm definitely with you that the west lives to work though, in the main.. I've travelled a fair old bit myself, and consider Western values to be very skewed. But I'm very much of the opinion, from available information, that the employers have failed in their duties.
If.. If only he hadn't been that depressed.. I've been there and very narrowly survived the experience. It cost me dear, in many ways.. If it'd been caught and handled internally with HR referrals, and occupational health evaluations, and company referral to counselling services, along with management supporting a valid workload. Lots of ifs, and none of it happened.. Which resulted in a guy topping himself..
This is a sad story, and I don't see any way that Uber can come out of it looking good, as management should have intercepted (that level of depression is extremely obvious, and any manager tasked with man management can see it and can at least find the right person to refer to. If they didn't, they're either incompetent, or negligent. Either way, Uber as a company put that manager in place to represent them, so they carry the can).
You what? Nowhere does it say he had a bad family life (actually, the fact she got him to see a doctor indicates that she was doing all she could). So blaming his wife is flat out contrary to what the article indicates.
This is purely and simply a management issue. If the manager didn't catch severe depression from overwork coming up on one of his employees, they're no manager at all. It's a _huge_ part of management, ensuring that your staff are performing correctly (and that doesn't mean just 'hitting targets', that's easy, it means "they're performing as human beings, with resilience and sufficient endurance"). And yes, I do management as well as having done the working all the way up to it. Hell, I've run companies before, and keeping people with high morale as much as possible is what gets you through the tough times.
When you become depressed and anxious (the article indicates he was suffering from comorbid anxiety and depression), then looking for an alternative is _not_ an option. The brain convinces you that you're not capable, or that nobody would want you.. Or that he'd fail his family and it would all go wrong unless he kept the money coming in.. All sorts of things, so it makes you prone to trying to keep what stability is there... Though his history shows that he was clearly able to perform in well managed environments, and excel.
There is one obvious variable that changed, and that's his workplace. After working at Uber, he tanked, after excelling at previous similar roles. This points to management and environment causing undue anxiety leading to depression. This was not identified at Uber (him saying that "his boss didn't like him" was quite possibly true, and at least shows that there was a huge disconnect in his direct management).
Not sure what the internals of the company are generally like (though it sounds like there's vast rumbling of discontent, which indicates that it's not being run properly), but it definitely points to a failure of management, and management represent the company. It's going to legally be tough for them to wriggle out of.
Much though I dislike 'Ambulance Chasing', I don't think this is chasing ambulances. It's a failure and negligence on the part of the management chain, and possibly general management focus too. If there's no penalty to doing this, it'll continue.
So, the government are guilty of failing to take Simpson's Paradox into account? Again? Nice to hear an insider account, as that's more than most of us who pontificate on the matter have to go with.
Interestingly, there have also been studies that investigate the responses according to race. There is a large statistical bias that shows black police are also more likely to arrest a black person. And that there are significantly more convictions made in this way even when jury composition has been factored for.
There are many possibilities, depending on what you factor in, and things are rarely as cut and dried as people would have you believe, especially when confirmation bias is being involved (and it usually is on emotive subjects like this).
Companies have this odd idea these days that everyone is replaceable (well, big companies.. Smaller ones still sometimes have a clue)..
They often lose the good people, and assume they can replace with anyone, and it can be years later before everything falls over in a catastrophic failure that the good skills would have avoided entirely... Think it was RBS that had a critical failure because they'd got rid of all their good techs, and the 'cookie cutter cost cutting replacements' used to save money made a mistake that the real skills knew had to be watched like a hawk and managed carefully. Big oops that took days to sort out, and cost billions, and a huge reputational hit.
Companies are being run by accountants and financiers these days.. Don't give them too much credit for understanding operations, or what's critical..
One anecdote I have, as example, was attending a disaster recovery symposium for a huge national (and life critical) institution. This was intended for management levels, and being as I was one of the prime technical managers of one of the local sites (still with 5k employees at that site), I was in attendance.
I consistently scored at the top of the assessments in each of the activities in the groups I was placed in, as due to IT experience over the years, I practically lived, breathed and slept disaster recovery and business continuity. When queried how I got such high marks, I simply explained to people that this was how IT had to run, and had been running for years to keep things running with as few issues as there were, which gave a lot of people around a new found respect for the trade (which was good).
In the final phase of things, when we are all together for the last question and answer session (a good couple of hundred of us, all the groups combined), one of the chief executives of a local site piped up, and asked how this seminar was supposed to be any help, as it was all much too detailled, and she didn't need any of this this, and didn't need to consider it. The guy running the seminar (who was responsible for implementing the business continuity of the organisation as a whole) asked her what she thought was needed.. The response was that all she thought she needed was the contact details of all her managers so they could talk to each other over mobile phone in case of a disaster. He returned a pointed question, inquiring as to what about all the general staff who dealt with the clients, and ensured safe operation. She replied that they were always just there, and so didn't need consideration in a disaster recovery plan.
That is the level of myopia that is often encountered. Bosses aren't magically endowed with a real understanding of anything. They don't understand that people, especially ones with experience, are critical to keeping things running smoothly. Sure, you can bring in people with general theoretical knowledge of something, but when there's a crunch, or an abnormality, by and large, you want people who are well drilled over years, not someone who'll be re-reading all the documentation with no in depth knowledge to make the process smoother.
Yes, you can, with extremely good documentation, keep things running with little experience and knowledge available, but don't expect it to be anywhere near as painless as it would be with skills and experience.
Actually, after being a boss, and being a worker, the bosses don't know more than most think. They know other stuff, if they're any good. A good boss is an exercise in logistics and being more of a generalist than anything. If you know more about the particular subject than the person you've got working for you, you've either made a bad hire, or you're being wasted in the wrong job (most likely).. Whatever made you think someone signed up for long hours? Likely they were a conscienscious worker who put in the time when it was needed because they wanted the team to succeed. No, shinks don't get any bonus for saying you have any form of abnormality. What they actually get paid for is to get people back to effective work as quickly as possible when there's been an issue raised. They're very good at spotting burn out, or near burn out conditions, because they've seen so many. Same as a good tech knows when a machine is on its last legs, and what to do about continuing service as effectively as possible. But, feeding the troll (and you always do excellent trolls, hats off to you). :)
What? Just because someone'e intelligent, they don't have a different thought process? I've done the whole university thing, and run my own business as well as contracted and done the full timer thing.. One thing I can say about University people is they have radically different approaches to things. There is no magical "diverse through process" that can be gained by _not_ having a degree. What the degree does is expose those natural thought processes to approaches that will make code more maintainable, more efficient, more able to be worked at in groups and teams, also which approaches may be a best fit to achieve the aim you're heading for. It isn't about cookie cutter training you to think a particular way, it's about giving you tools to do the job. I've met super intelligent people that do seem to be great at nearly everything.. Same as I've seen some that are fantastic in a limited range, but useless at loads of other things.
Amber Rudd is not being driven by the intelligence communities, or anyone who actually understands what this is all about. What she sees is a complete outsider's view of "Think of the " without actually thinking whether there's a problem that putting measures in place will fix. All the view of the intelligence communities and professionals is that there is no purely technical solution that can be put in place to fix this, without shooting off both feet. Still, she's adamant that "Things must be done", without a clear plan of what must be done, or, more importantly why it must be done and what impact it will have (real impact, not something that exists in her head, therefore it must be true!).. I used to dislike the old Labour government for knee jerk, uninformed action, creating situations worse than the ones they were trying to solve. And it just continues on this government. The running theme behind the two is career politicians.. If we got rid of those, then we'd be a step closer to real solutions.. Another step would be to make up the policy creation bodies from experts in the field (or at least very experienced people in the field, who are able to liaise with experts when serious policy decisions need to be made).. Idiocracy here we come.
Actually, that's more an enterprise feature than a home one.. Information Governance will love this.. Especially if it's not just a phone, but another token that talks to windows that can be worn on a name badge for example..
71% of the eligible voters attended. 51% of those voted leave. That's 37% of the people.. That's anything but clear. And it was also iterated beforehand that this was a non-binding referendum, which suddenly became 'well, it's not binding, but we're doing it anyway'..
Leave got 37% of the eligible vote. 51% of the turnout.
The guy in question kept his sex life contained to a private community (account and password required, and TOS that you have to keep the contents of community private and that you are a member of this community). He was targetted by another person, who decided to delve into this private life, and 'out' it. Now everyone that's worked with him (male and female) testifies that he was purely professional, and evenly aided people irrespective of gender, and was extremely supportive. So, he has been very discreet, and kept public and private completely seperate, yet been outed (this is the 'information' that was disclosed). And yet the Drupal board decided to oust the guy from the community based on something he kept private, and had no bearing on his work or interaction. This dismissal contravenes Drupal's own rules of conduct. Bunch of hypocrites. And the guy that performed the outing has had no action taken against him for invasion of privacy (one of the rules of the Drupal community).
Hurrah.. Hit the nail on the head.
You've read the testimonials of the women that have worked with him, and stated openly that he was entirely supportive, gender agnostic, and a pleasure to work with? If he's been sexist at all, HR would have been all over him a long time ago.. Instead, it seems he was one of the least demonstrably sexist people in the organisation. Then the SJWs dug into him and discovered this part of his sex life, on a closed community (if it was an open community, it would be no account/password and agreeing to keep things private, and you being a part of this community). So, it's fine for people to dig for dirt, out someone who has only been a benefit all round, and tear him down for something private that has not affected his work one bit, or his relationships in the workplace, because . No.. This is flat out wrong, based on evidence and testimonials from people that actually worked with him. This political crap is exactly the reason Trump got a wide range of support from people that otherwise would not consider that approach, because the SJW outrage thrown his way has absolutely no effect on him, and he just calls them out every time.. I don't have a lot of time for the guy, but I'm quite amused at watching the SJW outrage fall flat on its face.
Except he was outed by a few SJWs in the Drupal community. They referred to his profile, which was on an account required private server as evidence that he was 'a bad man'. He was accused of being sexist and discriminatory towards women, despite his being an author of the founding rules that said no discrimination based on sex was allowable, and despite female colleagues that worked with him stating that he was helpful and agnostic towards gender, treating everyone equally. This is pure SJW targetting and outing. The SJWs in question should be banned from the community for violating the non-discrimination and harrassment, and right to privacy rules of the Drupal community.
Absolutely true. Some Dominatrixes are misandrists. But they're by no means the large part of the set.
That's exactly what I hear from a lot of people, yes. There is this magical 'White Privilege', and magical 'Male privilege' that's talked about a lot in the political activists (and almost all SJWs) that goes along the lines of "You cannot say anything against the poor oppressed non-white-males, because they don't have the magical privilege, so they have every right to target the oppressor and discriminate against them at will, so we can get have some of this magical privilege for everyone". They don't, of course, take into account that this privilege only applies to a very small subset of that group who have fought like demons to acquire that privilege and gone through years of education and training to get it.. Along with serious sacrifice (not always of themselves, some of them are actually pretty sociopathic). But, they generalise this small subset and apply it to every instance, and thus magically say it's ok to oppress white males, and target them at will, and more than that, it's every non-white-male's duty to do this.
Wonder what the women in the group think.. Would honestly be interested in hearing their side.. Or do they have to be submissive to your mindset and not have an opinion on how happy they are with this? If this is consensual, between adults that may want to think something, and both sides are happy.. I see no harm, as long as neither side are truly suffering and want to get out.. Being intolerant that other think other than you is the path to the great SJW, where everyone is free to think for themselves, as long as they think like you.. Their mindset may be alien to me, but I don't see people suffering, or crying to get out.. So I let them get on with what happiness they can eke out of quiet a stark world.
Definitely feel for 'em.. And really feel for the guy who was on the keyboard..
You've been waiting an awful long time to come out with that one, haven't you.. :)
Nice to know that next year will be even warmer.. I've been enjoying the warm October we've had here in 2015..
No, we definitely haven't passed that point. What it needs though is a well written story; that's what made the Half Life series great. Good fun, humour and a compelling story. Do they need a groundbreaking engine? Nope. Do they need something twinkly and flash? Perhpaps, but not necessarily exceeding what's already out there.. What they DO need is story. It's the thing that made the Mass Effect series so popular (and so lambasted when they 'broke' the story)... Good writers, and an immersive plot that doesn't just end in "pick one of three options".. Have that, and HL3 would be well received. Break the story, and it'll get panned.
The problem is that it's so damn difficult to get an easy suicide: Guns, sure.. In the UK, we're not allowed them, so scratch that. Pills.. The stuff that'd take you down quietly and peacefully is controlled quite strictly (and an OD on a street drug isn't pretty or painless).. Knives.. That's a painful and traumatic way to go. Jumping.. As above.. That's a traumatic and stressful way to go. Hanging.. Again, a traumatic and painful way to go. That's the simple stuff that springs to mind, and it always leaves a mess for some unsuspecting person to have to deal with (usually your friends, or immediate family; that is pretty damn traumatic for them too). Euthanasia is a controlled environment, where the exit from life is as peaceful as it can be. It's all planned, so there's no horrific discovery. It's all taken care of by people who are geared to doing this (medical professionals, who are used to mortality, and the system is geared to handling it gracefully and with a minimum of trauma). I'm definitely on the side of pro-euthanasia.. We put animals down to save them suffering, because it's the kind thing to do. We're just not kind enough to our own to let us choose for ourselves if we want to put ourself down quietly.