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

STFU

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 632 posts

Re: STFU

#341

Post by freedomben »

krick wrote: post #244
filoleg wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this a sarcastic take? Asking because I was pretty much on-board with the comment and took it as being fully serious, up until the point of “jerking off in public shouldn’t be anybody else’s business, unless they stain something” being mentioned. Now, I am not so sure. Either the entire comment was sarcastic or I am missing something major. But putting jerking off in public and talking on the phone in a public bat…

They are not in the same bucket, and I'm being intentionally provocative, if this confession makes things easier for you, but I really don't think you should mind that much if somebody is jerking off in public unless it harms you in some way (in broad sense, e.g. being intentionally annoying, loud and doing it right into your face). The point is that you should do whatever you want unless it harms others, and shouldn…

Are you talking about jerking off in a stall, or on a park bench with your dick out? Or some third option in the middle somewhere?

Re: STFU

#342

Post by sublinear »

closewith wrote: post #209
sublinear wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HR is not merely about punitive measures. This would be escalated to upper management to find out why people are under so much time pressure that they need to take calls in the bathroom, and at the very least doing so would be made some kind of violation of new policy. These are the kinds of reports the organization needs as ammunition in order to fix what sound like bigger problems with the organization and work cul…

> This would be escalated to upper management to find out why people are under so much time pressure that they need to take calls in the bathroom, and at the very least doing so would be made some kind of violation of new policy. Or why there are people so idle that they can defecate without working. Remember, HR protects the company, and complaints about heavy hitters because they work on porcelain aren't going to r…

Yes, that old chestnut. It's such insanely toxic advice too.

You're correct that HR is there to protect the company. The original post did not specify "heavy hitters", nor did I ever say to make an accusatory report. HR doesn't have to specifically know who is taking their calls this way.

I'm sorry if you or others have had such bad experiences with the most basic of HR interactions, though if I assume you're taking your own advice I doubt you've ever tried.

There's the tactful way to do this, and then there's whining to HR. I would be very careful taking advice from whiners because they're the ones who keep propagating this bad faith myth about HR.

All I'm saying to do is notify them about ongoing behavior with an emphasis on how it probably makes the company look bad and that it's done by many. They don't care who is doing it and it's not personal. I'd honestly be very surprised if this behavior doesn't already fall under some existing policy.

Re: STFU

#343

Post by pc86 »

krick wrote: post #172
abalashov wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the overwhelming opposition to this, and I wouldn't do it myself. However, I lead a life of very few meetings (I'd actually appreciate more--this stance puts me in a very small company, to be sure), so it's easy for me to say that one should be more judicious with one's timing. I can emphathise with someone stuck in meetings all day in a predominantly listening role, that they consider perfunctory or mos…

As a matter of fact, I do NOT understand the overwhelming opposition to this. What's your deal if a guy is good at multitasking and people on the other end of the wire don't mind it? It isn't like he is desecrating a temple, or intruding into your home and using your toilet, or jerking off in the public... Wait, actually I'd say even the latter shouldn't be your business, unless he stains something. Why cannot people…

Thank you for helping me clarify something. Your last example, jerking off in public, is not only a crime (as it should be) but is clearly antisocial behavior. That helped me realize that's what all the other shit is too, no pun intended. Using the restroom while you're talking to other people on the phone, or generally just doing anything that forces other people to listen to you use the restroom, is antisocial behavior and shouldn't be tolerated by anyone civilized.

"Minding your own business" when it comes to antisocial behavior is enabling when the correct response in shaming and ostracizing. It's not going to work with LBJ but it will probably work with Kevin from accounting.

Re: STFU

#344

Post by furyofantares »

strangattractor wrote: post #329
logicx24 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Robert Caro, in the LBJ series, wrote about how LBJ would use the discomfort of being the bathroom as a negotiating technique and a show of dominance. He would drag senators into the bathroom and force them to listen to him talk as he used the urinal, or force his staffers to take dictation as he took a shit.

We now know why he served only one term:)

Well, one and a half.

Re: STFU

#345

Post by pseudosavant »

athenot wrote: post #143

This is a fun app. One way I deal with people talking on speakerphone, is inviting myself into their conversation and making comments as if I were an active participant. That usually earns me a weird look, and then they go off speaker so I can't hear what's been said. Success. Similar with folks watching reels on speaker, I fake a laugh or make comments about the content. It's awkward enough that they usually stop be…

I've recently become a convert to this kind of thinking. The person invited the public to join in when they decided to have a public speakerphone call. If they don't want my responses or laughter, they get annoyed and stop the behavior I was finding annoying in the first place.

I don't even have to act like I'm bothered by it, or that I find their behavior offensive. They change their behavior because they are bothered by mine.

Re: STFU

#347

Post by ipv6ipv4 »

tra3 wrote: post #28

In the style of cheap tiktoks: "There are two types of people...". My wife loves listening to her phone on max volume, but it sounds so bad compared to half decent speakers. Also what's up with the people hiking (by themselves) with a bluetooth speaker. You're by yourself, in nature. If you want to listen to music wear headphones!! Also why are people using speaker phones in public places at max volume. The speaker i…

> Also what's up with the people hiking (by themselves) with a bluetooth speaker. You're by yourself, in nature. If you want to listen to music wear headphones!!

I used to hold this same opinion. Unfortunately, times have changed and now everyone is constantly in their phones, isolated in their own universes, typically with earbuds or headphones. At least the obnoxious speaker dude is present; in a shared physical reality with the world around him. A lesser evil.

Re: STFU

#348

Post by rpdillon »

horsawlarway wrote: post #121
dylan604 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard many people say the cannot stand they way earbuds feel. Just like many people said they could not breath wearing a mask.

I'm one of those people - I find any "in-ear" headphone/earbud to be outrageously uncomfortable. Great news - there are a TON of alternatives! You're still an asshat if you play loud music without regard for your surroundings. My personal pick? Get a bone conduction headset (ex: Shokz or cheaper alternative). Comfortable, lightweight, waterproof, you can still hear your surroundings.

Same problem with anything in-ear. I have two pairs of Shokz that I use for work (OpenComm) and play (OpenRun). I thought they would be a gimmick, but 3 years later, I love them and use them daily.

Fun hack: when I travel I prefer my over-ear noise cancelling Ankers, but they're bulky. So, for traveling light, I use Shockz and then silicone ear plugs to block out external sound on e.g. the airplane. Creates a little bit of a "swimming pool" effect acoustically, but works well and is tiny to carry.

Re: STFU

#349

Post by normie3000 »

strangattractor wrote: post #329
logicx24 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Robert Caro, in the LBJ series, wrote about how LBJ would use the discomfort of being the bathroom as a negotiating technique and a show of dominance. He would drag senators into the bathroom and force them to listen to him talk as he used the urinal, or force his staffers to take dictation as he took a shit.

We now know why he served only one term:)

Why? It sounds like he was a number two term president.

Re: STFU

#350

Post by pseudosavant »

connorgurney wrote: post #31

I might be in a minority saying this - and particularly so here on HN - but I struggle to understand why you'd be willing to use a tool like this, as OP did, but not to politely ask someone to keep it down?

My experience has been that people are usually (>50% of the time) offended and non-compliant, no matter how politely you ask. Who am I to ask them to be quieter? They only stop if something annoying is happening for them, like this app, or audibly responding to their call/video.
Post reply on HN