361–368 of 368 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re not contributing less, you’re contributing exactly the same amount of money.
In the UK, Your contribution is proportional to your income, which is proportional to the hours you choose to work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On if you treat it as ok for the board not to be up to date on the call.
That just goes back to my original point. If the tickets are up to date on the call, there's no reason to have a daily standup. If someone isn't keeping their tickets up to date, you don't need to hold an entire team hostage in a meeting just to remind them.
It depends very much on how disciplined your team members are. It turns out - from experience - that a whole lot of "sorry, I'm too busy now, will do it shortly" disappears when there's a clear, known deadline and you need to give an update in front of a group.
You can surely find other ways. You can chew out people who don't heed the reminders, or bring it up in performance reviews, and do all kinds of things. Or you can just have people take five minutes, and at the same time occasionally it tends to throw up other things that are useful too. Which approach will work best depends very much on the team. W
The point is that the reasons for ceremony is often not the ceremony itself, but how it alters behaviour.
At the same time, of course there are also managers who engage in cargo cult management, for whom the point of the ceremony is the ceremony, so I'm not saying there aren't plenty of pointless standups being carried out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your only value as a human is based on the compensation you get from your worldview, I'm not sure many would agree with you. If you are poor you are undeserving of care, regardless of why, your value as a human is directly attributed to how much a capitalist system values your labour. Don't you see the disconnection and how morally wrong this is?
I reject your conveniently naive framing. Somebody has to work and pay for all the healthcare. The reality is that you might just as well be a properly compensated worker who chooses to work less, thus getting an unjustified discount on full healthcare. That is morally wrong. Of course, accommodations can be made for those who absolutely can not afford healthcare otherwise, but that is a separate question.
And that somebody is the whole of society, as a collective, supporting a system that is for the betterment of society as a whole, having less sick people in general makes a society happier, thus more productive.
This framing of trying to attribute individual contributions to a distributed societal system is, frankly, stupid, shortsighted and extremely transactional. You can and should think in broader terms than pure transactional value of someone's contribution, these are all people, like you and me, not numbers in a population. This decharacterisation of human lives into pure economical terms is a machine-like view of lives, a rationality-taken-too-far instead of having a soul.
Yes, somebody pays: everyone. Everyone contributing to make everyone's else lives better, if you can only think in transactional terms about lives I'm very sorry for you, it's a cynical way of living...
> Of course, accommodations can be made for those who absolutely can not afford healthcare otherwise, but that is a separate question.
What do you gain by introducing exceptions, special cases, and so on? Just complexity, into a system that should take care of people, not transaction their lives. That's how you end up with the convoluted insurance system the USA has, which is absurd and stupid but needs to be that way because the USA likes to put everything into a transactional mindset. Why should we care if someone is contributing more or less if the system can work without forcing this micromanagement of tracking individuals and how much they are worth based on if they work full time or not? Again, you are saying that people that work less or earn less are less deserving of care because they don't contribute as much, that's an absurd, inhumane and unempathetic view of human lives. You can be better than that, morally, we all should.
Adapt and imbue your transaction thinking with more compassion, you'd like someone to do that to your loved ones. Such extreme individualism is toxic, we are stronger together, as a species...
When was a mathematician, I worked as hard as I could until I was mentally exhausted. I actually calculated how much I worked per week over a period of two years. On actual "hard thinking", like working through logic, I spent about 7 hours. There was another 7 hours writing and clarifying topics, and another 6 hours or so on classes, seminars (sort of like meetings, but productive). That gives a total of 20 hours per…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I reject your conveniently naive framing. Somebody has to work and pay for all the healthcare. The reality is that you might just as well be a properly compensated worker who chooses to work less, thus getting an unjustified discount on full healthcare. That is morally wrong. Of course, accommodations can be made for those who absolutely can not afford healthcare otherwise, but that is a separate question.
> Somebody has to work and pay for all the healthcare. And that somebody is the whole of society, as a collective, supporting a system that is for the betterment of society as a whole, having less sick people in general makes a society happier, thus more productive. This framing of trying to attribute individual contributions to a distributed societal system is, frankly, stupid, shortsighted and extremely transaction…
If the whole of society collectively decides that it doesn't want to do so much work for each other, because no matter how hard they work, the entitlements are the same, then everyone becomes less productive. It's not such a big deal if it's just healthcare, but the principle applies.
> What do you gain by introducing exceptions, special cases, and so on?
Welfare entitlements in general are special cases. Maybe there's no net upside in the final calculation, but then again, I'm arguing the principle.
> Again, you are saying that people that work less or earn less are less deserving of care because they don't contribute as much, that's an absurd, inhumane and unempathetic view of human lives.
Sure, whatever. This conversation has run its course.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s a thing in the wedding photography gig called a wedding hangover. Basically most of us are absolutely dead the next day after “just” an 8-12 hour wedding. It seems stupid to a lot of people, but that many hours being hyper vigilant and stressed wrecks you. I did landscaping work as a teen on very hot days and that’s nothing compared to a wedding.
I concur. I shot a couple weddings and was absolutely burnt out at the end. Lots of stress; being in the right place at the right time with the right gear set to the right settings with all the expectations of the bride and groom and family. I’m sure it gets easier, but it’s a grind.
Part of it in my case may be the fact I'm an introvert and just being "on" around so many people is tiring.