Age discrimination in the US at least is driven by “40 or over”. I think any lawyer would be able to argue that “which day of the year you’re born” is not indicitive of a protected class. Because we’re fucked in the US and you can still formally be passed up on a job for being under 39 years old as long as you it’s not because “you’re almost 40, and we’re not allowed to get rid of you when you turn 40”
You mention bug reports as if they care to fix bugs in the first place.
Every time I’ve seen an HR degree, conflict resolution was a required course.
It’s one thing to say that they’re “not good at it”, but I suppose by expert I mean professional qualifications. I like to have coworkers who are proficient in their professional qualifications, and then forgive them for the things they’re not qualified in but replace them if they are incapable in the things they are supposed to be qualified in.
Maybe I’m a jerk, but I’m used to having competent people around me and having difficult discussions with those who aren’t. HR is the same as any other department in that, to me.
EDIT: I realize how much of an asshole I sound like. To be clear, I’ve got the Boston IT scene in my blood. Starting salaries in the 6-figure range, incredibly low oversight. But zero pity for people who can’t keep up. I know I need to have more sympathy than that for people who aren’t as capable in their job - it’s not like I love capitalism as concept.
And I recognize the irony of acknowledging my own assholishness when the topic is Linus Torvald’s assholishness. But then, I’m also used to HR that can move heaven and earth to reconcile a situation with a valued employee. To keep your job where I come from, you need to be so valuable that they’ll hide bodies for you (figuratively).
There has apparently been historical disagreement over whether 6÷2(3) is equivalent to 6÷2x3
As a logician instead of a mathemetician, the answer is “they’re both wrong because they have proven themselves ambiguous”. Of course, my answer would be RPN to be a jerk or just have more parens to be a programmer
You are under the very relevant misassumption that HR is less likely to be handling a situation inappropriately
I have something called an “expertise bias” that I use to make decisions. In a vacuum, I trust an expert to solve a problem over someone with no experience in a given field. I don’t ask a barista to fix my car, or my doctor to fix me a latte. Both can screw up in their field, but they are less likely to do so than someone without experience in their specialty. I’m not a barista, a doctor, or an HR expert. Or to put it simpler, the odds of an HR person mishandling someone being non-serially abusive in the workplace is simply lower than the odds of the situation without that person involved. I need this attitutude to live; if a junior dev is trying to override the devops engineer on infrastructure, you’ll never guess which one usually wins.
A simple verbal overstep, on the first occurrence
What are you talking about now? The topic at hand wasn’t verbal and certainly wasn’t merely an overstep. We have a an insulting teardown in writing. Substantively different from a verbal teardown. I never said the moment a person loses their cool with em and tells me “fuck off man” I’m knocking on HR’s door. But if a senior dev on my team sends this flaming email to a junior dev on my team, I better find out about it and it’s getting handled… By HR.
I love how everyone online is psychic.
Actually, I’ve watched two GREAT workers and good people end up losing their jobs because a easily resolved situation turned toxic. The person who felt uncomfortable tried to take care of it 1-on-1 but had too passive aggressive a nature to really be clear when she confronted the guy.
So 6 months or a year later, she was on the verge of quitting and went to HR. He was terminated because it had gone too far. She left soon after because she still wasn’t comfortable at work after the cause of that ended.
…look. I “obviously never dealt” with anything because nobody is allowed differing opinions here, but I have 20+ years experience at businesses where the existence or lack of good HR has been a deciding factor of the work-culture and comfort level of team members. I work 1-on-1 with my company’s Directors of HR on a regular basis to make sure my team is happy and because I am involved with other teams at my job who have their own interpersonal conflicts. One of HR’s responsibilities in a good company is to involve themselves in interpersonal conflicts BEFORE decisive action has to be taken.
The problem is that face-to-face confrontations without a mediator don’t always end well. And I would rather not have HR decide “we have to fire our Rockstar senior dev or this random guy”. But if you address it earlier, HR deals with it earlier (yes, because the paper trail m eans HR can’t just fire “this random guy” later over the Rockstar senior dev). It’s win-win for all parties INCLUDING the Linus Torvalds in this explanation.
But I’ve “obviously never dealt with a real-world scenario” and my experience doesn’t count. So you can ignore everything I said.
The term is “hostile work environment”. HR doesn’t just respond because of strict liability. Just one occurance of something like this can lead to an otherwise solid worker to spiral from discomfort of the situation, both feeling like a prisoner at their job and producing far less value for their employers.
The latter is why HR cares, but the former is why it’s OKay to go straight to HR. If HR is well-trained, things like this shouldn’t escalate just because you went to HR. They should be able to diffuse it productively.
From my memories of the Arch linux labs in college, no there isn’t…
I think it’s a matter of expertise. I am stuck dealing with people who write Javascript/Typescript like it’s C# because they’re C# senior devs. It’s not world-ending until issues of speed, scale, or other “why we use best practices” raise their ugly heads. Then it is world-ending. I can only help with so many design standards when you still see everything show up in a classes-and-subclasses mindset with hard-to-catch concurrency bugs. I actually caught a developer trying to spin up a child process to wait on a socket response.
So in FinTech, I can imagine it becomes a bigger deal faster.
It doesn’t matter that much to me, I won’t go out of my way to shut down a vegan extremist, I don’t care enough.
I’ve got a few close to me, and they go out of their way to shut down other people close to me. I’ve lived around and been involved in various ways with people in the various meat-related industries. It hurts them, and I care about them, so I care about the issue.
I don’t expect everyone to feel that way. But it’s like the difference between “internet atheists” who are a dime a dozen, and “that guy you actually know that thinks it’s appropriate to treat non-atheists as absolute morons”.
cutting animal product is easier than picking the local farm meat so it’s what I choose
I can respect that. It’s a band-aid solution in my opinion, but if I look at how I tolerate half-ass government actions, I have to honestly accept that a band-aid solution should not be faulted too much.
the most important part is stopping the torture on animals
I think we’d diverge here, but that’s ok. To me, sustainability is more important than animal comfort any time we can’t feasibly have both, so long as a farmed animal is generally better off than the same species in the wild by some agreeable metric - which both cows and chickens generally are (except liberty, but few non-human species put any QoL value on “freedom”).
I hate the mentality that if it’s not perfect we don’t do it, it’s the same for vegans hating on vegetarian.
1000% percent. Vegans are not “going to win” and have a kumbaya utopia (dystopia) where people across the world are forbidden to eat animals and harshly punished when they try. And they’re sure not going to get a world where the masses choose veganism. But there’s a LOT of even ranchers and hunters of all people who would stand at their side for better regulations on humane treatment.
As a theist, I agree. Pascal’s Wager is a terrible argument for God. It doesn’t even address the variety of religions that contradict Christianity with contradicting moral imperatives. It only works if the outcomes are “My Variant of Christian God Exists” or “No God Exists”.
Mother fucker. I have one of these that I’ve been playing with all week, swearing to GOD if I don’t put that shit away it’s gonna vanish.
I just put it away where it belongs so I don’t lose it.
Literally no idea what your trying to argue for here. I told the person above me that it doesn’t have to be some crazy conspiracy.
Were you trying to respond to him? Or are you one of those people who thinks Putin is a saint? In both cases, I’m the wrong person to reply that way to. I’m the voice of reason here.
I’d say it’s simpler than that. Russia keeps funding regions it wants destabilized so something bad is always happening at a time good for Russia.
No tinfoil hat, but total Scumbag Putin.
Oh the Winnie the Pooh comic thing. I laughed at that, but didn’t realize it was turning into a bigger thing. Got it.
I’ve gotten into arguments in this instance in WorldNews (if I recall) where I strongly disagreed with communists on something. Nobody ever banned me.
Keep up the good work, mods, and thanks for addressing someone’s ban complaint
Honestly seeking explanation because this is new to me and I’m afraid to Google it. What is “winnie” a dogwhistle for?
There’s too damn many conservative dogwhistles these days.
That was a quick comparison with white supremacy
I’m not Godwinizing this. The analogy is apt. Not because Veganism is as bad as the White Supremacy movement, but because militant veganism is culturally near-identical with regards to levels of organization, cohesion, and belittling and exclusion of the opposing majority.
Vegans are not special. It’s like if I had the same nationality as someone, do you really need to call out someone from the US that shit on European (assuming you are from the US) ?
No, vegans aren’t special. Thank you. And yes, I consider it my responsibility to call out the American anti-Mexican rhetoric that’s been rekindled because if I don’t, I am complicit. I am struggling not to tangent into at least 20 other incidents between old racial slurs and attacks insults about homosexuality where I’ve had to stand up against “my class”, but the moment I hadn’t done so, then I’m as bad as them.
this article that list a few vegans that are against militant
Unfortunately, this article supports my point in a way I don’t know you intended. This is an article discussing how militant vegans (including the creators of Dominion) are against the tactic of insulting non-vegans directly in their goal of getting everyone to stop eating meat. Further, this clearly rebuts your earlier claim that militant veganism isn’t “a community”.
Remember, if you’re activists against someone’s behavior, you’re attacking that behavior. You need to be damn sure the behavior you’re attacking is objectively wrong. Good-cop Bad-copping it doesn’t change that.
And I never wanted to say most vegans agree with extremists. Theses assholes are ruining veganism image
Then, do the world a favor, and call them out. It probably doesn’t get veganism across the line of reasonableness (stopping pushing for others to be vegan is where that happens) but it gives you a bit more of an ethical foundation.
Without them people would hear vegan and think about nature, saving animals, saving the evironnement
I hate that most vegans I meet won’t agree with me on animal protections in farms because my goals still involve people eating them (EDIT: them=animals. Stupid English language unclear pronouns). I consider my home state’s new free range chicken law a massive win because it doesn’t play with the meaning of “free range” like many big companies do, but most vegans consider it “just another step in normalizing humans eating animals”. You’ve heard the statement “making perfect the enemy of good”, right? Well, there’s a step worse, which is making “my personal preference the enemy of perfect”.
Let me make this clear. We exist in a world where we can scaleably give farm animals a better quality of life than they’d get in the wild with a better environmental impact than not eating them, but it requires regulations that vegans are often unwilling to openly support because it’s not what they want.
But right now they only think about 30 years old Karen screaming at them for no reason calling people murderer and so on.
Agreed. Memes become that because they’re often true. “How do you know someone is a vegan?” EVERYONE has experienced that particular little joke dozens of times if not more. I used to have a coworker who aggressively preached veganism at me, as he gained a ton of weight and his health degraded. This is not me saying that vegans can’t be healthy, but he was definitely doing veganism a disservice.
Whatever beef… you have with veganism
With militant preachy religions where outsiders are inferior.
For the rest, you’ve gone off the deep-end. I’ll stop replying to you until the next time I see you insult me to somebody else.
Welcome to the United States. Federally speaking at least, there are very few protections for hiring/firing. You can be fired for your hair color, unless the hiring manager is as much of an idiot as he is an asshole and says “black people don’t have blonde hair” (happened in a Hooters case I remember reading). The company policy reads “right hair color for your skin tone”, and is actually normally enforceable in the US because it’s implying no “unnaturally dyed hair”. They hypothetically can turn away an Asian redhead with no legal ramifications so long as she dyed her hair that way.
So yeah, they can 100% not hire you because you’re a Scorpio. More realistically, you’d probably see someone who doesn’t hire Aries, Virgo, or Aquarius because the New York Post had an article claiming those three signs are more likely to get fired.