HR is not your friend, and other things I think you should know

Post by thethought » Mon, Jan 18, 2021, 8:12 PM UTC

guenthert wrote: post #411

nojvek wrote: post #376

> Performance reviews are a joke because almost nobody knows how to measure anyone else's effectiveness. They are just a continuation of the same popularity contests you thought you left behind from middle school, high school, and maybe even your college/university days. This has a bit of truth. In my experience climbing up the ladder is so disconnected from actual reality. There’s quite a bit of a buddy buddy / quid…

> It also baffles me how much energy is spent on hiring people, vs mentoring and fostering them so they grow and are promoted. I used to be baffled by that too (and frustrated when they hired someone from outside, when we had IMHO better candidates in-house). However the alternative leads to the Peter Principle, won't it (I've seen that too and the result was worse)?

Post by klodolph » Mon, Jan 18, 2021, 8:23 PM UTC

digitaltrees wrote: post #313

klodolph wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ignore inequality as it effects you, assume you can overcome it. But acknowledge its existence with respect to others and do everything in your power to create equality. This sounds hopelessly inconsistent to me. Why should I hold myself to a different standard than I hold other people to? If acknowledging inequality elsewhere is required to be kind to other people, that means that ignoring inequality when it affec…

Because it is effective. If you assume you can’t do something you definitely won’t. If you assume you can, you may not succeed; you may be blocked by some external cause, but not by something you could have controlled. In the case of helping others, you may play a role in clearing an obstacle that, not withstanding their own effort and belief, would have blocked them. In both cases you are assuming you have power. Po…

Post by umvi » Mon, Jan 18, 2021, 9:33 PM UTC

pinipedman wrote: post #333

umvi wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we talking about work or life? Sure, private companies aren't democracies, but why should they be? Democracies are extremely inefficient. Imagine if Linux or Python projects were run as democracies and not lead by BDFLs? I can't imagine them being nearly as effective because democratic processes to get new features would always be gridlocked. Benevolent dictators are 10x, maybe even 100x more efficient than democ…

> Outside of work I certainly live in a free society. Only if you define freedom as the capacity to do whatever is allowed or at least not expressly prohibited by the state without legal consequence. Fortunately no one defines it that way. You cannot be simultaneously free and subject to state power. Companies simply add another layer atop the restrictions to freedom imposed by the state. You might feel freer outside…

Post by eeZah7Ux » Mon, Jan 18, 2021, 10:04 PM UTC

eldavido wrote: post #40

slaymaker1907 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OTOH, look at how successful Rust has been with its extremely democratic RFC system for new features.

There are degrees of democracy (as I think your comment rightly points out). Maximum democracy in this case might be, the RFCs are written by anyone, work on features is started when people vote to start it, and there is widely distributed veto/filibuster power. A bit less democracy might be that the maintainers select the ten proposals they feel are best, and put them to a vote for people to choose. I just read a re…

Post by pinipedman » Mon, Jan 18, 2021, 10:48 PM UTC

umvi wrote: post #435

pinipedman wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Outside of work I certainly live in a free society. Only if you define freedom as the capacity to do whatever is allowed or at least not expressly prohibited by the state without legal consequence. Fortunately no one defines it that way. You cannot be simultaneously free and subject to state power. Companies simply add another layer atop the restrictions to freedom imposed by the state. You might feel freer outside…

> Only if you define freedom as the capacity to do whatever is allowed or at least not expressly prohibited by the state without legal consequence So how do you define freedom? Anarchy?