Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Loyal to the Company

dilbert.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–107 of 107 posts

Re: Loyal to the Company

#101

Post by AlbertCory »

msrenee wrote: post #96
AlbertCory wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is literally survivorship bias I think you need to look the term up if you want to use it correctly. It's about statistical sampling, not about generalizing from one or two examples. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias it does not merely refer to people who've survived at something.

>Whether it be movie stars, athletes, musicians, or CEOs of multibillion-dollar corporations who dropped out of school, popular media often tells the story of the determined individual who pursues their dreams and beats the odds. There is much less focus on the many people that may be similarly skilled and determined but fail to ever find success because of factors beyond their control or other (seemingly) random eve…

The fact remains that "survivorship bias" is a term from statistics, and OP is expanding it inappropriately.

However, if you insist on having the last word, go ahead.

Re: Loyal to the Company

#102

Post by lisper »

AlbertCory wrote: post #101
msrenee wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Whether it be movie stars, athletes, musicians, or CEOs of multibillion-dollar corporations who dropped out of school, popular media often tells the story of the determined individual who pursues their dreams and beats the odds. There is much less focus on the many people that may be similarly skilled and determined but fail to ever find success because of factors beyond their control or other (seemingly) random eve…

The fact remains that "survivorship bias" is a term from statistics, and OP is expanding it inappropriately. However, if you insist on having the last word, go ahead.

Language is malleable and dynamic. Words and phrases originating in one place are often conscripted to do extra duty someplace else. There is nothing inappropriate about that. It is a Thing That Happens.

However, in this case the thing I described really is survivorship bias in the original sense of the word. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

"Survivorship bias or survival bias is the logical error of concentrating on entities that passed a selection process while overlooking those that did not. This can lead to incorrect conclusions because of incomplete data."

In this case, the selection process is not getting laid off.

Re: Loyal to the Company

#103

Post by msrenee »

AlbertCory wrote: post #101
msrenee wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Whether it be movie stars, athletes, musicians, or CEOs of multibillion-dollar corporations who dropped out of school, popular media often tells the story of the determined individual who pursues their dreams and beats the odds. There is much less focus on the many people that may be similarly skilled and determined but fail to ever find success because of factors beyond their control or other (seemingly) random eve…

The fact remains that "survivorship bias" is a term from statistics, and OP is expanding it inappropriately. However, if you insist on having the last word, go ahead.

That was my first word on the subject.

Just thought I'd pull the quote from your link that says the opposite of what you're saying. It may have originally come from statistics, altbough I don't think that's the case. The Wikipedia article certainly doesn't say so.

Re: Loyal to the Company

#104

Post by hn_user82179 »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #75
hn_user82179 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally find it funny at face-value but the joke does get ruined for me because, as you say, it's just a veil for certain beliefs. I used to enjoy a lot more of Aronson's work until I realized he was just strawmanning the views he disagreed with. I had previously thought it was just good-natured ribbing. For an actual funny (and not so "blah blah SJWs ruining everything") version of this joke, the tv show Atlant…

It's ruined because you don't like Scott Adams but the Atlanta clip (which is good, thanks for sharing) is funny because you like Donald Glover? I like both spins on the joke as well as both comedians.

I actually don’t know Donald Glover’s political views, but I do know Scott Adams’s political views because he’s very outspoken about them and he keeps complaining about “cancel culture”. In general, I’m pretty tired of comedians making low-effort jokes and then going on about how they’re going to be cancelled because they’re “so edgy” - it’s just trying to get a rise out of people. That’s what Adams seems to be trying to do here. He also posted a bunch of tweets about how he was going to get cancelled for that strip and it just made me roll my eyes.

Re: Loyal to the Company

#105

Post by avgcorrection »

roarcher wrote: post #98
avgcorrection wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what possessed you to think that I was sticking up for small companies. Or any kind of company.

I didn't think that, quite the contrary. Since you seem to have trouble with comprehension, let me break this comment thread down for you: - GP says that loyalty isn't always always a good thing because it causes small companies to keep incompetent or lazy employees. - You make an ideological remark about how GP is "sticking up for Corporate Man" by saying that. - I respond that yes, in fact, small companies often do…

It seems that you, asshole, have misunderstood me then. Sticking up for companies was the part where they propagated the myth that companies sometimes have loyalty to their employees. They do not.

You then took that as a premise that I somehow would also belive in (of course I don’t).

Then you made your little ideological remark. And we were all better off for it.

Re: Loyal to the Company

#106

Post by roarcher »

avgcorrection wrote: post #105
roarcher wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't think that, quite the contrary. Since you seem to have trouble with comprehension, let me break this comment thread down for you: - GP says that loyalty isn't always always a good thing because it causes small companies to keep incompetent or lazy employees. - You make an ideological remark about how GP is "sticking up for Corporate Man" by saying that. - I respond that yes, in fact, small companies often do…

It seems that you, asshole, have misunderstood me then. Sticking up for companies was the part where they propagated the myth that companies sometimes have loyalty to their employees. They do not. You then took that as a premise that I somehow would also belive in (of course I don’t). Then you made your little ideological remark. And we were all better off for it.

You really came back after four days just to try to spin this in a way that makes it look like you were in the right?

> You then took that as a premise that I somehow would also belive in (of course I don’t).

Lol no, I didn't. You're either still misunderstanding, or being deliberately obtuse. My point is that some companies DO have loyalty, and a subset of those are loyal to all the wrong employees. I'm fully aware that you disagree with both of those things. If I thought you agreed with them, why would I have commented in the first place?

Re: Loyal to the Company

#107

Post by soundsgoodtome »

vuln wrote: post #6

Employee loyalty is usually the priority that comes last, _just one more big push and then we can breath_ except the breath never happens and now management expects the next project to finish quicker with less people.

Older I get, more I realize that this game is brutal as shit. Is what it is though. Kill or be killed.
Post reply on HN