Child's play • Hacker News Board

Re: Child's play

#61

Post by coldtea » Wed, Apr 18, 2018, 9:37 PM UTC

ravitation wrote: post #60

coldtea wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. Most would rather speak to someone in a suit than in someone wearing their underpants on the outside and with full-on nationalistic emblems on their spandex uniform.

What version of Captain America has underpants on the outside? I'm not familiar with that version of the character's outfit... On a more serious note, the point of the comment is that if the context allows you to be taken relatively seriously in a superhero outfit, it might not be a bad idea to attract people to a booth... Yes, those contexts might not be extremely common.

>What version of Captain America has underpants on the outside? I'm not familiar with that version of the character's outfit...

Perhaps you only know him from the movies?

Most versions of Captain America do have this characteristic:

http://www.marveldirectory.com/individuals/c/captainamerica....

https://www.geeksaresexy.net/2016/05/07/captain-america-cost...

Re: Child's play

#62

Post by __jal » Wed, Apr 18, 2018, 10:43 PM UTC

thedz wrote: post #28

Infantilization seems to be a wholly inaccurate description of the behavior; "pandering" or "courting" is much more accurate. TBH, if folks are having fun, and companies want to join in, I see nothing wrong with it. Devs are likely aware that the companies don't normally wear super hero costumes, and companies are probably aware that making a good first impression is only the first part of a successful relationship.…

Companies don't wear superhero costumes. Companies also don't have fun or awareness. This is because companies are a collection of contracts, not living things.

Some person dressed in the costume. They may have been "representing" a company, but that doesn't matter. It was still a human acting like a condescending twit for their own reasons.

I'm not sure what's "toxic" about identifying insulting behaviors in others. I don't want to be around people who do things like that, whether or not I work for them, and many others feel the same way. Being an employer doesn't mean you suddenly get to be horrible and not get called on it. (It just means your employees might be afraid to call you on it until they can get out from under you.)

Re: Child's play

#63

Post by hoborama » Thu, Apr 19, 2018, 5:28 PM UTC

dcow wrote: post #48

hoborama wrote: post #22

> "I hate being called 'IT'" Oh man I hate this. An "IT" job to me just means an admin job where the subject of the admin tasks happens to be computers. It's worse when "IT workers" try to lump actual technically-skilled roles in with them, like it's just another task to be performed.

Um wow there's a lot wrong with this comment. But that aside, what if I told you programming was just modern accounting, glorified data entry? All programmers do is put code into repositories. Very very few people are actually inventing new systems and algorithms. If you're a "framework programmer" you know what I mean. Anyway point is it's a spectrum. Yes some "IT" labor is menial, but I also know IT people who know…

I would put security experts and networking experts in the "technically-skilled" category. However, my experience of most people who have something like "IT security" in their job title, is that they're just the guy who updates a spreadsheet that has a list of security policies in it, and they send emails out to people who have breached one of those policies. Admin.