mattparcens

Without bound?

381 comments so far and not a single Insane Clown Posse joke?!?

Alternately, defining harassment solely based on the perceptions of the receiver, as many organizations do, creates a comparable problem of subjectivity. Perhaps something like commonly-agreed "community standards" should be the guide.

"I learned it from you, Dad!"

I disagree with this principle.

He never should have worn that dress.

Perhaps the 4 month old is not "manipulative" per se, but it also cannot be argued that the kid is doing much of a cost-benefit analysis as to whether it's worth waking Mom and Dad up for this (whim/legitimate need).

Everything?

For the love of God, if you have one of these don't drink liquids while you're unmuted.

I vowed never to use this site because I found certain elements of their code conduct to be questionable.

Why not prioritize everyone’s safety over anyone’s comfort?

And the bit about “reverse -isms” is wholly ambiguous.

It screams to never invest one second of effort in the site.

microservices

Might read something from the zero unvaccinated deaths, though.

But isn't it the government that allows the healthcare system to hold you financially accountable for opaque and arbitrary bills?

Seems like a collective action problem. Maybe U.S. CEOs, celebrities, and other public figures should all coordinate a day (or longer?) of CCP public slams and digs?

Previous infection should be recognized as proof of protection and exempt employees from vaccine mandates, some workers say

The status quo is not necessarily a bad thing, for instance if you have a lot of activist coworkers who want to "burn the system to the ground," then I, for one, become a huge supporter of the status quo.

One must remember that things can always get worse.

Just because there exist concrete problems in society does not mean that you, or activist coworkers get to assume that you're/they're automatically right nor that you/they have workable solutions.

It's unfortunate that it's necessary to provide this reminder within almost every message thread.

It's basically a straw man fallacy, and the fact that it's probably unintentional on the part of the committers tells you something about the single-mindedness of those doing the committing.

I largely agree with most everything that you said, regarding enforcement pragmatism and the like.

But I must remind that, at least in this particular conversation, we're talking about people who've just had the illness in question. We don't know how many of the 1,500/day are people who have previously contracted the illness or else contracted the illness from someone else who previously caught the illness, but in all likelihood the proportion of such cases is likely very low. So referencing the 1,500/day likely has very little relevance to a discussion of natural immunity.

No one said anything about multiple cards, nor about any databases whatsoever.

Single-mindedness is not a rationale for imposing medical treatment on people.

I'll circle back to my driver's license analogy - the bouncer does not need to know that I was docked 3 points from my driving test for failing to signal - he only needs to know that some granting authority, with expertise in the realm being licensed, granted me the license. (or that I'm old enough to enter the bar, etc.)

One might argue that there is also fairly little downside to not getting the vaccination.

And without some hard numbers comparing the two fairly little downsides we shouldn't attempt to compel people's behavior either way.

Cognitive load does not justify imposing potentially involuntary medical treatments on people, particularly not onto people for whom the benefit is likely of very little marginal value.

The cognitive load could be built into the "vaccine card" anyway - I have a driver's license with a couple of extra checkboxes showing that I need corrective lenses and am authorized to drive a motorcycle, but most people need only be concerned that the card itself exists.

Aside: (that's an excellent quote and logical point) - I read the Wikipedia article on the author of that essay, and got an extremely strong impression of being told how to feel about him, more so than being presented with facts about him.

Between this, the coming back into the office, to the general rumors of Amazon's work culture going back for years, I find it hard to imagine a more undesirable place to work.

Tell it to the guy's under-developed 18 year old frontal lobe.

Potentially demeaning nomenclature aside, do men and women have a differential opportunity to [better phrase], and if not, is this fair?

And while it might be nice for the men who dominate all desirable, successful professions, does this help the median man? They're all individuals, after all.

ACLU is to Civil Liberties as MTV is to Music.

Apple employees objectively claimed to feel that the statements were sexist.

I don’t think we can objectively distinguish someone’s claimed feelings from, say, their getting caught up in the fervor of a movement and attempting to persecute an ideological opponent, or persecuting someone chosen rather arbitrarily.

As someone who has had their past > 1/2 decade of work thrown out, (across multiple companies and projects!), due to low cost sensitivity on the company's part, or just poor planning, I at least halfway admire your question, if not totally admire it.

One recommendation, based on an exceedingly small sample size, would be to search for a non-profit with an outdated tech stack. Seek as many indicators as possible to suggest "lack of push."

Also, I noticed while contemplating this response, that indeed.com appeared to auto-complete "laid back" for me as I was typing it. :-)

I'm going to wait out the debate as to whether success is entirely caused by hard work, or entirely caused by luck, until the internet sorts it out.