Southkraut
The rain fell gentlier.
"Behind our efforts, let there be found our efforts."
User ID: 83
Any of the following:
- Build a physical mouse-jiggler (works best when you just click the MS Teams UI directly; interacting with other programs doesn't always register as activity).
- Schedule meetings and focus time that will make you show up as busy. You can go the extra mile and join your fake meeting with no participants and have the video call run while you're absent. Just make sure you don't invite anyone and keep your camera off; would be embarassing if they joined and saw you snooze.
- Actually work 8 hours, go above the above and beyond the beyond, and leverage the additional performance for a higher salary OR the same salary with fewer nominal hours.
Nobody needs this kind of vulgarity.
Agreed. It's distasteful. I'd prefer if that kind of behavior did not exist.
Meanwhile, that guy is POTUS while nobody offers me or you(*) so much as a small-town Mayorship. Who's doing it wrong?
I want my politicians moral, I want them virtuous
Anon, I...
...I don't think there's a lot of those around. As political machines grow bigger, selection pressures grow, and they select for traits other than morality and what I presume you mean by virtue. Mostly they just select for being able to perform as a politician - i.e., project an image, sell a message, navigate public opinion and the press and intra-party competition, etc. Pretending not to be a pig is part of that, but morality and virtue are not.
And yet I'm unsure whether it was decisive in the East VS West Germany comparison. Even if there had been no Marshall plan and no soviet exploitation, the socialist East would probably have fallen behind on its own like all the socialist countries did. Just perhaps not quite so badly.
But even the "One of the Guys" gals are at risk, see comments higher up about intelligent women are being wasted by going into the workplace instead of having babies which they breastfeed at home and do the whole skin-to-skin contact thing (very much less frequent in reality than presumed by such comments) because stressed moms are bad for the babies. Take even Helen Andrews out of the workforce so she can prop up the cratering TFR and have smart kids with her (presumably) smart husband, which she raises herself in the perfect domestic environment!
I don't think Andrews wants that, despite her comments about being the mother of sons, but that's where the logic leads if we extend it out: not just too many women in the workplace, there should be no women at all! For the sake of TFR and raising non-neurodivergent kids!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the argument #1 for unregulated meritocracy being better for institutional health and productivity, as made by Andrews, and the argument #2 for women in general but especially intelligent women to stay at home and focus on their biological role, as made by some commentors here, are separate, and it takes conflating them to reach the conclusion that Andrews is requesting that intelligent women focus on breeding the next generation. I think Andrews is only making argument #1, not #2.
And, full disclosure, I think both arguments are valid.
Also, what do you mean by
the "One of the Guys" gals are at risk
At risk of what?
I write lots of tests at work, and it's all incredibly domain-specific and trying to use LLMs for it just leads to laughably incorrect test expectations. Hence why I have trouble imagining it just working out of the box.
Still "Die Staufer", on the house of Hohenstaufen. Now at Friedrich II's side-gig as a patron of science and a scientific researcher and writer himself. The book makes much of how arabicized he must have been - I wonder a little about how much of that is actually substantiated by evidence, and how much is wilful conjecture by the author, because he cites unusually few sources when it comes to the topic of Friedrich II's acculturation, but overall it's interesting enough either way.
But "it'll work itself out" is exactly how that kind of deregulated meritocracy is meant to work, and arguably works. In that context, positing or demanding quotas, as you seem to do, is trivially absurd.
she does need to put a number on it
Does she? Why? This seems like an isolated demand for pointless rigor.
vague handwaving about "too many girls".
Didn't she rather write along the lines of "too many of the wrong kinds of girls"?
write a ton of tests kthx
How does that work? What kinds of tests does it write? How does it know what to expect or assert in the tests?
Fair. Guess it did happen once, then.
I'll second this. I know, I know, starting later means you've had more time to improve your economic situation, but I just don't see that as worth the downsides, as far as my own life and those others I observe IRL go.
FWIW, I don't recall getting any view of the common people's lives in Dune. We know of the high drama of the aristocracy, and the supposed macrohistory, and not much else.
OTOH, I never read past God-Emperor.
Hm. Do you happen to have a source for that?
Sage advice is what I look back upon to think "Yeah, sure would've been good if I had listened.".
It's never drilled into you with the sledgehammer it deserves.
First time I hear of that. Guess there really is an ocean between us.
Right wing radicalism is just worse. It's pure unadulterated evil that takes pride in its own immorality. Whereas radical leftists at least think they're doing the right thing.
Yeah, that whole "punch nazis / kill nazis / mutilate the nazi's kids and laugh about it" business is entirely high moral philosophy, and has nothing to do with leftist also attempting to leverage politics to satisfy their destructive instincts.
TND
TND?
People here just like to call out non-obvious insights RE: poster identity. It's a good enough gamble - makes you sound sharp when you do it, would make you sound extra sharp if it should be proven correct (does that ever happen?), and cannot be conclusively proven wrong anyways.
Could you elaborate on that? I normally bounce off of mainstream games, but Cyberpunk 2077 actually got me good.
Well, as you know, we did receive this generous American aid on the condition that we would be the first line of cannon fodder in case of the cold war going hot, so it wasn't entirely altruistic.
But I'd still say that's a better deal than what the Ossies got.
Rather unfortunate about what happened in between, but eastern Germany is still far behind the west in terms of economics and development, 70 years later, isn't it?
FWIW, West Germany did get a lot of help after the war, while the east was thoroughly exploited by its overlords.
I LOST BROZOUF
If the choice is between Nazis and the modern left, what is the actual difference in practice between an outright Nazi and someone who "only" would rather have Nazis than the modern left? It looks like they're both working towards the same goal.
You said it yourself. The "preferrer" and the actual nazi are aligned in their purpose temporarily. Yet they are not the same.
As for whether this is the choice - that depends on
- whether you accept the premise that the modern right is nazis, and on
- how many options you have, politically. The Americans probably do indeed only have two choices. So do we Germans - there's the right-wing party usually smeared as "nazis" (not sure how accurate that is), and then there's the leftist parties and the parties who try to do liberalism or conservatism within leftist narrative frameworks.
Because they're not the same thing. Even our terminology right here is divergent.
A holocaust defender claims that the holocaust was good. A holocaust denier claims that the holocaust did not happen. A holocaust revisionist claims that the holocaust happened other than commonly told. A neo-nazi is an edgy punk with swastikas instead of anarchy symbols. A nazi is a member of the NSDAP, and maybe by association someone who directly collaborates with them. A "modern" nazi would be an ideological national socialist, but good luck pinning that down.
Of course, these distinctions aren't required if all you want to say is "BAD RIGHT WINGER". Then it's indeed all the same.

Getting paid by the hour is fakery no matter what, unless you literally keep pace with an assembly line or man a human-to-human interaction post for the entirety of your workday. I try to fulfill my obligations exactingly, putting in the hours specified and the effort to match...but what exactly is the expected level of effort? Nobody quantifies it. It's a nebulous "so long as deadlines are met, you did your part, and if not, then it's down to the quality of your excuses". Does it matter whether I do it in 4 hours or in 8? Does it matter whether I'm available to my co-workers for 8 hours a day? Does it matter whether I put effort in at a constant rate, or can it vary over the course of a day so long as the overall effort matches expectations? And again, how to quantify it? Are my colleagues shirking, faking their hours, when they do small-talk in the office? Am I shirking when I lean back, look outside the window and daydream? Are we all shirking when we take circuitous routes through the building to get a little exercise? OTOH, am I putting in overtime when I think about work in the shower, while driving, or in bed?
In the end, getting paid by the hour is a gross oversimplification, albeit perhaps a necessary one, and the only thing that matters is whether your superior is satisfied with your performance.
More options
Context Copy link