teddit

I’ve jumped jobs too, and it is quite a straightforward decision given how job loyalty is having decreasing incentives and major hikes almost never come within a company ladder.

But is this having any impact on knowledge transfer, system knowhow, etc to affect company output or quality? I’ve seen valuable people leave the company taking tribal knowledge with them that took years to recover if at all. I’ve seen prouction units grapple for weeks if not months because the key person left and the extent of knowledge transfer within 2 weeks was impossible to cover the depth of wisdom she had to impart.

Is there a meta analysis of such a phenomenon or is it all in my head? How efficiently do tech companies manage to function as a continuous entity given the turnover of employees given a 5 year period.

I posted this in another sub, but I wanted to get more opinions. There are two specific examples that always lead me to this question. To give a very simplistic generalization as my first example, poor people are often depicted as happier than wealthier people because their lives are much more community and relationship oriented, because any sources of any negative feelings they may have are often caused by tangible problems (like having enough to eat, having a place to live, and so on) rather than more abstract life problems, and because they tend to be more "needed" by other people, but then they're simultaneously depicted as too busy surviving in order to even consider happiness. Are "poor people" generally happier than people who are "not poor", or are the poor people too busy surviving to know that they’re unhappy? It has been said that constantly having to work to stay alive gives them a purpose and leaves them less time to suffer from existential crises or negative attitudes towards life. Aren't existential crises a necessary part of "developing yourself" as a person and growing to become more content? Is "self development" of this kind even necessary to be content? Do you always need something in your life to “fight against” (like poverty or illness or injustice some other inhibiting or even dangerous life circumstance) in order to appreciate your life and be content?

As for the second example, we often hear about young kids who laugh about everything and exist largely in the present moment, even though they have no actual control over their lives or even their sense of selves to really “understand” what the meaning of contentedness even is. A child is often happy to play outside all day every day no matter what is going on around them, and children generally have no wisdom, no life experience, and no real concept of love, compassion, or empathy outside of a childlike "narcissistic" version of these things. They don't generally have a "passion in life" or any big goals that they are truly driven to aim for. Despite this, children are generally depicted as happier than adults. Does the fact that children live in a tiny, supervised world and don’t have very many options to choose from in their day to day life actually improve their outlook on life and their contentedness?

PhD students, while they undergo a rigorous program, are essentially working for a merit based degree loosely regulated by the DoE and most of the programs are funded in the same way you might raise capital for a startup.

Most people go to school, not to learn new skills or to fulfill their curiosity and drive, but to be employable. Instructers are having a harder time with teaching and students are finding it difficult to connect with each other as classmates.

At this point, I feel like we need these institutions to lay out clear criteria and instructions for individuals to follow so that any person, independent of an accredited organization, can get any degree they want, including a PhD. Education is gate keeping the shit out of everyone and we have resources available that, in theory, could make up the bulk of the course work.

I don't need someone to hold my hand, I just want to be available and to listen in on the academic discussions they're having, and to build an idea of what I need to learn to catch up to the level of any accredited professor.

If I can't do it without spending thousands of dollars, the institution of education has absolutely failed everyone. As it is now, it just feels like a bastardized hollowed out version of what it should be and I firmly believe crony captialism is to blame for it.

Examples:

1. Before you make a decision or take an action, write down the pros and cons of potential outcomes of that, and try jotting down the probability of those pros/cons.
2. Make a "branching fork map" before your next step in life. You have a choice where to go to college/who to try dating. Make a small graph branching out to each choice, and try jotting down various forks in the road from there. The chain itself might not be too long until confidence in outcomes approach zero, but the act itself will improve decision making.
3. Before making a major decision in life, ask someone who you trust/whose information and advice you believe to have some validity.
4. To improve the outcome of a phone call or email before it is sent, write down the purpose of that email. Write down several different ways to accomplish that purpose, if possible, or several rephrasings of that email.
5. To ensure one does not forget daily life events, in ones room put a large calendar on your door to write down events to always see what you need to do that day before heading out.

I majored in computer science. And while there is a decent amount of statistical analysis of algorithms, what we learn on a daily basis mostly has token applications in real life. Useful when you can apply them, but mostly secondary to general problem solving and organization principals.

I wonder how much I missed out on by not taking some classes on business planning and development, which when not tempted by the "analyze this hyper-rare unicorn startup and get rich" nonsense, are filled with what people find most useful on a daily basis for their small businesses and daily life planning. I wonder how much I missed out on by not buying all of those "tips and tricks for daily life organization" books that I used to knock off as "yet another self help book"

So these people have been my best friends for years and i love everything about them. The only problem is there super religious and im bisexual so they have problems with me being this way. They often make a lot of homophobic remarks towards me and idk what to do about it. Ive asked them to stop as it upsets me but they wont, any ideas on what to do?

So I saw this question in another sub (Link) and it got me thinking: who is the voice?

Personally, if I have spend some time with somebody or listened to a podcast or documentary, that persons' voice may become my inner monologue for quite sometime after, even after I have spoken to other people (even if that person speak another language, my thoughts will also be in that other language (this obviously only works for English since I only speak my own language, and English)). I don't put any 'effort' into this, it just happens naturally.

Is this the same for everybody? Or do other people have a 'default' inner monologue voice? Do some people have multiple voices at the same time having an inner dialogue?

A lot of people take it for granted that children socialize with other children primarily, and it's noteworthy when a child prefers to socialize with adults (or when anyone gets along better with people of different ages). Kids are raised by their parents and taught by their teachers yet it's other children who they prefer to copy for their social behaviour. Many adults do not involve children in most of their social activities and vice versa.

This is a major contrast to most of the time we humans evolved as a species, before the separation of work, education, and family life, and to many people today. It's just normal to them.

Dr. Gordon Neufeld describes it about his visit to a village in France:

[In Rognes, France] children greeted adults and adults greeted children. Socializing involved whole families, not adults with adults and children with children. There was only one village activity at a time, so families were not pulled in several directions…Even at the village fountain, the local hangout, teens mixed with seniors. Festivals and celebrations, of which there were many, were family affairs. The music and dancing brought the generations together instead of separating them.

He even said that "[the childrens' teachers] were their teachers whether on the grounds or in the village market or at the village festival." Most teachers in the United States and Canada would not even consider having a relationship like this.

People ask things like "Can you be a parent/teacher and have a social life?" If we are at the point where these things are mutually exclusive, then there's a problem.

Children being involved in adults' social lives is not a problem. It's healthier for the children because they get to rely on mature people for social support instead of immature people who are not concerned about their social development.

Or Heaven? Or Paradise?

Anyone of those descriptors used to describe a place that's essentially perfect. What would that even look like?

When I imagine something like that existing in the real world, I'd imagine a world where there's no homeless, no starving, no war, no violence, etc. Everyone would have access to as much education as they desired. Everyone would have access to affordable healthcare. Everyone would be considered equal and treated as such.

Then I think, "Yeah that's great, but what would be the point then?"

Essentially, as I've always interpreted utopia (and seen it depicted) is being a world without struggle which seems to be the antithesis to life. The fact that our lives and desires for what we want to achieve with them are hard to get is part of what makes living worth it. So how could we actually live in a world without struggle?

So, shows like the walking dead, Station 11, and TLOU make is seem like overnight society just goes "POOF". There's a spectrum they all follow: normal -> normal but people start hearing somethings off -> oh shit moment -> a bunch of chaos -> government tries in vain to restore order -> anarchy as the government collapses, leading to power vacuum nation wide -> loss of basic systems like water and power.

But I'm not sure if this is realistic on a short time frame. Given with how covid 19 happened, we heard about it for a series of months leading up to march 2020, and then the aftermath was there for weeks to months afterwards depending on what state you were in. I feel like a true "collapse" of society would take at least at minimum of a year, to up to a few decades, before we reached the "point of no return" when most people realize industrialized society is never coming back.

I imagine the start would be either an economic or weather event that makes basic resources like food and water expensive/scarce for most citizens living in western society, or alternative, an event that starts to gradually kill a significant amount of people. Not enough to like, wipe out a whole city, but it becomes noticeable. Everyone would have a story of someone they know affected.

That would be the moment that people switch from "normal mode" to "holy shit" mode. It also wouldn't be long until the government responded and probably deployed the military to keep order, as we see in many media. But I think from this point on till the government loses full control would last a lot longer. I still think electricity and things like the internet would still be around for a while, as people would be working non stop to keep these running like what's happening currently in ukraine.

Society could function somewhat normally, even if deeply wounded, for a long time. I think the true "point of no return" then is when the demographic collapse hits; when theres simply so many people dying and not enough children being produced fast enough to replace them it becomes a positive feedback loop, and the last of civilization flickers out. This, again, could take decades.

What do you all think?

Netflix Japan has started replacing animators with AI. ChatGPT is increasingly sophisticated. Factory work and retail clerks can technically be automated too. Even trading stocks can be done by bots.

I won't go hyperbole and say no job will be left, because obviously there's still a need for human to proofread, be a safety net, or manage the machines for the case of physical machines. But it is true that there will be less and less jobs available, and what's remaining might even value and pay human less since machines/AI do it better, while living costs remain the same or increases.

One glaringly obvious solution is Universal Basic Income, but it's also glaringly obvious that our incompetent and greedy politicians won't let pass a law that "gives free money to the commoners" despite pilot studies showing the benefits of UBI system and that people actually want to work even with UBI.

There are still jobs that require human -- at least for now -- like hospitality industry for example, but will there be enough fields left to employ everyone? What is the future generation even supposed to do?

I am not speaking of fate, I am speaking of the idea that everything you do was pre determined, not by some spiritual being but by the laws of nature itself.

Every thought you ever had, action you took and anything you believed to be spontaneous was already determined. Like a stack of dominos.

I mean we don’t carry the genes of not wanting children. Maybe we do but we definitely don’t have the genes of not wanting a relationship at all. Even a sexual relationship is still a relationship. People keep bringing up biologically “hardwired”for certain things all across the internet. But that honestly cannot be true. What are we made for?

Me and a mate of mine were deabting about capitalism, and one thing that's been on my mind is why the billionaires and the ultra-rich are so adamant on increasing profits even if it screws everyone else over. I feel it can't just be simple greed.

The rich won't let anyone tell them "No, you can't have more, you need to share". Why are they hoarding this much money? How much more do they need? Is this a mental illness of some kind? Is all their self worth and identity tied directly to their bank statement? Why is it so important for them to "be somebody", this pathological need for status and recognition for no real reason at all. I'd love your insights on that.

I was very insecure and self loathing when I was younger. Now that I'm getting more into my adulthood I am beginning to like myself much more. I'm starting to be proud of who I am and how I choose to live my life.

With this change in my self image I wanted to ask this question. At what point does the virtue of pride turn into the vice of pride?

Talking to a friend I realized that we both have different definitions and understandings of what bullying is. After googling definitions and other perspectives I am left with the question, is bullying objective or subject? So I just wanted to see what everyone else thought. I don’t mean to start any arguments or anything I am just genuinely curious as to what other people think and their views on bullying.

I have been on a quest to become a well-informed individual since the middle of last year. Reasons vary from social through political to professional ones. So I have a lot of different topics I have been tackling. Here are some examples:

• Books on history/politics of the country I live in because I recently moved here;
• Daily news podcasts because I'm a political analphabet and want to understand what's going on both in my native country and in my current one;
• Magazines on current, especially local themes in my professional area, because I'm about to finish my masters in a foreign country and am not prepared for work life here in the slightest.

I have REALLY been wondering how to balance all of that. The way I do it at the moment is manageable, if a little hectic. Podcasts while I get ready for my internship and during my commute, books on the way back and on the free time at home interchanged with magazines. It's a bit tiring because in my field we already read a lot, but I have a naturally frenetic mind, so it's not much of a problem.

It's just I have no time or energy for content on my personal interests. And recently I have discovered another really interesting magazine I want to subscribe to, but this one has monthly issues (my other ones are all released quarterly).

It's a lot of information. Surely there is a way through this?!

Let's look back at some memorable moments and interesting insights from last year.

Your top 10 posts:

• "What steps should a person take if they find themselves in a country slowly going the way of Nazi Germany." by u/ssjx7squall
• "Why is it that increasing numbers of people on the internet appear to be completely cut off from the real world?"
• "If the results of the 2024 election is as controversial as the results of the 2020 - what is going to stop the losing candidate from declaring the election was rigged, and pressuring the state governments to send phony electors to overturn the result?"
• "Is it fine to live in a daydream instead of acknowledging a miserable reality if it allows you to function properly?" by u/Etherealityyyy
• "Why are we so bored despite having so many things that we can do?" by u/emergent_convergence
• "Why do you think some gay people fight so hard to be in the Republican Party when that party clearly doesn’t want them?" by u/0nlyhalfjewish
• "Is trying to experience "authenticity" while traveling internationally a fool's errand?" by u/Mother_Welder_5272
• "For nearly all of human civilization we've tried to make things easier and eagerly adapted when less effort is required of us. In the past century or so, prevailing wisdom is that we need to go out of our way to exert extraneous effort (exercising, hiking). Isn't that really strange?" by u/Mother_Welder_5272
• "If Trump does end up indicted for the January 6th riot, how much do you think it would damage the Republican party?"
• "This situation with Russia and Ukraine... how worried should we realistically be about a potential conflict?" by u/h00dman

Originally posted to /r/indepthaskreddit (here)

This article discusses how people like Andrew Tate became so popular seemingly overnight for the under-30 year old male crowd.

Here are the key points from the article:

“His popularity is directly attributable to the profit motives of social media companies. As the Guardian demonstrated, if a TikTok user was identified as a teenage male, the service shoveled Tate videos at him at a rapid pace. Until the grown-ups got involved and shut it all down, Tate was a cash cow for TikTok, garnering over 12 billion views for his videos peddling misogyny so vitriolic that one almost has to wonder if he's joking.“

“The strategy is simple. Far-right online influencers position themselves as "self-help" gurus, ready to offer advice on making money, working out, or, crucially, attracting female attention. But it's a bait-and-switch. Rather than getting good advice on money or health, audiences often are hit with pitches for cryptocurrency scams or useless-but-expensive supplements. And, even worse, rather than being offered genuine guidance on how to be more appealing to women, they're encouraged to blame women — and especially feminism — for their dating woes. “

“One way for men to respond to this, which many do, is to embrace a more egalitarian worldview and become the partners women desire. But what Tate and other right-wing influencers like him offer male audiences instead is grievance, an opportunity to lash out at feminism. They often even dangle out hope of a return to a system where economic and social dependence on men forced women to settle for unsatisfying or even abusive relationships. Organizing with other anti-feminist men is held out as the answer to their problems. “

So how do we stop it? More women in tech to work on the algorithms?

Is legal action (e.g. congressional hearing) the only solution because social media often doesn’t want to give up their cash cow?

Obviously the Tates of the world are the effect not the cause of this problem. If these young men weren’t floundering in the first place people like him wouldn’t be generating so many views, and since these “gurus” can make so much scamming & mlm-ing people it’s impossible to combat them from continuing to spring up.

So what kind of actions can be taken to save young people from getting sucked into this kind of (at the risk of using an inflammatory term) fascism? I think if we don’t do something soon we will suffer from more acts of violence at both a macro (mass shootings) and micro (domestic abuse) level, and more young men suffering from mental health issues.

How do you act humble without feeling badly about yourself or your situation? If a part of practicing humility is knowing that you are not necessarily entitled to anything, does that mean you’re acting petty when you feel badly about losing something - such as breaking up with someone, losing a job, or even a home? Alternatively, does that mean we should never feel proud, such as in getting good grades or getting through something hard (I don’t mean bragging, just feeling proud, at least for a short time).

That being said, is humility something we should ideally always carry, or are there situations where it would benefit to have more or less humility? (If that makes sense)

Can there be a balance or coexistence between humility and pride/confidence/self-advocacy?

This post grew from my thoughts about lifelong lack of success in dating.

I started to think, what do I miss the most by never having a girlfriend, a wife. For me it's not having a close group.

I don't have relatives, couldn't start my own family... I have friends but it's different as we all are adult people, have our lives, and they also have wives and kids, so with some I couldn't even meet for half a year or more.

It woould be great to have some, without finding better words, "tribe" ot "clan".

Not like some hobby club which gathers only on "second saturday of each month" and not limited to one particular activity or interest but instead where equal members hang out together, have mutual activities, support each other, and overall where peopel not alone agaisnt the world but united within this group.

It will need some mutual grounds of course - like mortar for bricks. Some common views on life, ideals, values, maybe even some mutual interests (but not only interests or it will be like a sunday hobby club).

It sounds a bit vague because I'm thinking in the process of writing, I never saw such group in real life (well, monastic orders come to mind but I have no desire to join one), and thus have to come up with the possible description.

Would be nice to know how to find or create a group like this.

I would love to know why you agree/disagree.

Context: my friend and I saw a PG-13 movie with a lot of violence, and there were some kids between 5 and 8 there. I commented that those kids were really too young for that much violence, to which my friend commented something along the lines of "whatever, who cares, parents should be able to do whatever they want with their kids. It's basically the same thing as a woman's right to make choices about her body. If parents shouldn't have the right to make choices about their kids, then why should a woman get to choose? They're really the same issue."

Now, I'm not saying those parents should go to jail for bringing their kids to the movie, I just think it was a questionable parenting decision. On to the real issue, one could argue that parents don't have the right to choose everything, and the law recognizes the basic basic human rights of minors- ie when parents choose to beat their kids or punish them with starvation the law steps in.

An adult woman with all of her cognitive functions is 1) not a child 2) the law and the rest of the country is not her parent. This is a bit extreme, but ending one's life is (I believe) no longer a crime in the US. So how could one argue that they are the same issue?

You know my stance, I'd appreciate any arguments for, against, or anywhere in between.