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

The three year myth

green.spacedino.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 191 posts

Re: The three year myth

#161

Post by kderbyma »

jtrn wrote: post #141
lunar-whitey wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And there is another diagnosis that is blindingly obvious but i wont name it out here. I wonder why a self identified mental health professional would go to such lengths to deny the viewpoint many of autistic people, who frequently report that the truth of what they say matters far less to organizations than the manner in which they say it.

Because it’s annoying that people can’t even stick with the criteria that are basically the same across all the major diagnostic manuals. And because I believe that words and concepts should mean somethin. Because it’s proof that they are not really as focused on details as they claim. Every time someone wrongly claim they have PTSD, which is a lot these days, they water down and diminish the experience of people who…

You sound like a dreadful psychologist if true. You clearly do not have empathy or understanding or tou have burned out and need a break. Your so assured in your antagonistic retorts that you are unraveling the very point of trust you staked to give your opinion social validation....You are lacking aelf awareness and it shows that clearly you are generalizing the diagnoses and possibily you just over diagnose narcissism because its easier?

Re: The three year myth

#162

Post by jfrbfbreudh »

The author could be technically competent, but I think he’s completely failed to recognize one of the core principles of getting recognition and promotions at work:

Who are you bringing with you?

As in, who else gets recognition and success as a result of you doing well? If it’s your boss, great, promotion likely. If it’s your skip, even better.

If the result of your grand project is that it solely makes you look good, nobody else is incentivized to support you in any capacity. It’s much more likely that it will have the exact opposite effect: you will be seen as a selfish and ambitious threat.

Re: The three year myth

#163

Post by ebiester »

BobbyTables2 wrote: post #102
ebiester wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true at all, having seen the other side. In a large enough organization, entire divisions will be cut if a product is missing. Sometimes productive people are on the wrong product that gets slashed to maintenance mode, or they have the wrong manager. Sometimes deep cuts are necessary because the product is failing and a productive person on a growth initiative is cut for subject matter expertise in the core produ…

I’ve only seen tenure rewarded by below-market compensation. Except for one case where a lowly guy eventually became the vice president because he out lasted (in lean times) everyone who was promoted ahead.

Tenure, in this case, is rewarded by not being laid off - because this person had old knowledge and friends with people who were in power and knew them from earlier in the company.

It absolutely does happen. But I have also seen people rise through the ranks by just being there long enough and being competent. That said, it is not a way to maximize wage growth or general career progress by any stretch.

Re: The three year myth

#164

Post by jtbayly »

keybored wrote: post #83
jtbayly wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I challenge you to think about the implications of if you were right. If employment is violence, we should end it. But then almost everybody would die. If paying for labor is violence, paying for a product is violence. Nobody should be allowed to buy or sell (or trade). But then everybody would die. In a good economic transaction, whether purchase of product or labor, both parties end up happy with what they got out…

That employment is exploitation is evidenced by profits. Employment is a commodity. Any business expects to get more value out of a commodity. Not to break even. > If employment is violence, we should end it. But then almost everybody would die. Everyone would die? Are you assuming that employment gets eliminated and nothing is replaced by it? Anyone who is against the employment relation wants something different. N…

It is correct that the business expects that your time and energy is worth more to them than it is to you. Profit.

But then literally every trade between two people—trading four sheep for one cow, say—is exploitation in both directions. I expect to benefit more from the product I receive than I can profit from what I give away. I have plenty of milk but need some wool for clothes. But to improve my own situation is somehow to abuse the other person!?

You’ve seemingly declared every form of economic transaction immoral.

Re: The three year myth

#165

Post by ineedasername »

K0balt wrote: post #154
Nevermark wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are using a word in a way it is seldom used. You could define your take up front. Or better yet, figure out the words other people will be able to recognize and understand you, without unnecessary linguistic gymnastics.

Huh. I don’t think in my experience that the term violence is seldom applied to things outside of humans, and IME the terms economic violence and social violence, emotional violence, and many others are common parlance. Perhaps we come from different cultures. At any rate, given the definition I find in several dictionaries I think my point stands. I will concede that coercion, exploitation, or extortion might be bet…

The term violence, when applied in any context, is applied in context. With a scope and meaning determined as much by tacitly accepted scope as it is by lexicon.

So, to all of your questions— “no”. You are wrong, on all counts, because you are using language itself to set a scene where it has no right, attempting to have a meaning context-free applied to one contextual—- but only when it suits you. That isn’t conversation or discussion— it’s performative, and so you cannot be correct where there is no correctness to be had, only performance.

Re: The three year myth

#166

Post by AlexeyBelov »

pipes wrote: post #66
hunta2097 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know someone who has used this trick to get a pay rise whilst not looking for work. You wait until your boss is in earshot, get someone to ring you and the walk quickly away from your desk saying "yes, yes I'm still interested... Just a sec". It might make your boss actually consider the reality of replacing you.

I'm sorry that just comes across as unprofessional, weak and passive aggressive. If someone started doing that on my team I'd take it as part of the case against them not a reason to fight to keep them. Also presumably that's in ear shot of other team members, it's disruptive to team morale. If you are serious about looking elsewhere, make it clear you want to stay but xyz is making you consider other options. Do it…

Can you elaborate on this being weak? Or passive aggressive? To me it's not aggressive in any form, passive or active.

It's maybe unprofessional, but this word is also quite loaded with lots of different meanings.

Re: The three year myth

#167

Post by AlexeyBelov »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #129
trymas wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am now eager to see your track record and how did you personally scale 100x in last 3 years (or ~1 000 000x in last decade)

in 2024 I made 1 new contact In 2025 I made 100 new contacts extrapolate. In 2026 I will make 10,000 new contacts (though I won't make them all directly, my associates will be my proxies)

And in 2030's you'll make millions of contacts per day. What does this even mean? Are you in a MLM scheme?

Re: The three year myth

#168

Post by locknitpicker »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #133
locknitpicker wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If losing your job is traumatic, I’d suggest reviewing your relationship with employers and employment in general. This is a rather clueless and ignorant opinion to have. Your job is what pays your mortgage/rent and your bills, and it's a key factor in where you chose to live. Your job has a fundamental impact in your personal life and your family's experience. Once you are fired, odds are your life will change rad…

No, he's right. One should not pin their happiness to things outside their control. If losing your job is traumatic to you, that is a sign you need to work on improving your detachment from outside factors. Obviously we all have bills to pay and would like to keep a roof over our heads, but being traumatized by losing a job is an extremely unhealthy (and abnormal) response.

> No, he's right. One should not pin their happiness to things outside their control.

I don't think this opinion is realistic or helpful. Being fired has an important impact on your happiness and the quality of life of you and your family, specially if the next job forces your family to move.

Some people are forced into homelessness when fired. Are we supposed to pretend that losing your home does not hamper your happiness?

It's unhelpful to suggest we should not stress about things outside of our control, because we still need to deal with them.

Re: The three year myth

#169

Post by bagacrap »

yomismoaqui wrote: post #56
jtrn wrote: post #54

For anybody that is interested in a clinical psychologist's take, here is mine… This article triggers an overwhelming feeling that something is missing in the story. Of course, being fired is genuinely painful, and the author's emotional state is understandable. But I think there is a much better way to understand this situation that would be beneficial to the author. Please note that this is just a guess, and in rea…

Et tu, ChatGPT?

Btw, that is what Caesar said to his friend who betrayed him along with all the other senators. I fail to see how accusing chatgpt of betrayal makes sense here, so I'm assuming you have a misunderstanding of the phrase.

Re: The three year myth

#170

Post by keybored »

jtbayly wrote: post #164
keybored wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That employment is exploitation is evidenced by profits. Employment is a commodity. Any business expects to get more value out of a commodity. Not to break even. > If employment is violence, we should end it. But then almost everybody would die. Everyone would die? Are you assuming that employment gets eliminated and nothing is replaced by it? Anyone who is against the employment relation wants something different. N…

It is correct that the business expects that your time and energy is worth more to them than it is to you. Profit. But then literally every trade between two people—trading four sheep for one cow, say—is exploitation in both directions. I expect to benefit more from the product I receive than I can profit from what I give away. I have plenty of milk but need some wool for clothes. But to improve my own situation is s…

> But then literally every trade between two people—trading four sheep for one cow, say—is exploitation in both directions.

No. That could be a win-win. One might be a sheep farmer, the other a cattle/cow farmer. They both gain from exchanging these livestocks.

For an employee? See the value produced versus the wages earned. There’s the exploitation.

The nice thing about one single universal value—money—is that it makes things like this obvious. Just look at the numbers. It’s just one, single currency. Much easier than comparing livestock...

Post reply on HN