281–290 of 312 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Do you live at home still? That's a curious question. Don't most people live "at home"? I'm guessing you mean "do you live with your parents still". Do most people consider their parent's house(s) "home" even after they move out? I sure don't.
By living at home, I mean supported by parents. Basic needs are met automatically
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"... A lot of people have few prospects of employment - especially right now - and have bills to pay." Have you considered that you may be engaging with and replying to someone who falls into this category? What makes you think I am or speaking from the POV of an engineer who has employers fawning over them? Beyond that though - why do you think that people do not have the ability to exercise their own choice in the…
You haven't heard of anyone working a job they hate in general? Why do you think they continue working? Is it because they just love feeling miserable for 8 hours a day? Or maybe it is because if they quit, they won't have an easily available opportunity waiting for them, that would allow to feed their family, pay bills, etc.? This is one of the very few times I've seen someone make a serious argument on HN so ridicu…
Yes I hear from people like this often.
Why do you think they continue working?
Some do continue doing things they hate, while others don't and they change their situation. Those that hate their job but don't change, I don't know their reasoning? Learned helplessness? Lazyness?
"Or maybe it is because if they quit, they won't have an easily available opportunity waiting for them, that would allow to feed their family, pay bills, etc.?"
What is easy? What is hard? That's too subjective - I'm not passing judgement in that area, just know that it's possible to change - always - no matter what anyone on HN says.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regulation is the opposite of exercising freedom you already have
One person's rights/freedoms are another person's responsibility. There can be no freedom without responsibility. Regulation is legally enforced responsibility.
yes
> There can be no freedom without responsibility.
yes so as I like to say it - freedom is anything but free
> Regulation is legally enforced responsibility.
Yes!
The issue I have with regulation is it requires enforcement to be truly useful and part of that requires the person seeking enforcement to yield their freedom to the enforcing authority to kick in.
Yet people seem to believe that regulation is this magic pixe dust that grants everyone special powers.
That's crazy talk!
I tried to make the point here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23169673
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And theoretically at an absolute minimum any time you see a prisoners dilemma regulation is how you prevent it and make sure that everyone gets their preferred outcome. I can assure you that not everyone is getting their preferred outcome. That's why the term "prisoners" instead of "willing teammates" are used here. > Prohibiting outside doors from being locked in a factory increases my freedom as a worker to leave…
So we shouldn't have laws against assault because people still die of assault?
When it became illegal to directly discriminate against race, employers found out ways to indirectly discriminate against race by putting in requirements for schooling and degrees that are just not in the reach of certain races and ethnic groups.
... but let's indulge you for a moment.
I can pass all the kinds of laws against assault I want all day and you can come along and pay enough money to redefine what assault really means.
Every regulation I pass is a restraint against my own freedom.
I can chop my foot off as much as I want in an attempt to save my head but if someone really wanted my head, they will have it no matter how hard I try to stop it.
Regulation does not help the common man at all and the rich already have help to get what they want. Regulation or no regulation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
.. and I downvoted you, because it absolutely true by definition. Regulation, by definition, decreases freedom. That's the whole point of regulation - to threaten with violence, acts that people have agreed are not a good idea. If software engineers were regulated under IEEE, the freedoms of software engineers would decrease not increase. I quote from the article you linked: "In order to maintain a tolerant society,…
You've got a pretty simplistic view of freedom there, bud. Regulations often increase freedom for some while decreasing it for others. Constitutions are just regulations for government--does preventing the government from infringing on the right to free speech, for example, increase or decrease freedom? Employers have immense power over their workers, and regulation is one of the tools societies can use to make sure…
The word regulate, in regulation literally means "decrease freedom".
In physics, a regulator is used to decrease freedom. That's why regulators are used in the first place.
> Regulations often increase freedom for some while decreasing it for others
Again, regulations can only decrease freedom.
It does not make sense to "increase" something that already exists.
The freedom to live does not make you more alive than what you already are.
> Constitutions are just regulations for government--does preventing the government from infringing on the right to free speech, for example, increase or decrease freedom?
The concept of free speech is innate and available everywhere, including countries that does not recognize free speech.
Free speech is an inalienable right that every person is born with. It does not require someone else to grant or validate it.
All that the first amendment to the Constitution does is _recognize_ (not increase) your freedom to speak against the "government".
That is it.
The "government" still can jail you or even kill you.
All that a country that recognizes free speech promises is that after the deed is done, it will bring that misdeed to justice and hopefully right that wrong.
If that was not the case, the courts would be way less crowded than it already is.
Also, first amendment to the Constitution does not apply to private citizens.
If you suddenly started to yell at your neighbor's lawn, not matter how well placed and logical your arguments are, you will still get booted with no legal recourse.
The only thing that is left is if this was the government that booted you out, you can take them to court and expect to win if you have a valid case.
There can be no such expectation in a country that does not recognize free speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> poor management. Uneducated decision making There is no "poor management". What are these uneducated decision makers even doing at your place of work? There's always a boss. The boss is paying for the behavior they want to see. Now if you argue the ultimate boss is clueless, then, what are you even doing there? You might want to tell yourself that your immediate boss who calls you every 30 minutes you are away from…
> You might want to tell yourself that your immediate boss who calls you every 30 minutes you are away from work is just ineffective, but if he was not delivering on what his boss wanted from him, he would be gone. Except in cases where: - That boss's boss is related to the CEO and is coasting / not at the wheel - That boss's boss is already looking for ways to let go of them - That boss's boss needs that boss in pla…
Let me explain.
> - That boss's boss is related to the CEO and is coasting / not at the wheel
i.e. the boss is paying for the behavior they want to see.
> - That boss's boss is already looking for ways to let go of him
then it's a solved problem - unless the boss's boss continues to look for ways to let go for months on end, in which case really, again, the boss is paying for the behavior they want to see
> - That boss's boss needs him in place for a while longer, due to other factors, but is still annoyed by the micromanagement
i.e. the boss is paying for the behavior they want to see
"annoyed"?
It seems like the value is "needs him in place for a while longer" and all the "annoyance" does is affect that somewhat.
Can we measure the effect of the "annoyance" on the decision? Let's see:
If I have a racist employee and their racism "annoys" me, I still am supporting racism with my dollars.
Otherwise, real action is: ask them to move on.
If I have a noisy neighbor and their noise "annoys" me, I still am supporting their behavior with my dollars.
The real action would be: I move/ I ask them to move, or take them to court while getting an stay order to ensure the noise is constrained while the matter is settled.
At a previous apartment, there was a stay at home mom above mine who would begin her aggressive yoga and home gymnastics at 5AM and end at 9AM. Constant pounding. I spoke with her first and she felt the gym in the complex was too crowded for her. I recorded her activities from below in my room, sent it to the office, yelp, facebook for the complex, broke my lease and moved.
Life is too short for nonsense.
> - That boss's boss is intimidated by his underling and feels something bad might happen if he takes action against the unwanted behavior
i.e. the boss is paying for the behavior they want to see
I feel there's some sympathy for the boss, almost as if they were misguided children.
Adults are not children.
If your boss behaves like a child it's time to have a conversation.
Depending on your specific situation that conversation might very well be with a new company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By living at home, I mean supported by parents. Basic needs are met automatically
No, I moved out and 2000 miles away when I was 18
Some days I think I missed out by not taking a job I could have gotten a computer to automate, and spending all my time doing interesting coding projects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So we shouldn't have laws against assault because people still die of assault?
We were having a conversation about how passing regulations against surveillance at work is meaningless because just like all regulations, majority of companies will find ways to work around it while complying with regulations. When it became illegal to directly discriminate against race, employers found out ways to indirectly discriminate against race by putting in requirements for schooling and degrees that are jus…
If regulations are totally ineffective why give them any mind at all?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TBH these managers probably don't have work life balance, spend 12-16 hours a day on work, probably less than 4 are productive, and believe their subordinates and ingrates if they don't share the same "devotion" that they do, regardless of ability to complete the assigned job/task.
Maybe. We don't know what they're doing at their desks or away from the office, because they don't get surveiled like the plebs. Any manager who feels the need to peek over the shoulders of their workers should submit to the same.
Sounds like a "Tit for tat".
Why?
If I cut your finger off and stabbed you in your kidney, would it change your personal situation if you did the same?
If your immediate boss calls you every 30 minutes you are away from work, you want to do the same?
That's madness!
There is no "poor management".
What are these uneducated decision makers even doing at your place of work?
There's always a boss.
The boss is paying for the behavior they want to see.
Now if you argue the ultimate boss is clueless, then, what are you even doing there?
You might want to tell yourself that your immediate boss who calls you every 30 minutes you are away from work is just ineffective, but if he was not delivering on what his boss wanted from him, he would be gone.
"Tit for tat" is a great children's activity.
Adults are not children.
If your boss behaves like a child it's time to have a conversation.
Depending on your specific situation that conversation might very well be with a new company.