Let me introduce you to mizuganureteiru; a phrase for the Japanese concept of water being wet.
Organization probably doesn't want to improve things
451–460 of 482 posts
Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things
#452Earlier quoted context omitted.
The endless search of The Meaning and the general futility of it with never ending doubts are depressing too.
Or you just do some work that you enjoy and don’t worry too much about meaning. Thinking about how I look to my boss is not work that I enjoy.
easy peasy, similar vibes like "just don't be poor"
Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things
#453Earlier quoted context omitted.
>And I'll work until I'm 75 If you’re lucky. Modern medicine still has yet to solve most major disabilities for people in their sixties. It will be hard to work if you’re suffering any of the innumerable disabling diseases. What will you do then?
[flagged]
Too bad by that time, someone will have figured out how to look up everything you've ever posted online to dig up insurance-invalidating comments like this one.
Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things
#454Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of my friends at FB/G work way more hours than me and miss family activities. Same as when I was at MS.
The people who tend to work extra hours are the ones who choose to in my experience. If you don't work extra hours now you won't after switching to one of those companies either. You might witness folks who do, but you can usually tell they are more self motivated than they are forced into it.
[deleted]
Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things
#455Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or you just do some work that you enjoy and don’t worry too much about meaning. Thinking about how I look to my boss is not work that I enjoy.
easy peasy, similar vibes like "just don't be poor"
I fully understand if you have no other choice or prioritise providing for others.
Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things
#456Earlier quoted context omitted.
70 miles from the downtown of a major city is still generally considered part of that city’s metropolitan area and prices reflect that. Still though getting a 1br condo in LA for 150-300k is more reflective of what it actually costs to get an affordable place as a single person in that area. Yes you have condo fees, but maintain a house comes with serious costs as well. That’s the thing, if it’s a trivial expense the…
>getting a 1br condo in LA for 150-300k is more reflective of what it actually costs to get an affordable place as a single person in that area. A house is a multi decade investment. Why would I buy a single shack if I want to perhaps have a family one day? Especially in this market? I don't want to own a house for the sake of ownership. And yes, like anything else in life, you have super cheap deals and super expens…
That phrase only refers to the distance from you to a grocery store. So, no you don’t need to enter food desert territory when you buy a house in one of the many smaller CA cities/towns.
Anyway, buying a house can be an investment but living in a larger one than you need is wasting a productive asset. If you have a 4 bedroom house you can rent out for 4k/month then living in it is costing you 4k/month the same way renting a place for 4k would be. There’s nothing inherently wrong with buying an investment house, but you shouldn’t be out anywhere close to the full monthly cost.
Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things
#457Earlier quoted context omitted.
>getting a 1br condo in LA for 150-300k is more reflective of what it actually costs to get an affordable place as a single person in that area. A house is a multi decade investment. Why would I buy a single shack if I want to perhaps have a family one day? Especially in this market? I don't want to own a house for the sake of ownership. And yes, like anything else in life, you have super cheap deals and super expens…
That phrase only refers to the distance from you to a grocery store. So, no you don’t need to enter food desert territory when you buy a house in one of the many smaller CA cities/towns. Anyway, buying a house can be an investment but living in a larger one than you need is wasting a productive asset. If you have a 4 bedroom house you can rent out for 4k/month then living in it is costing you 4k/month the same way re…
>you don’t need to enter food desert territory when you buy a house in one of the many smaller CA cities/towns.
You don't, but I'm talking about a very specific area of a very specific state (one larger than some countries) in a very specific location. One where I was in fact raised. You are free to instead go directly North to Bakersfield where prices rise slightly, or west to Thousand Oaks where prices go back to LA prices. I simply don't recommend East/NE of the high desert unless you are a huge fan of tumbleweeds and dust storms.
>buying a house can be an investment but living in a larger one than you need is wasting a productive asset
I don't really consider an extra room a waste. Even if I end up alone I can use that room as a gym or an office or just as storage (storage costs are also way out of whack these days. Owning an extra room is legitimately cheaper).
There's also the fact that half the rooms isn't equal to half the cost. It's more cost effective to add an extra room if you anticipate a family.
Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things
#458Earlier quoted context omitted.
easy peasy, similar vibes like "just don't be poor"
I fully understand if you have no other choice or prioritise providing for others.
It is very rarely a "black or white" decision.
The choice is not between licking the boots of your boss or instead doing meaningful work; it is not between earning a lot of money and doing boring work or instead earning not as much and doing entertaining work; not between eating like a pig or maniacally counting calories and macros.
Most of the time, the choice is between not saying something to your team or boss that will probably not be in your favor when you submit your promo package, or being one of those heroes who metaphorically dies in a battle that no one actually cares about.
It is between skipping the pack of Oreos for today in favor of some chicken and rice, not between being full or starving.
Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things
#459Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you have no explicit hierarchy then an implicit hierarchy will start to form in most cases, which can be even worse. In many cases you have both.
Question is then, why do you have both? Where does this implicit "hierarchy" come from? It is simple: As soon as you have multiple people working on a problem there are communication requirements. You can organize things in a way that they support these requirements or you can just let them figure out how to adapt their needs around some existing hierarchy. Now which one do you think is more efficient? Hierarchies ar…
>Where does this implicit "hierarchy" come from?
Because people want to exercise their influence, or protect their position, and form relationships and alliances.
Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things
#460Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s true from a top-down corporate perspective, but this blog post is addressing the perspective of an individual on the team, who is repeatedly told that the company really cares about data, and then can’t seem to understand why serious problems with the data are just ignored.
I don't think that's actually what it says though! The blog post talks about how no one looks at the data (implying that the data is not used) and it separately talks about the inconsistent and disconnected ways that companies allocate funds. It does not, that I could tell, actually say the metrics work has revealed data the company is ignoring. Obviously if they are that's different from what I said!
> It does not, that I could tell, actually say the metrics work has revealed data the company is ignoring.
I guess I wasn’t clear: The metrics work isn’t _revealing_ anything new, the data requested is what is produced. The fact that the data is _ignored_ means that it can have serious errors, but then nobody seems worried about correcting it except for our frustrated conscientious developer because producing the reports is a performative act. Nobody really uses the data for anything.